Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

One-percent

Trump appoints climate change denier as environmental chief

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, hotairmail said:

I hope he appoints a pacifist to 'Defence'.

A goldbug to the Fed.

A communist to regulate Wall Street.

 

 

Sadly, no.

defence, some bod who used to be a marine with the handle 'mad dog'. A wild guess here but I would wager he is not a pacifist

Treasury secretary owns his own bank :huh:

a billionaire as the commerce secretary but apparently he was very critical of the trade agreements 

see

http://www.ibtimes.com/trump-cabinet-picks-latest-update-full-list-appointees-some-positions-remain-unfilled-2455962

interesting times...

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ntb said:

Good. Maybe we'll get to the actual truth about global warming (whatever that might be).

There will certainly be a vigerous debate. Blood,snot and teeth all up the wall with any luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ntb said:

Good. Maybe we'll get to the actual truth about global warming (whatever that might be).

Don't hold your breath too many careers have been built on it 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a scientist and studying what I do, and seeing what I see, I'm signed up to MMGW, climate change and the dramatic effects it is having on the planet's biology. So I see it as frustrating that a skeptic is appointed to the role since real progress needs to be made in reducing CO2 emissions. However, if a skeptic stirs up the EPA and makes the career environmentalists uncomfortable, and perhaps sacks some of the less able, all well and good. We could do with the same in the UK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, LiveinHope said:

I'm a scientist and studying what I do, and seeing what I see, I'm signed up to MMGW, climate change and the dramatic effects it is having on the planet's biology. So I see it as frustrating that a skeptic is appointed to the role since real progress needs to be made in reducing CO2 emissions. However, if a skeptic stirs up the EPA and makes the career environmentalists uncomfortable, and perhaps sacks some of the less able, all well and good. We could do with the same in the UK.

I know this has been done to death.... but.... yes the climate is changing but it has ever been thus. Man could once upon a time walk across the channel.  There was a mini ice age in Victorian times when the Thames would freeze over.  What is the evidence that it is man made?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, LiveinHope said:

I'm a scientist and studying what I do, and seeing what I see, I'm signed up to MMGW, climate change and the dramatic effects it is having on the planet's biology. So I see it as frustrating that a skeptic is appointed to the role since real progress needs to be made in reducing CO2 emissions. However, if a skeptic stirs up the EPA and makes the career environmentalists uncomfortable, and perhaps sacks some of the less able, all well and good. We could do with the same in the UK.

It's the ones manipulating the data to make it show the 'right' result that should be sacked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, LiveinHope said:

I'm a scientist and studying what I do, and seeing what I see, I'm signed up to MMGW, climate change and the dramatic effects it is having on the planet's biology. So I see it as frustrating that a skeptic is appointed to the role as real progress needs to be made in reducing CO2 emissions. However, if a skeptic stirs up the EPA and makes the environmentalists uncomfortable, all well and good.

It would probably take a skeptic to convince the population that MMGW is a real threat.

I think the reason the public attitude is weary and guarded is because the evidence has not been presented in a way that people connect with.

Forcing the EPA and scientists generally to convince a "thicko climate skeptic" by making a simple and compelling case would probably be the same level of proof required to convince the rest of the population generally.    Scientists have been saying for a long time, "trust us,  we're just right".  But they haven't sold it. And it needs selling.

I say that as someone who is completely on the fence having never really seen any very compelling evidence either way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My 2p's worth.

MMGW is a global issue, and the USA is but a small part of the planet.

In terms of reducing CO2 emissions, the USA drives around in gas-guzzlers, has done, and will continue to do so. They are ridiculous in their waste of energy (e.g another thread in this forum pointing out that they will drive 100m rather than walk). I frankly can't see how Trump can make things worse!

In terms of Climate Research - well, there are lots of very able people all over the globe who can take up the slack should Trump cut funding in the USA.

No, I'm more concerned about stuff like environmental standards, pollution of aquifers, etc... and how this new guy might scrap lots of regulations, causing an ecological catastrophe. It might only last the 4 years of an administration, but the cleanup could take decades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, One-percent said:

I know this has been done to death.... but.... yes the climate is changing but it has ever been thus. Man could once upon a time walk across the channel.  There was a mini ice age in Victorian times when the Thames would freeze over.  What is the evidence that it is man made?

Sorry, I'm not even going there in detail as it usually just ends up with 'Ahh but' arguments. All I'll say is that climate is now warming faster than we think it has done in the last 800k years, CO2 is now 400ppm while it has only fluctuated between 160 and 280ppm over the last 800k years. The climate and ecosystems we have evolved under is the present (well pre-industrial), and is a result of sequestered carbon. I'm not describing what I see or what i do as it will identify me in a heartbeat. In previous posts I have recommended that people read this R A Berner. There is a large literature on the large biological effects we are already seeing, some admittedly better science than others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LiveinHope said:

Sorry, I'm not even going there in detail as it usually just ends up with 'Ahh but' arguments. All I'll say is that climate is now warming faster than we think it has done in the last 800k years, CO2 is now 400ppm while it has only fluctuated between 160 and 280ppm over the last 800k years. The climate and ecosystems we have evolved in is the present and is a result of sequestered carbon. I'm not describing what I see or what i do as it will identify me in a heartbeat. In previous posts I have recommended that people read this R A Berner. There is a large literature on biological effects, some admittedly better than others.

Thank you.  I've not read round the issue so your figures here are extremely helpful.  As libspero said very eloquently above, the evidence is not normally presented in an accessible way for the general populace. Will go away and read 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, libspero said:

It would probably take a skeptic to convince the population that MMGW is a real threat.

