Trump: Climate change scientists have 'political agenda'

[GMDino]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45859325

Quote:US President Donald Trump has accused climate change scientists of having a "political agenda" as he cast doubt on whether humans were responsible for the earth's rising temperatures.



But Mr Trump also said he no longer believed climate change was a hoax.


The comments, made during an interview with CBS's 60 Minutes, come less than a week after climate scientists issued a final call to halt rising temperatures.


The world's leading scientists agree that climate change is human-induced.


Last week's report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - the leading international body evaluating climate change - warned the world was heading towards a temperature rise of 3C.


Scientists say that natural fluctuations in temperature are being exacerbated by human activity - which has caused approximately 1C of global warming above pre-industrial levels.




The report said keeping to the preferred target of 1.5C above pre-industrial levels will mean "rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society".


Climate change was just one issue touched on during the wide-ranging interview, during which Mr Trump also:

• Said that "the day before" he took office the US had been on the verge of "going to war with North Korea"
• Said Russian President Vladimir Putin was "probably" involved in assassinations but added, "I rely on them, it's not in our country"
• Said Russia had meddled in the 2016 elections but added, "I think China meddled also"
• Refused to say whether he would reinstate the migrant child separation policy but added "there have to be consequences" for entering the US illegally
• Said he believed he had treated Christine Blasey Ford with "respect" after mocking her testimony in front of thousands at a rally, and that "had I not made that speech, we would not have won"
  
  

There's more at the link.  Just figured I share it before he denied saying any of it.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

I dislike the wording they use with "human induced". It's not human induced, it's human assisted.

Human induced implies that the climate would never change if it weren't for humans, which we all know is not true as there were temperature swings, ice ages, mini-hot periods, mini-cold periods, well before humans. Heck, there were no polar icecaps when the dinosaurs walked the planet.

It's the same reason I hate the term "climate change" as if it has EVER stayed the same. It's literally always been changing.

[hollodero]

(10-17-2018, 04:30 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I dislike the wording they use with "human induced". It's not human induced, it's human assisted.

 
Is that important? I just ask because to me, it seems like a critizism that can be found when looking for one. I also think it is completely unimportant how we call things, important is what we can acknowledge and what we should do about it. 

Would you say humans contribute to a warming earth and that we'd rather not do so? Or would you deny such dynamics or the importance to address them? That is the question behind it. The answer to that shapes the perception on pretty much anything around the topic, and your perception seems to be a critical one, hence I asked.

[fredtoast]

What is the "political agenda"?  All I have heard them do is suggest the government should take steps to reduce the human impact on the climate.  I don't see anyway that has any effect on "political power".  In fact many of those steps would be costly and effect the economy in a negative manner.  So any party that supports those steps would LOSE political power.

The only group with a clear motive to lie are the fossil fuel industry scientists.

[fredtoast]

(10-17-2018, 04:30 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I dislike the wording they use with "human induced". It's not human induced, it's human assisted.

Human induced implies that the climate would never change if it weren't for humans, which we all know is not true as there were temperature swings, ice ages, mini-hot periods, mini-cold periods, well before humans. Heck, there were no polar icecaps when the dinosaurs walked the planet.

It's the same reason I hate the term "climate change" as if it has EVER stayed the same. It's literally always been changing.

I don't care what words you use as long as you acknowledge that it is a bad thing for us and humans are contributing.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(10-17-2018, 04:39 PM)hollodero Wrote:  
Is that important? I just ask because to me, it seems like a critizism that can be found when looking for one. I also think it is completely unimportant how we call things, important is what we can acknowledge and what we should do about it. 

Would you say humans contribute to a warming earth and that we'd rather not do so? Or would you deny such dynamics or the importance to address them? That is the question behind it. The answer to that shapes the perception on pretty much anything around the topic, and your perception seems to be a critical one, hence I asked.

I mean, yes, it could be important. Maybe if we start talking about it in the way it actually is rather than a dramatized version, there will be less resistance towards bipartisan cooperation on the matter.

You're in a kitchen where someone is using the stove (the natural change), and someone yells at you to turn off the hot water you have running in the sink (human emissions) because you're single-handedly inducing the temperature to increase in the room and it's all the fault of your hot water and if you don't agree, you hate science.... You're going to be less cooperative than if they said: "Hey, I am using the stove here and it's already heating up this room, could you hold off on the hot water? It's making things worse."


The fact that you think it's completely unimportant how we call things is exactly why there's so many people dug in on one side and the other with very little movement. Terminology is important because it's how we can convey thoughts and ideas clearly without any misunderstandings. Taking the "who cares if it's accurate or right, fix this" approach doesn't seem like you even *want* others to come to your point of view. You would go about trying to convince exactly 0 people using that method.

[fredtoast]

(10-17-2018, 04:56 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I mean, yes, it could be important. Maybe if we start talking about it in the way it actually is rather than a dramatized version, there will be less resistance towards bipartisan cooperation on the matter.

You're in a kitchen where someone is using the stove (the natural change), and someone yells at you to turn off the hot water you have running in the sink (human emissions) because you're single-handedly inducing the temperature to increase in the room and it's all the fault of your hot water and if you don't agree, you hate science.... You're going to be less cooperative than if they said: "Hey, I am using the stove here and it's already heating up this room, could you hold off on the hot water? It's making things worse."


