Slashdot Mirror


China Tells Trump Climate Change Isn't a Hoax it Invented (bloomberg.com)

China couldn't have invented global warming as a hoax to harm U.S. competitiveness because it was Donald Trump's Republican predecessors who started climate negotiations in the 1980s, China's Vice Foreign Minister Liu Zhenmin said, according to a Bloomberg report. From the article:U.S. Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush supported the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in initiating global warming talks even before China knew that negotiations to cut pollution were starting, Liu told reporters at United Nations talks on Wednesday in Marrakech, Morocco. Ministers and government officials from almost 200 countries gathered in Marrakech this week are awaiting a decision by President-elect Trump on whether he'll pull the U.S. out of the Paris Agreement to tackle climate change. The tycoon tweeted in 2012 that the concept of global warming "was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive." China's envoy rejected that view. "If you look at the history of climate change negotiations, actually it was initiated by the IPCC with the support of the Republicans during the Reagan and senior Bush administration during the late 1980s," Liu told reporters during an hour-long briefing.

302 comments

  1. ..and it starts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    History will record the middle of the second decade of the 21st century as the end of the US hegemony. And you know what? It's fine. Rome fell, but people still live in Italy.

    1. Re:..and it starts by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That skips over quite a bit of history where the people of the Italian peninsula went through a considerably nasty period as the Western Empire fell.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:..and it starts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Agreed. Lots of nasty german tribes invaded from the north and caused big trouble. Ever wondered where the term "vandalism" comes from?

    3. Re:..and it starts by Sique · · Score: 2

      From the 6th century historian John Malalas. He accused the Vandals, arianist christians, to have blindly destroyed everything of value when they sacked Rome in 455 AD. Interestingly though, John Malalas was a catholic christian, lived 100 years later, was thus no eye witness and badmouthed everyone not of catholic faith.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    4. Re:..and it starts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gee, doesn't that sound a lot like a contemporary group we're having problems with in the world right now? Destroying or stealing everything of value in their path as they invade country after country? Declaring their own State (Caliphate)? SOUND FAMILIAR?

    5. Re:..and it starts by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      You mean, exactly like Rome did?

    6. Re: ..and it starts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yep, sounds like Americans alright.

    7. Re:..and it starts by Gussington · · Score: 1

      And "Ancient Rome" wasn't just Italy, it also includes what is now ISIS held territory, and parts of the former Soviet Union. So the fall of Rome wasn't so good for a lot of it's inhabitants...

    8. Re:..and it starts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hahaha you think the barbarians that toppled Rome were Germanic. History is repeating itself. The enemy comes from within. There were no more "romans" living in Rome. It was a city full of entitled foreigners who moved to Rome with an outstretched hand begging, asking, taking and stealing everything they could. The Roman collapse was economic, not military.

    9. Re:..and it starts by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well if you're going to be pedantic, so am I. Only the WESTERN Roman empire fell in 473AD. The EASTERN Roman empire (which includes most of the territory you mentioned) survived for another thousand years as the Byzantine empire.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    10. Re:..and it starts by Gussington · · Score: 1

      Well if you're going to be pedantic, so am I. Only the WESTERN Roman empire fell in 473AD. The EASTERN Roman empire (which includes most of the territory you mentioned) survived for another thousand years as the Byzantine empire.

      But still fell and then turned to shit, which is the point...

    11. Re:..and it starts by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      The Byzantine Empire was in pretty woeful shape long before it fell, and the Ottomans, at least early on, did a great deal to restore some degree of order.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    12. Re:..and it starts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be even more pedantic, the Byzantines never called themselves as such. They were still "Imperium Romanum" to themselves.

    13. Re:..and it starts by jandersen · · Score: 1

      That skips over quite a bit of history where the people of the Italian peninsula went through a considerably nasty period as the Western Empire fell.

      Well, that's something for you guys to ponder, I guess ;-)

      Actually, it's going to hit us in Europe too, but seeing it coming, we can begin to do something about it. Who knows, maybe there's even something we can learn from China, such as investing heavily in education and high-technology. The days when China's only strength was cheap labour are beginning to be history.

    14. Re:..and it starts by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 2

      Yes, it was economic, because keeping the vast empire together required excessive military spending and took up most of the resources so that for the the general public not much was left. Even the military was grossly underfunded. But that was only part of the issue, one huge aspect was that those in charge had no real clue on how to manage such a large operation. Those before them who did made sure that whatever area they occupied had its needs met and kept its cultural identity. That way much less military force was needed because there was almost no reason for rebellion. As far as entitled foreigners goes...they were not foreigners, but citizens of the Roman empire. Likewise, many of the Romans were sent into the provinces as governors.