I think the reason the public attitude is weary and guarded is because the evidence has not been presented in a way that people connect with.

Forcing the EPA and scientists generally to convince a "thicko climate skeptic" by making a simple and compelling case would probably be the same level of proof required to convince the rest of the population generally.    Scientists have been saying for a long time, "trust us,  we're just right".  But they haven't sold it. And it needs selling.

I say that as someone who is completely on the fence having never really seen any very compelling evidence either way.

The public need to understand the carbon cycle and then it's a road to Damascus-like experience in my opinion, well it is with the politicians I work with. See my post with the link to the Berner article. It's the best I can do without revealing who I am, probably

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, One-percent said:

defence, some bod who used to be a marine with the handle 'mad dog'. A wild guess here but I would wager he is not a pacifist

 

 

Some of the biggest hawks are people who have never been to war.  Bush, Blair, Hillary etc.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In layman's terms there has to be a  natural cycle/process at work to counter C02 affects irrespective of the PPM because surly if there was not, we'd have had run away global warming well before now? 

I still don't understand why the earth warming is being deemed as a doomsday scenario when the earth has been here before..right? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, LiveinHope said:

The public need to understand the carbon cycle and then it's a road to Damascus-like experience in my opinion, well it is with the politicians I work with. See my post with the link to the Berner article. It's the best I can do without revealing who I am, probably

I will save it and hopefully give it the full attention it deserves when I'm less tired.

In a way you have illustrated my point though..  that four page article in a science journal,  though I'm sure compelling,  is not the kind of thing Joe Public will read. Many would look at the format, formulas and language and consider it too complicated to bother trying to comprehend.    The public need some simple science/explanation with some pretty pictures.  Patronising but true.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, One-percent said:

Thank you.  I've not read round the issue so your figures here are extremely helpful.  As libspero said very eloquently above, the evidence is not normally presented in an accessible way for the general populace. Will go away and read 

The reaction in the first two equations in the article is the Ebelman-Urey reaction. It is the uptake of CO2 during the weathering of rock and the utilisation of the weathered products by planktonic organisms in the sea when they produce their silica and calcium carbonate skeletons, carbon that is subsequently sequestered in the sediments as rock, and eventually returned as CO2 by volcanoes etc (cement manufacture does the same thing). It is the most powerful long-term process regulating atmospheric CO2 and is so powerful it could consume all atmospheric CO2 in just 10,000 years. That is an inorganic process. In addition to that process is the incorporation of atmospheric carbon into organic molecules (sugar in the first instance) by photosynthesis; some of which becomes sequestered in the sediments to become kerogen, and then oil and gas (marine plankton predominantly), or coal (terrestrial). Again, that is a long term process operating over milllenia, and again the carbon is returned eventually, by volcanoes etc. So, over very long-time scales biology has removed CO2 from the Earth's once carbon rich atmosphere. We are pumping it back faster than biology removes it, and that has already raised CO2 levels above what they have fluctuated between over the last 800k years, those previous levels and cycles were influenced by solar input influencing the Earth's climate and biology. Basically...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, libspero said:

I will save it and hopefully give it the full attention it deserves when I'm less tired.

In a way you have illustrated my point though..  that four page article in a science journal,  though I'm sure compelling,  is not the kind of thing Joe Public will read. Many would look at the format, formulas and language and consider it too complicated to bother trying to comprehend.    The public need some simple science/explanation with some pretty pictures.  Patronising but true.

 

 That's what I do, outside my science

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, libspero said:

I will save it and hopefully give it the full attention it deserves when I'm less tired.

In a way you have illustrated my point though..  that four page article in a science journal,  though I'm sure compelling,  is not the kind of thing Joe Public will read. Many would look at the format, formulas and language and consider it too complicated to bother trying to comprehend.    The public need some simple science/explanation with some pretty pictures.  Patronising but true.

 

It is even more patronising for politicians and scientists to either not present the evidence as it it too complicated for the little people or to present it in such a way as to be inaccessible to the layperson 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, One-percent said:

It is even more patronising for politicians and scientists to either not present the evidence as it it too complicated for the little people or to present it in such a way as to be inaccessible to the layperson 

So, was my post accessible ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, LiveinHope said:

So, was my post accessible ?

Yes, your post was but this, as far as I can see, is not the normal approach of scientists and politicians whose modus operandi is to obfuscate so as to seem more intelligent than others. It is refreshing when individuals make their craft accessible to others 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, One-percent said:

I know this has been done to death.... but.... yes the climate is changing but it has ever been thus. Man could once upon a time walk across the channel.  There was a mini ice age in Victorian times when the Thames would freeze over.  What is the evidence that it is man made?

Out of interest, what would convince you that current climate change is man made?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, One-percent said:

Yes, your post was but this, as far as I can see, is not the normal approach of scientists and politicians whose modus operandi is to obfuscate so as to seem more intelligent than others. It is refreshing when individuals make their craft accessible to others 

Some scientists, unfortunately, take the approach of someone trying to communicate with someone who speaks a foreign language, which is to just shout louder. Many politicians just shout louder to hide their fundamental lack of understanding, or they take whatever view their constituency dictates, while remaining blissful in their ignorance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dugsbody said:

Out of interest, what would convince you that current climate change is man made?

Evidence such as live in hope presented above.  I would need much more and would need to read around it.  What persuades me  at present that it may not be manmade, but instead is just a natural occurrence, is that it seems to me to be used currently as a political tool to shape behaviour and to apply hidden taxation onto consumers via corporations.  But I have a very healthy scepticism when listening to politicians  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Next General Election   93 members have voted

    1. 1. When do you predict the next general election will be held?


      • 2019
      • 2020
      • 2021
      • 2022

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.