The fact that you think it's completely unimportant how we call things is exactly why there's so many people dug in on one side and the other with very little movement. Terminology is important because it's how we can convey thoughts and ideas clearly without any misunderstandings. Taking the "who cares if it's accurate or right, fix this" approach doesn't seem like you even *want* others to come to your point of view. You would go about trying to convince exactly 0 people using that method.

This is hilarious.  The deniers have been forced to change their story from "It isn't happening", to "Its happening but humans are not contributing", to "Its happening and we are contributing but only a little" and they accuse the other side of taking unreasonable positions.

Humans have done a lot more than just run hot water in a room warmed by a stove. We have burned entire mountain ranges of coal and seas of oil.  We have pumped billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere at the same time that we defoliated millions of acres of forest.

[GMDino]

I kind of agree with Leonard in that there is probably a natural ebb and flow but where I detour is that humans have managed to contribute so much that they have created a larger swing to the warming to the point where we may have gone too far to swing back.

To me it's like seeing lightning striking a tree and starting a fire.  

All alone the fire will burn out eventually...although we don't know how far it will spread and how much damage it will do.

Do we, as humans, when we see the fire want to throw water on it or gasoline?

[hollodero]

(10-17-2018, 04:56 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I mean, yes, it could be important. Maybe if we start talking about it in the way it actually is rather than a dramatized version, there will be less resistance towards bipartisan cooperation on the matter.

You're in a kitchen where someone is using the stove (the natural change), and someone yells at you to turn off the hot water you have running in the sink (human emissions) because you're single-handedly inducing the temperature to increase in the room and it's all the fault of your hot water and if you don't agree, you hate science.... You're going to be less cooperative than if they said: "Hey, I am using the stove here and it's already heating up this room, could you hold off on the hot water? It's making things worse."


The fact that you think it's completely unimportant how we call things is exactly why there's so many people dug in on one side and the other with very little movement. Terminology is important because it's how we can convey thoughts and ideas clearly without any misunderstandings. Taking the "who cares if it's accurate or right, fix this" approach doesn't seem like you even *want* others to come to your point of view. You would go about trying to convince exactly 0 people using that method.

I think the climate and the facts don't care about which words to use. The politicization, sure, is a problem, that like everything in the US there's the one side taking one stance and the other side taking the opposite stance, and suddenly it's about the talking points and how they sound (and in the real end, it's about whose side someone's on anyway and nothing else really).
Humans not just attribute to the change. They attribute to the overall warmth of the planet, but no one would ever claim that the sun or other natural "stoves" don't play its part in warming the earth. The current (observable) change, that's us, in all probability exclusively us. Now certainly, that's up for debate maybe, but I wouldn't go as far as to use this example (not mentioning sun etc. as natural things that also warm the planet) to accuse scientists and politicians of over-dramatization. Also, even if it is, it doesn't matter, the climate certainly does not care. I am not on par with your view because most matters regarding CC are not so much an opinion as the desperate plea to accept facts and science.

Thing is, the facts in this case clearly and overwhelmingly support one side and dismiss the other side's arguments. Which has surprinsingly little influence though. I wouldn't know how to debate things in a reasonable manner with folk that believe CC is an Al Gore scam and the proof for that is a snowball (or all the other hilarious stuff the "opposide side" of the CC debate brings to the table, which is 99% absurd). In that sense, I have to say you saying it "could" be important isn't quite enough for me, and that's not based on an agenda or a political view, but on facts.

[Benton]

(10-17-2018, 04:56 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I mean, yes, it could be important. Maybe if we start talking about it in the way it actually is rather than a dramatized version, there will be less resistance towards bipartisan cooperation on the matter.

The gop terminology is, by and large, that global warming doesn't exist and that man has no role in it. You have to admit theres even an issue before you're willing to seek a solution. Terminology is secondary.

Say you're in a kitchen and there's two guys. The kitchen is on fire. One guy catches on fire and screams "oh god, I'm burning! We need to do something about the fire!" The other guy says "I don't see a fire" while he, too, stands there on fire. But his suit is nicer, so he doesn't feel the effects as bad. As someone looking at the two of them I don't see where picking one guy because he chose the word "burning" over The other alleviates the second guys unwillingness to discuss.

[fredtoast]

Trump said climate change was a hoax.

Now he says it isn't.

And his followers believed him both times.

[Goalpost]

Well there has to be some better accuracy to it. And not all scientists have been accurate. I think Al Gore said Miami would be underwater right now. It isn't. His info was from, well, a scientist.

[Yojimbo]

(10-17-2018, 09:36 PM)Goalpost Wrote: Well there has to be some better accuracy to it. And not all scientists have been accurate. I think Al Gore said Miami would be underwater right now. It isn't. His info was from, well, a scientist.

Coastal Miami floods almost daily with the tides and their drinking water resvoirs are being contaminated with salt water. They’ve spent millions of dollars on pumps and building walls and the flooding has only gotten worse.

https://www.businessinsider.com/miami-floods-sea-level-rise-solutions-2018-4

https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/miami-king-tides-flooding-city-like-a-hurricane-again-today-9725153

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2017/08/02/the-miami-area-endured-an-absurd-flooding-event-tuesday-afternoon/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.440a0e3e509e

[*michaelsean*]

I have been curious as to if there is any upside to climate change. I don't say this to try to say it's OK. It's just a curiosity.