Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Politics

Trump (Part 4)

1000 replies

claig · 04/12/2016 19:37

Continuing discussion of the Trumpquake and populist rebellions

OP posts:
Thread gallery
18
squishysquirmy · 11/12/2016 23:59

Claig, what have you got against reading stuff? Confused
If you read even your own links (let alone other people's and all the books you endlessly quote from) you might actually learn something.

Lweji · 11/12/2016 23:59

And you think poorer nations pleading for help is something to cheer about?
You'd do well to read these articles in full.

squishysquirmy · 12/12/2016 00:01

"if temperatures are rising due to natural causes surely it would still be prudent to invest in defences?"

"No because you have to understand the elite's agenda in order to understand their objectives and if you understand that you understand the disadvantages for humanity."

Like the disadvantage of missing out on the wonderful opportunity to evolve gills?

claig · 12/12/2016 00:01

'And you think poorer nations pleading for help is something to cheer about?'

What sort of help do you think they want?

I don't read Guardian articles like that because I already know it is a scam, so I don't need to read Guardian teams' spin on it.

OP posts:
Kaija · 12/12/2016 00:02

"No because you have to understand the elite's agenda"

Yes quite. Look at who benefits. Exxon had a clear agenda here and it was to suppress evidence of climate change and spread climate change denial for their own profit.

Lweji · 12/12/2016 00:03

'if temperatures are rising due to natural causes surely it would still be prudent to invest in defences?'

No because you have to understand the elite's agenda in order to understand their objectives and if you understand that you understand the disadvantages for humanity.

What disadvantages?

Trump himself has put planning proposals for coastal defense.
The Netherlands have thrived with flood defenses.
Should New Orleans not have a good flood defense system?
Or it is beneficial to humanity that people in poorer countries die or become even poorer?

claig · 12/12/2016 00:04

'Like the disadvantage of missing out on the wonderful opportunity to evolve gills?'

The teams done their job on you. Project Fear, their only game. Did you vote for Remain as well? DId Cameron and the teams convince you with their Project Fear?

We will all be swimming underwater if we don't believe what the teams say.

Fortunately, the people finally have Trump in charge and he will call the teams out.

OP posts:
Kaija · 12/12/2016 00:04

"The president-elect's decision to put his major political backers in senior Cabinet positions is a jarring contrast with Trump's rhetoric through this year's campaign. He repeatedly declared himself independent of wealthy donors and predicted Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton's benefactors would “have total control over everything she does.”"

squishysquirmy · 12/12/2016 00:06

Here you go Claig. Don't let it be said that I'm never nice to you! Wink
--------------------------

The president of the COP22 climate summit in Marrakech has made a direct plea to the incoming US president Donald Trump to join the struggle against global warming for the sake of humanity and the planet.

Salaheddine Mezouar, who is also the Moroccan foreign minister, had spent most of the week-long summit diplomatically trying to steer clear of questions about Trump, telling reporters at one point that “no one can stop history”.

But asked for a direct message to the president-elect in the last question of the summit’s final press conference, Mezouar issued a heartfelt plea. “We count on your pragmatism as well as your commitment to the spirit of the international community, in a huge struggle for our future, for the planet, for humanity and the dignity of millions and millions of people,” he said.

“This is about what our planet is going to be tomorrow, and what we are going to leave behind,” he added.

Trump was a spectre haunting much of the COP proceedings and a final “Marrakech call” by nearly 200 nations yesterday affirmed their “highest political commitment” to combating climate change, in a thinly coded warning to the far-right tycoon.

But his election did not prevent some of the world’s poorest countries from announcing a major emissions-cutting initiative before delegates boarded their planes home. In total, 48 nations promised to cut their carbon emissions dramatically and rapidly move to 100% renewable power as the UN climate summit in Marrakech drew to a close on Friday.

Bangladesh, Ethiopia and the Philippines were among the countries which said they would now file plans for becoming zero-carbon societies by the middle of the century, in line with the Paris deal’s aspiration of limiting global warming to 1.5C.

Al Gore, the former US vice-president, hailed the announcement as “a bold vision that sets the pace for the world’s efforts to implement the Paris agreement”.

“These ambitious and inspiring commitments show the path forward for others and give us all renewed optimism that we are going to meet the challenge before us and meet it in time.”

Mohamed Adow, Christian Aid’s spokesman, said: “It is moving to see, despite their relative poverty, the world’s most vulnerable countries leading the world in delivering the goals of the Paris agreement. They may be relatively small in size, but these countries have become titans in the world of climate leadership.”

However, the summit made limited headway on other key issues. Crucially, just $165m of new money was pledged by advanced economies for the global climate fund which enabled poorer countries to sign up to the Paris agreement.

A UN source insisted that the $100bn target would be met by 2020, but said trillions would be needed to make development more sustainable. “The question is, how are you going to change the whole financial structure on this planet to get these big sums going?” said the source.

“It is very, very worrisome,” Tosi Mpanu Mpanu, the chair of the Least Developed Countries group, told the Guardian. “If you have to make agriculture resilient, build a sea wall or ensure that diseases don’t spread, there is no money-making rationale behind it. So public money is needed.

“Unfortunately, at this stage it is all about climate finance which is calculated using creative accounting, and methodologies that were not agreed upon and are not conducive to building trust.”

Shortly before the summit ended, Mezouar told the Guardian: “It is a priority of this COP22 presidency to mobilise finance as this is really becoming a necessity and an emergency.”

OECD projections suggest that developed countries will have stumped up just one fifth of the initial funds needed for adapting to climate change of a $100bn-a-year global climate fund which is due to launch in 2020.