    15. Re:..and it starts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Were the vandals orange?

    16. Re:..and it starts by dywolf · · Score: 1

      there was that.
      there the Pope Wars and Papal States.
      people also forget that for over 1000 years Italy wasn't a country but a group of separate city states, occasionally unified into small territories or Kingdoms like Middle Italy, but never for long. it was only unified into a single nation again in 1871. (I am vastly oversimplifying)
      then there were Mussolini's fascists.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    17. Re:..and it starts by dywolf · · Score: 2

      Ladies and Gentleman, I present to you the Alt-Right version of history.
      Meant not to educate on history (because it isn't history) but to manipulate modern opinions on modern topics and help spread xenophobia.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    18. Re:..and it starts by dywolf · · Score: 2

      no it is not, because even that isn't accurate.
      the concept of the "Fall of the Roman Empire" is a myth, a misconception created by a lack of knowledge of history.

      the GP already addressed one point: that the Empire really just split into two parts, and the Eastern Empire survived for quite some time as a cohesive entity. but that division was also the start of this concept of "western" and "eastern" cultures. another part of this myth is that there was a "dark ages" following the fall of the empire. but there wasn't.

      see, the western empire also never really fell. there was no one event where it just ceased to be.

      rather it gradually dissolved, with pockets of what we would call Roman Civilization persisting for various periods of time.
      the "fall" of the empire wasn't a single concrete event like the fall of Nazi Germany or the end of the Ming Dynasty but a gradual process.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    19. Re:..and it starts by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 2

      Ah, that would be America, invading and destroying in AT Least 33 countries in just the last 70 years.

    20. Re:..and it starts by Gussington · · Score: 0

      the "fall" of the empire wasn't a single concrete event like the fall of Nazi Germany or the end of the Ming Dynasty but a gradual process.

      No-one said it was. But it did fall, just like a gently flowing creek finds it's way from mountain to sea. Just because it didn't happen in one day, doesn't mean it didn't happen at all.
      Back to the original context, are we reaching peak American Empire? This doesn't mean we all wake up tomorrow living in caves, but on the surface the fall appears to have begun.

    21. Re:..and it starts by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      From the 6th century historian John Malalas. He accused the Vandals, arianist christians, to have blindly destroyed everything of value when they sacked Rome in 455 AD. Interestingly though, John Malalas was a catholic christian, lived 100 years later, was thus no eye witness and badmouthed everyone not of catholic faith.

      The pump don't work cause the Vandals took the handles.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    22. Re:..and it starts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Byzantine Empire was in pretty woeful shape long before it fell, and the Ottomans, at least early on, did a great deal to restore some degree of order.

      The Byzantine Empire was in woeful shape in large part because of Islam - and the Islamic Turks committed a series of atrocities that devastated Anatolia after the battle of Manzikert.

      "The Turks ravaged the country mercilessly...Anatolia became a virtual desert...The most important single military result of Manzikert then, was to eliminate the principal native recruiting ground of the empire, a region from which it had habitually raised armies of 120,000 men and more." - Encyclopedia of Military History (Dupuy & Dupuy).

      Any claims of "restoring order" have to be set against this.

  2. I don't trust 'em. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Of course you would expect them to lie about it when confronted with the uncomfortable facts.

    1. Re:I don't trust 'em. by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      If China had invented a Climate Change Hoax, wouldn't they have patented it?

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    2. Re:I don't trust 'em. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when does china care about patents? Don't they usually just copy US patented designs and manufacture and sell them for cheaper than the US company that designed it can?

    3. Re:I don't trust 'em. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are we still talking about China or are we on to Trump now ?

    4. Re:I don't trust 'em. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know exactly, but around the time they started developing more than any other country in the world...

    5. Re: I don't trust 'em. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just like US stole IP from Europe during the industrial revolution. What goes around comes around.

    6. Re:I don't trust 'em. by meerling · · Score: 1

      China didn't want any part of the talk about reducing emissions as I recall.
      Something about you've already done this, now it's our turn to build an industrial base, F-U.

    7. Re: I don't trust 'em. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So China saw all the coal power plants in the US and thought "It's odd, but if they're doing it then it must be good" and started a coal plant building spree?

    8. Re:I don't trust 'em. by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      They don't have to copy the designs. They are provided free of charge. How else are they going to build and assemble the damn things for the US companies that need them produced for next to nothing so they can sell them at Wal Mart?

