Good grief, is Trump going to destroy the climate?

[Junglebell]

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/

Multiple sources and I was actually being on the more conservative side.

More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.
The research updates a similar 2013 paper revealing that 97% of studies published between 1991 and 2012 supported the idea that human activities are altering Earth’s climate. The current survey examines the literature published from 2012 to November 2020 to explore whether the consensus has changed.

https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/10/more-999-studies-agree-humans-caused-climate-change

We conclude with high statistical confidence that the scientific consensus on human-caused contemporary climate change—expressed as a proportion of the total publications—exceeds 99% in the peer reviewed scientific literature.

iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966

There is near-universal consensus (97–99.9%) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature that the climate is changing as a result of human activity.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-024-01928-2#:~:text=There%20is%20near%2Duniversal%20consensus,activity1%2C2%2C3.

The ozone layer recovered because people changed and massively reduced the CFCs causing the big hole. Y2K disaster didn't happen because loads of IT folk worked really hard to prevent it.

Similarly, the only hope to stop man made global warming will be for people to change the way we do things.

Love the tree planting though. I love trees. I have 2 in my tiny inner city garden.🌳🌲🌴🥰🥰🥰

Ridiculous. Utter claptrap.

The ozone hole issue is real and has been ameliorated by 30 years of concerted international effort -- the type we need now, instead of some twat like trump trying to destroy existing efforts.

See this:

The ozone layer is being fixed through the Montreal Protocol, a global agreement that aims to phase out ozone-depleting substances (ODS):

The agreement
The Montreal Protocol was finalized in 1987 and entered into force in 1989. It's considered one of the most successful environmental agreements in history.
The substances
The protocol targets ODS, which were commonly used in products like air conditioners, refrigerators, fire extinguishers, and aerosols.
The results
The protocol has led to a 99% reduction in ODS consumption. The Antarctic ozone hole is expected to close by the 2060s. The protocol has also helped save an estimated two million people from skin cancer each year.

Thanks for the comprehensive response.

Just to note that the data is a percentage of published peer-reviewed scientific papers, and not, as you claim, an overall percentage of scientists.

Yes, the more trees the better!
I have at least 200 on my lot and live in the middle of a vast woodland. The leaves and acorns are driving me insane, but it's a small price to pay. The leaves are currently ankle deep out on my porch. I have to get arsed to go rake them up again. Then more will descend. Ugh.

What kind of trees do you have?

You're welcome.
That's Olympic gold medal level hair-splitting, though. Scientists set out their conclusions in such papers. That's how we know what they agree on. There is no other means of determining that.

@Llhaaf

You're fed up with 'struggling', and you think you'd 'struggle less' with xenophobic free market libertarians and conspiracy theorists in government in the UK?

Maybe do a bit of reading about 'climate change' and 'population displacement'

There aren't.

I have a purple leaf cherry blossom that was planted when the house was built in the late 80s. And a hawthorn tree that I put in when I moved here 15 years ago. What have you got @XChrome?

On summer days I come through my gate, the shade hits and the temperature drops a couple of degrees. Bliss.😊

One of my neighbours has complained to me about them.🙄

Oh I am Hattie. My kids too.

Your husband is a climate change professor you say? So his pay (or the funding of the organisation that pays him) is directly related to there being a crisis. No crisis - then he, and his organisation would not be needed and would not get paid. So it would be in his ongoing interests (or that of his organisation) to make sure that there did indeed appear to be a 'crisis', meaning that he will continue to get paid handsomely to research this apparent 'crisis. If this isn't a vested interest then I don't know what is?

You could say this about literally anything.

I think some of the absolute turbo charged misinformation on this thread is a good example of the kind of stuff that's out there and got Trump voted in. The wilder and less demonstrably true it is, the more a certain demographic seems to believe it. It would be funny if it wasn't so fucking, fucking scary.

Let's not be sending people to xtwits

Trump: "One of the most urgent tasks... is to decisively defeat the climate hysteria hoax."

"The radical left's fearmongering about climate and our future is... destroying America's economy, weakening our society, and eviscerating our middle class. It's really hurting us."

"We have to defeat the climate hoaxsters once and for all."

I'm talking about you not to you dear 😊

The way things are going you could have a warm home and it gets flooded every year, or torn to bits by tornadoes.

You might want food for your children but there soon won’t be any due to destroyed ecosystems and pollinators being killed off by climate change.

That's Olympic gold medal level hair-splitting,

Yes, absolutely, almost.. scientific... 👀

It's an important distinction to make because firstly getting published and peer reviewed is a limiting process. How many articles reaching the opposite conclusion have for whatever reason not been accepted for publication in peer reviewed journals? Or received funding even? You could argue there are none because they did not reach the correct academic standards. Or you could argue that no one wants to step out of line and get cancelled.

Either way, it's not correct to say 99% of scientists agree on something. They don't.

Well said, @krisspie

Well I guess in 'reality is relative' Trumpworld, yeah.

Back in the real world (again, sorry!) it is not the case that all things are false. Additionally, nothing is true of everything.

But please, don't let me detain you in reality any longer, you have places to go I can see.

Seriously, you don't know what you're talking about. I think I know my husband and his motivations better than you. He could easily get another, better paid job. He's been offered substantially more money to work as a consultant (double what he earns now) but he prefers to continue with his research. As I said, this is his vocation. No ulterior motives or vested interests. He actually wants to increase our understanding of climate change and help us prepare for the future.

This. Climate denialists are getting desparate now.

Climate change is real and it's accelerating. Burning Amazon, melting poles, warm seas are all ramping up.

In the UK this year harvests are down 30% in some areas due to the extremely wet Spring. Thousands of greenhouses in Almeria, Spain were destroyed by the recent storm and DANA. That's where much of our tomatoes etc come from. Prices will go up.

Trump's election is not good news for the climate.