The fund also addresses “mitigation” – or preventing climate change – and Morocco says that a roadmap proposed by the UK and Australia in Marrakech will eventually allow around two-thirds of funds to come from public sources.

The US has so far only delivered around $500m of a promised $3bn donation to the global climate fund, and doubts hang over the likelihood of more being provided under a Trump administration.

Asked by the Guardian whether the US could provide an emergency fast-tracking of funds before 20 January when Trump is sworn in, Jonathan Pershing, the US special envoy on climate change, said that it would be premature to speculate on the new president’s actions in office.

But he added: “We believe that this is an essential part of the movement forward and there will therefore be substantial value for US citizens and taxpayers in addressing these questions and providing technical support.”

Mezouar said that the $100bn promised in the global climate fund was “nothing” when measured against the costs of climate change mitigation and adaptation, but that it could draw private investors into realisable projects.

Just 8% of climate finance committed to date has been disbursed, and of the largest money stream – energy finance – the poorest states have received just 5%, according to developing countries.
-----------------------

From the article you linked to.

claig · 12/12/2016 00:09

'Trump himself has put planning proposals for coastal defense.
The Netherlands have thrived with flood defenses.
Should New Orleans not have a good flood defense system?'

Of course there should be flood defences just as Cameron should have dredged the rivers here. I was one of the many who said that the legendary Su Burrows, flood warden of Wraysbury, should be Prime Minister after hearing her say on Sky News "Cameron get down here now, get your waders on, forget the dredging, we'll get you on that later"

But all that has nothing to do with carbon.

OP posts:
squishysquirmy · 12/12/2016 00:09

Are the elite still the 0.7% wealthiest people in the world?

Lweji · 12/12/2016 00:10

Maybe you'd rather read this one, claig:
www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-3950000/Vulnerable-countries-pledge-renewables-help.html

The content is not that much different, oddly.

claig · 12/12/2016 00:13

'Are the elite still the 0.7% wealthiest people in the world?'

Much fewer than that.

OP posts:
Lweji · 12/12/2016 00:15

*“It is very, very worrisome,” Tosi Mpanu Mpanu, the chair of the Least Developed Countries group, told the Guardian. “If you have to make agriculture resilient, build a sea wall or ensure that diseases don’t spread, there is no money-making rationale behind it. So public money is needed.

“Unfortunately, at this stage it is all about climate finance which is calculated using creative accounting, and methodologies that were not agreed upon and are not conducive to building trust.”*

The fund also addresses “mitigation” – or preventing climate change – and Morocco says that a roadmap proposed by the UK and Australia in Marrakech will eventually allow around two-thirds of funds to come from public sources.

From the article, which you should have read.
Yet, all you have to say is "nothing to do with carbon".

Addressing climate change is not only about the causes. Even if you don't think it's human made or that carbon has nothing to do with it, it's definitely happening and populations are already suffering, and need help.

squishysquirmy · 12/12/2016 00:16

"Of course there should be flood defences...."

A large part of that article you linked to was about funding for adaptation to climate change. Which includes.... (drumroll)..... flood defences! Just read your own links, it would give you a tiny bit of credibility.

squishysquirmy · 12/12/2016 00:19

"Are the elite still the 0.7% wealthiest people in the world?"

"Much fewer than that."

Oh, I read about the 0.7% somewhere on the internet:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/politics/2778435-Trump?pg=35
"The 0.7% of the population who control more wealth than billions of people combined. They set up the structures that Southall mentioned.

"Academic is not a university per se, they control think tanks, set up by corporations or billionaires or rich donors which have agendas and which hire academics etc"

Stunning U-turn on the commercialisation of scientific research there too Claig.

squishysquirmy · 12/12/2016 00:20

I did think that 0.7% was a weirdly specific number at the time, but there you go.

claig · 12/12/2016 00:21

Of course they have to mention real things like floods in order to pass their goal of cutting carbon emissions which is what it is really all about and then taxing carbon and creating a 100 billion fund that the elite will decide how to crve up and trouser.

OP posts:
claig · 12/12/2016 00:23

'Stunning U-turn on the commercialisation of scientific research there too Claig.'

Totally different. Think tanks aren't commercialisng research, they are usually a bunch of SPADs straight outta Oxbridge serving their paymasters.

OP posts:
squishysquirmy · 12/12/2016 00:24

[awaits long, unrelated, repetitive paragraphs about elites and establishments in an attempt to change the topic after present Claig has been beaten by past Claig's arguments]

Kaija · 12/12/2016 00:25

While it's fun to play the "who are the elite" game, we all know that "elite" is used here simply as a way of othering - to suggest that the views of those that are anti the Trump/Putin takeover are worthless and to be discounted. That is all. It has no other meaning.

squishysquirmy · 12/12/2016 00:27

I know Kaija. I don't expect any consistency any more, but do like to remind Claig of what she has said previously, as she keeps forgetting.

Kaija · 12/12/2016 00:30

Yes. Tiring.

Lweji · 12/12/2016 00:30

Academic is not a university per se, they control think tanks, set up by corporations or billionaires or rich donors which have agendas and which hire academics etc

I'd really like to know more about these think tanks. It's amazing that I've completely missed them through my work. The guy I work with that comes from the field of climate modelling would probably like to know too. I bet he could use the extra money.

squishysquirmy · 12/12/2016 00:32

"Think tanks aren't commercialisng research"

But Claig, you attribute every bit of academic research you don't like to a "think tank"

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.