Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Climate Change

Good grief, is Trump going to destroy the climate?

219 replies

Junglebell · 08/11/2024 22:45

Just been scrolling and came across this.

https://x.com/wideawake_media/status/1854482837350555810

Is Trump for real? Surely someone needs to tell him that every scientist agrees that manmade CO2 controls the climate/

x.com

https://x.com/wideawake_media/status/1854482837350555810

OP posts:
Thread gallery
5
RoundandSad · 09/11/2024 09:56

FreshLaundry · 09/11/2024 09:15

Who’s making money off climate change?!

I can't believe this question

tons of people!

including an environment advisor employed by a company I worked with 20 years ago, who told us our riverside office would be under water in 10 years. I would like to see him again!

I know this isn't a business site bit fgs how can people not know this. The electric cars too - check impact on environment.

greenwashing has worked scary well.

Newbutoldfather · 09/11/2024 14:08

@timenowplease ,

I don’t think anthropogenic warming is in any meaningful dispute any more.

We are now observing measurable warming in line with the theory.

Yes, you will always find a few rogue scientists prepared to debate this, but they are becoming fewer and fewer in number.

There is nuance between putting a balanced argument and giving equal weight to experts, when you have 95%+ on one side of the argument.

(Yes I know sometimes science is changed by a few dissenting voices, so we shouldn’t ignore them but, in the interim, we need to make policies based on what the overwhelming majority of evidence is telling us).

username7891 · 09/11/2024 14:15

It's myopic but that's politics.

Climate change will push food prices up and drive more immigration as people flee flooding and intense heat.

They've voted for price rises and more immigrants even though in the short term, some things will be cheaper.

timenowplease · 09/11/2024 14:22

Newbutoldfather · 09/11/2024 14:08

@timenowplease ,

I don’t think anthropogenic warming is in any meaningful dispute any more.

We are now observing measurable warming in line with the theory.

Yes, you will always find a few rogue scientists prepared to debate this, but they are becoming fewer and fewer in number.

There is nuance between putting a balanced argument and giving equal weight to experts, when you have 95%+ on one side of the argument.

(Yes I know sometimes science is changed by a few dissenting voices, so we shouldn’t ignore them but, in the interim, we need to make policies based on what the overwhelming majority of evidence is telling us).

We are coming out of a mini ice age so it's not surprising if temperatures increase slightly.

Summerhillsquare · 09/11/2024 15:15

@Llhaaf I would ask for your sources, but unfortunately I know this is utter nonsense. UK gov is advised by the Committee on Climate Change, which is chock full of highly qualified scientists and uses all the latest research..

SallyWD · 09/11/2024 15:21

timenowplease · 09/11/2024 14:22

We are coming out of a mini ice age so it's not surprising if temperatures increase slightly.

Honestly, posts like this. You don't think scientists aren't fully aware of natural variations in temperature and take this all into account when studying changes to the climate??
My DH has been a climate change scientist for nearly 30 years and advises the government. He and his colleagues know the difference. Their predictions have been spot on so far.

Texanholdem · 09/11/2024 15:59

This reply has been deleted

This has been deleted by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines.

SallyWD · 09/11/2024 16:00

This reply has been deleted

This has been deleted by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines.

Absolute nonsense. That's all I have to say.

Texanholdem · 09/11/2024 17:10

This reply has been deleted

This has been deleted by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines.

swimsong · 09/11/2024 17:33

timenowplease · 09/11/2024 14:22

We are coming out of a mini ice age so it's not surprising if temperatures increase slightly.

Oh! No one has ever thought to factor that in, have they? You really should tell someone important.

This is like the brainbox who wrote into a newspaper all puffed up with his insightful cleverness. His quite brilliant observation was that an ice cube melting in a drink doesn't raise the liquid level - therefore sea levels won't rise! 🤣

username7891 · 09/11/2024 17:41

swimsong · 09/11/2024 17:33

Oh! No one has ever thought to factor that in, have they? You really should tell someone important.

