Given that the advisors and ninety six percent of scientists believe in man made climate change, how long before the President embraces it?
Not to mention a growing number of the public,his base included.
- ElizabethLv 71 year ago
Trump will embrace it when you slap some ruby lipstick on it, stick it in a tight dress that shows wayyyy too much cleavage, and put it in a pair of six inch stiletto heels ...
- SagebrushLv 71 year ago
First of all: 96% of which scientists. Those that are paid by George Soros and the like? Then you can make that 100%. Quit giving us that crap. If you are claiming that 96% of all the scientists of the world adhere to the theory of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming then you are plain nuts or lying through your keyboard.
And why should Trump pay any attention to nutty scientists who only believe in a very weak theory at best?
It is not a 'given' as you so cavalierly state. CAGW is, at this point, only a political consideration and not a serious scientific subject. Even pro Global Warmists admit it.
Quote by Ottmar Edenhoffer, high level UN-IPCC official: "We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy...Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization...One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore."
See there? "This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore." Do you understand this? Do you want more?
Quote by Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister: “No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
'Justice and equality' are just codewords for Communism or other forms of tyranny. Is that what you want for all of us? Do you really want us to abandon the US Constitution? And all over just a theory, and a weak one at that? Do you want us to live our lives in slavery? That is the goal of those who are pressing for this bankrupt theory:
Daniel Sitarz, the author of the authoritative version of Agenda 21, referred to when in 1992, at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, he stated:
“Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced — a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level."
Is that what you want for us? To be reorientated? To be reorientated into zombies? I look forward to a better life than those evil people have in store for us. And they are evil and apparently you are going along with them.
Be thankful that we have a President who is not going to sell us out without due consideration.
So your 'given' isn't really a given, is it. In order for it to be a 'given' you would have to come up with some kind of solid scientific reasoning. No one has to this date. So seriously think about what you are asking!
- regeruggedLv 71 year ago
There is no man made global warming. Calling it "climate change" is a cop out.
- JimZLv 71 year ago
I'm sure his most trusted advisor, his daughter, believes in it but fortunately the Pres has more common sense and doens't appear to be in any mind to throw money at a problem that is questionable as a problem. He understands that the cost would be massive to accomplish any significant reduction and any reduction we do will be offset by others as we make our goods more expensive.
- What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
- 1 year ago
If you look behind all the various "97%" claims, you will find very few actual surveys of scientists. They examine all kinds of related things instead. Arguably the most famous such paper was based on science paper abstracts, for instance. Another was based on how authoritative the scientists were thought to be based on some random lists of names. One achieved a much lower figure but decided to discard many of the replies.
We have also had surveys of scientists that resulted in a nearly 50:50 split between man mainly responsible and not being so. Strangely, the unbiased media never seem to major on those results.
Trump has put together a science team to look at Climate Change. Unlike the IPCC that relies on a team of politicians to skew their results, this one uses real scientists. I am sure the real deniers will claim they are the "wrong sort" of scientists if they fail to believe 100% in the alarmist view.
So, the President is asking scientists for a considered view. What could be wrong with that?
- CowboyLv 61 year ago
Trump will never get it - he will burn the entire country before he admits he is wrong - it's just not in his nature to admit to anything less than "I am the greatest" - megalomaniacs are like that.
Beside he's a moron without enough cerebral snap to ever understand. Republicans are like that.
- οικοςLv 71 year ago
Not long. In 2020, we have a chance to elect a competent president.
- Davie BwoiLv 51 year ago
For about the 20th time I am going to call out the LIE of 97% of scientists crap (yes I know you said 96%)
If this is true you should have no trouble showing the working out to achieve this percentage.You just need to divide the number of believing scientists by the total number of scientists and then multiply by a hundred.
This should be easy for you, it's a widely quoted figure so the numbers to get 97% should be well known.
I'm waiting........and I suspect I'll be waiting a very long time. If you can't supply these two numbers then you're spreading lies and propaganda - period.
Trying to make points on the back of obvious outrageous lies is not going to make people take you seriously.
Prove me wrong if you can and show your working out, or confess to spreading lies.
EDIT for Sting,,,,,,,,,,The two numbers are NOT given on this site, pls supply them if I missed them in all the bullshite propaganda or be branded a liar.
EDIT for Sting,,,,,,,,,,I'm asking for 2 numbers? It's that simple to prove you're not a liar. 2 simple numbers. It that too much to ask for when you're claiming that the vast majority of Earth's scientist agree?
You clearly can't provide the 2 numbers, so I'm now saying that you are a LIAR and cheat. Take your lying propaganda and shove it up your lying cheating a-s. Filthy liar.
EDIT .. Take note everyone, we have a propaganda/lie spreader called Sting writing in the comments section. Everyone should note how when posed a very simple question, he suddenly can't find the answer and so resorts to the usual insults to avoid the issue and tries to make it my fault for not knowing something that I never claimed to know and that he did claim to know.
- Mr. SmartypantsLv 71 year ago
Trump's fans are not exactly truth-driven. They want to believe what they want to believe. They want to be told what they want to be told.
Some of them are coal miners who actually believe Trump has discovered the secret of clean coal (GW Bush spent BILLIONS trying to develop clean coal, and had to admit it was impossible. Trump still believes it will be done!)
Republicans in general believe renewable power, water/wind/sun, is a 'socialist' piipedream. Oil interests provide enormous campaign sponsorship to Republicans, so there's no way a Republican president is going to say oil is destroying our climate, or running out.
- Anonymous1 year ago
Remember there was time when 96% of scientists thought solar panels were a hoax. Or when 96% of scientists believed heavier than air flying machines were impossible.