This is like the brainbox who wrote into a newspaper all puffed up with his insightful cleverness. His quite brilliant observation was that an ice cube melting in a drink doesn't raise the liquid level - therefore sea levels won't rise! 🤣

Is that because someone is drinking it?

XChrome · 09/11/2024 18:18

hattie43 · 09/11/2024 05:22

Find another cause , no one's interested.

Nobody's interested in the fate of the planet, people. Somebody named Hattie on the internet says so. It obviously must be true.

XChrome · 09/11/2024 18:19

swimsong · 09/11/2024 17:33

Oh! No one has ever thought to factor that in, have they? You really should tell someone important.

This is like the brainbox who wrote into a newspaper all puffed up with his insightful cleverness. His quite brilliant observation was that an ice cube melting in a drink doesn't raise the liquid level - therefore sea levels won't rise! 🤣

Bwahahahaaa!

XChrome · 09/11/2024 18:25

This reply has been deleted

This has been deleted by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines.

Obviously, you must know better than the 99.9% of scientists who agree it is not only real, but a threat to life on earth.
The narcissism it must take to think that way is mind-blowing.

XChrome · 09/11/2024 18:29

SadSadGirl · 09/11/2024 07:16

Not every scientist. The ones who disagree are committing career suicide, though, so you only hear "there's a scientific consensus".

Did you expect to keep having children and increasing the global population yet somehow the demand for resources would decrease? It's a bit of a strange decision if you're very worried about climate change.

Not all. Just a mere 97-99.9%.

DemonicCaveMaggot · 09/11/2024 18:33

However you feel about climate change fossil fuels are not going to last forever. It would seem prudent to research clean and plentiful energy sources. There are quite a few republican states in the US that make a lot of money, and jobs, from wind power. I don't think they will be terribly impressed when Trump shuts them down because the noise of windmills cases cancer apparently.

Anyone who doubts climate change just has to see what specific heat capacity is and how the specific heat capacity of the earth's atmosphere changes when it becomes richer in carbon dioxide and methane to see why we are heating up overall.

SallyWD · 09/11/2024 18:40

This reply has been deleted

This has been deleted by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines.

No, and I'm not going to watch it. In this age of misinformation, you can find compelling and convincing videos to support any false conspiracy theory.
I know climate change isn't a hoax. As I've already said, my husband is a climate change professor who's been studying the climate for nearly 30 years. I've watched my husband and his colleagues devote their lives to collecting data. This isn't a job for them, its a vocation. They've collected data from ice sheets, from ocean sediments, from fossils, from corals, from historical records and accounts. From these sources, they have climate data that goes back tens of thousands thousands of years. To get current data they examine the ocean, the clouds, the atmosphere, plants, animals, soil. They've been part of projects that sent satellites into space.
Every bit of data they have points towards manmade climate change.
So sorry, if I'm rather dismissive when someone like you comes along and says "Look here's a video on YouTube that proves it's a hoax." Does it not occur to you that there are people with vested interests - e.g. people in the oil industry who don't want us to stop using oil and petrol?
So if climate change is a hoax, how do you explain all the scientific evidence that my husband and colleagues have spent decades gathering and analysing? Do you think they have falsified this evidence?? Why would they want to do that? Do you think they are being bribed by those who've invented a climate change hoax to make themselves rich? I'm sorry but it's just moronic to believe that 99% of the many thousands of climate change scientists are all part of an elaborate hoax to make other people rich.

LifeExperience · 09/11/2024 18:44

I'm old enough to remember when the scaremongering was about a new ice age and we were all going to freeze in the dark. Then the hysteria was about the loss of the ozone layer so the sun was going to radiate us all to death. Then the scaremongering was about global warming which was going to make the oceans die and the earth uninhabitable by 1990. Then some areas started cooling, so the scaremongering became about climate change.

The US gov't doesn't fund scientists unless they agree with the current orthodoxy, and gov't funding is vital to pretty much all scientific research in the US, so they agree. That's not science, that's economic self-interest 'cause scientists need to eat, too. Then the media dutifully hypes whatever the gov't scientists have said about climate change to ludicrous levels for the clicks.

Trees, in fact all plants, are CO2 sinks. Dh and I have planted thousands of trees on our various properties over the years. Do your part, plant some trees and stop worrying. It will all be okay.

StuffandFluff · 09/11/2024 19:06

Humphreyshead · 09/11/2024 08:47

They are increasing in frequency though

No they aren't! Have a look at the actual data...they definitely are not. Even the IPCC reports acknowledge this. Point me to some actual credible scientific evidence (not hyped media headlines or political propaganda) that demonstrates that they are. The only thing that has actually increased in frequency is the way that every extreme weather event, wherever it is occurring in the world, is reported ad nauseum.

StuffandFluff · 09/11/2024 19:07

LifeExperience · 09/11/2024 18:44

I'm old enough to remember when the scaremongering was about a new ice age and we were all going to freeze in the dark. Then the hysteria was about the loss of the ozone layer so the sun was going to radiate us all to death. Then the scaremongering was about global warming which was going to make the oceans die and the earth uninhabitable by 1990. Then some areas started cooling, so the scaremongering became about climate change.

The US gov't doesn't fund scientists unless they agree with the current orthodoxy, and gov't funding is vital to pretty much all scientific research in the US, so they agree. That's not science, that's economic self-interest 'cause scientists need to eat, too. Then the media dutifully hypes whatever the gov't scientists have said about climate change to ludicrous levels for the clicks.

Trees, in fact all plants, are CO2 sinks. Dh and I have planted thousands of trees on our various properties over the years. Do your part, plant some trees and stop worrying. It will all be okay.

Spot on!

HeBeaverandSheBeaver · 09/11/2024 19:08

@LifeExperience

The ozone layer is real and was healed by banning certain aerosols.

XChrome · 09/11/2024 19:21

Llhaaf · 09/11/2024 07:45

Scientists broadly agree that climate change is a real thing and that human activity contributes towards it.

But what scientists agree on, and the message the public get is quite different and this is because the middle men are politicians and business men, who have found an opportunity to make money. A lot of money.

We need to transition from fossil fuels to renewables, however there is disagreement on the speed that we have to do this. Not all scientists agree that we have to stop gas entirely and in essence make ourselves poor.

Here in the UK we have Ed Milliband advising Ed Milliband that we need to push harder and faster, and all be cold and poor. Meanwhile Ed will make money, men who are in the renewables business will thank Ed very very much, and the fossil fuel guys will be paid off handsomely. We will be told that we are all better people for it.

Scientists are not in agreement that this is the only way. Especially in the UK where we make so little difference. We aren’t even influencing bigger more polluting countries.

So Trump is deciding to put the economy first. He’s decided that the people want cheaper gas, cheaper energy, better lives, more money in their pockets. The majority of businesses want cheaper energy, less outgoing, more profit. People want to thrive again after a number of very hard years.

The world cannot stop using gas yet. The world needs oil. Here in the UK we’ve chosen not to produce our own energy, as this makes those aforementioned people richer. But we need gas. So we import it. Which is arguably worse as that has also has a massive carbon footprint. But we’re led to believe that’s better (for Ed).

Donald Trump knows America will need gas. And someone has to produce it for them to buy from. He’s decided to produce their own rather than destroy the economy and make people poorer, by importing what they need.
Personally, I think this is a sensible idea that has got him voted in as the 47th president.

Finally, will this impact on the whole world and climate change? Yes. Because people abroad are going to ask why we need to be poorer, and why we need to buy our fuel from America? People will vote for people who want to put the people first. The climate change plan will become less at the forefront of concerns.

I’m traditionally a conservative voter living in Wales. I will be voting for Reform in a couple of years, because I have decided I’m fed up of struggling and I hope that with values more aligned with the Republican Party, they may be that chance of living a few years of my life more comfortably. I’m just not rich enough, or middle class enough to be able to afford climate change.

You have several facts wrong.
The US has always been an oil and gas producer, long before Trump. He didn't decide that, it's been going on for hundreds of years. The US actually became the world's largest gas producer in 2011, under Obama. Both Democrats and Republicans are responsible for this. The Republicans have done nothing to limit the American addiction to oil and gas (in fact, they want Americans to be even more dependent on fossil fuels in order to appease their donors) but the Democrats have also done very little. So that's a poor reason to support one party over the other.

The UK does produce gas, just not enough to meet the demand, partly because people insist on using gas heat and gas ranges when there are other options. Switching to heat pumps rather than gas heaters would leave the UK more self sufficient and less dependent on imported gas, but you will not see Reform promote that. It doesn't benefit their donors in the oil and gas industry. Heat pump technology has come a long way and they use very little energy to produce heat. I have one myself and I live in a very cold climate in Canada. They work like gangbusters, much more evenly and comfortably than gas heat in my experience. They are also getting more affordable as the technology improves. But I get that they are still out of reach for a lot of people in terms of the initial cost. They make that cost back in lower bills, but that takes time. This is why governments should be providing subsidies. I got $6000 dollars back from a subsidy and it made all the difference.
But you will never see a plan like that from the Republicans or Reform. They do not care about making anything more affordable and are brazenly lying to people about that.

Reform had received more than £2.3 million from oil and gas interests, highly polluting industries, and climate science deniers since December 2019 – amounting to 92 percent of the party’s donations during that period.

www.desmog.com/2024/06/17/polluter-funded-reform-uk-party-nigel-farage-manifesto-backs-oil-gas-expansion/

Wake up, love. You've fallen for one of the oldest tricks in the political book, which is convincing the public they can't possibly live without products which their donors supply.

XChrome · 09/11/2024 19:34

XChrome · 09/11/2024 19:21

You have several facts wrong.
The US has always been an oil and gas producer, long before Trump. He didn't decide that, it's been going on for hundreds of years. The US actually became the world's largest gas producer in 2011, under Obama. Both Democrats and Republicans are responsible for this. The Republicans have done nothing to limit the American addiction to oil and gas (in fact, they want Americans to be even more dependent on fossil fuels in order to appease their donors) but the Democrats have also done very little. So that's a poor reason to support one party over the other.

The UK does produce gas, just not enough to meet the demand, partly because people insist on using gas heat and gas ranges when there are other options. Switching to heat pumps rather than gas heaters would leave the UK more self sufficient and less dependent on imported gas, but you will not see Reform promote that. It doesn't benefit their donors in the oil and gas industry. Heat pump technology has come a long way and they use very little energy to produce heat. I have one myself and I live in a very cold climate in Canada. They work like gangbusters, much more evenly and comfortably than gas heat in my experience. They are also getting more affordable as the technology improves. But I get that they are still out of reach for a lot of people in terms of the initial cost. They make that cost back in lower bills, but that takes time. This is why governments should be providing subsidies. I got $6000 dollars back from a subsidy and it made all the difference.
But you will never see a plan like that from the Republicans or Reform. They do not care about making anything more affordable and are brazenly lying to people about that.

Reform had received more than £2.3 million from oil and gas interests, highly polluting industries, and climate science deniers since December 2019 – amounting to 92 percent of the party’s donations during that period.

www.desmog.com/2024/06/17/polluter-funded-reform-uk-party-nigel-farage-manifesto-backs-oil-gas-expansion/

Wake up, love. You've fallen for one of the oldest tricks in the political book, which is convincing the public they can't possibly live without products which their donors supply.

The oceans are dying and nobody said anything about the earth being uninhabitable by 1990. The ozone problem was solved by the banning of HFCS, HCFCS and HBFCS in spray cans and air conditioners.
Climate change and global warming refer to the same thing, the difference being climate change is more about the observable effects of global warming in weather patterns. There was no sustained period of global cooling such as you claim.

Good grief, check some facts once in awhile.

www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/will-the-ocean-really-die.html

XChrome · 09/11/2024 19:39

timenowplease · 09/11/2024 09:23

Well, actually there are lots of scientists who don't agree that manmade CO2 controls the climate.

97-99.9% agree. "Lots" is therefore nonsense.

timenowplease · 09/11/2024 19:46

XChrome · 09/11/2024 19:39

97-99.9% agree. "Lots" is therefore nonsense.

Where is that statistic from please?