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    9. Re:I don't trust 'em. by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      That would just lend legitimacy to the idea of intellectual property rights.

    10. Re:I don't trust 'em. by dywolf · · Score: 1

      actually China, and now India as well, are leading the way and setting the example when it comes to emissions controls in developing economies. (though im not sure if China should still be considered a "developing" economy).

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  3. yes! by vel-ex-tech · · Score: 2

    Climate change AND Trump!

    Get your popcorn ready!

    1. Re:yes! by grub · · Score: 4, Funny


      Get your popcorn ready!

      In a few years I expect to be able to toss the kernels on my driveway and watch them pop there.

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    2. Re:yes! by H3lldr0p · · Score: 3, Funny

      Or we could sous vide a steak in our cars while we're at work.

    3. Re:yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We'll be making nuke-yular tacos on the hoods of our cars.

    4. Re:yes! by GWXerxes · · Score: 1

      What would you have us do other than vote?

    5. Re:yes! by Jason+Levine · · Score: 2

      Nuclear taco trucks on every street corner!

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    6. Re:yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can I have caramel coated popcorn? It's a bummer how it's available in Indian theaters, but not here

    7. Re:yes! by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      It's pronounced nook-you-lar..... nook-you-lar

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    8. Re:yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not fair, I did my part when I voted for him. And guess what, the TPP is already dead, and all the so-called right wing violence should be called such because it's being perpetrated ON the right wing, not by it. TRUMP 2020!

    9. Re:yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Trump just needs to hold a press conference about SystemD now.

    10. Re: yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, he is more correct than not.

    11. Re: yes! by acrimonious+howard · · Score: 5, Insightful

      More like "Look at the results of scientific inquiry, it's right. If you don't agree, AND don't give data that refutes it, fuck you." http://www.skepticalscience.co...

    12. Re:yes! by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Given that amount that he tweets, emacs should feel right at home to him

    13. Re: yes! by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The left has been so egotistical, with their "I'm right and fuck you if you don't agree" way of thinking

      I guess you've never met a religious person.

    14. Re:yes! by Jzanu · · Score: 0, Troll

      You are retarded - http://time.com/4569129/racist... and http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/10/... which shows Trump made a feeble attempt to defuse it but hasn't made any serious efforts.

    15. Re: yes! by HornWumpus · · Score: 0

      Lots of them. Mostly leftists. (true for definitions of religion that encompase any belief system putting forth conclusions as axioms.)

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    16. Re:yes! by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1, Funny

      What are you doing here? Shouldn't you be painting swastikas and attacking people with bricks? Go outside and play.

    17. Re:yes! by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      In a few years I expect to be able to toss the [corn] kernels on my driveway and watch them pop there.

      Don't need to wait, put them in your pocket with a Galaxy Note 7.

    18. Re:yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh, how far the u.s. has sunk. chinese government has more common sense than our president-elect. we are fucked.

    19. Re:yes! by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      Uh, edlin might be more his speed.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    20. Re:yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Feeble? Id say its all he can do at this point. He aint the president yet moron.

    21. Re:yes! by Jzanu · · Score: 0, Troll

      Faggot he can calm his frothing mouth slack jawed cronies the fuck down. They are his SS nothing to do with having official power. You fucking inbred retard.

    22. Re: yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So what you're saying is that the red states voted in Orange Hitler to get back at people who called them names.
      That's a very rational and mature reaction.

    23. Re: yes! by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Using either SkepticalScience or Wattsupwiththat as a reference is generally inflammatory and counter-productive to your arguments. Claims that a Consensus is somehow relevant in scientific endeavors is nonsensical.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    24. Re:yes! by grub · · Score: 1

      I'm ~150 km from the North Dakota border in Manitoba. Still well above freezing most days in mid-November and there have been recent years where we haven't had snow until December.

      Keep burning that coal!

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    25. Re: yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like a good reason to stop being wrong. Nobody can believe the lying, narcissistic, racist, xenophobic, misogynist, bloviating buffoon of a demagogue Trump (nee' Drumpf) could be right about much of anything except, perhaps when he says his daughter is hot. If you don't want to be wrong, try being right...

    26. Re: yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Technically, the silent minority. Clinton won the popular vote, and neither got a majority!

    27. Re: yes! by Layzej · · Score: 2

      Using either SkepticalScience or Wattsupwiththat as a reference is generally inflammatory

      What? The SkepticalScience.com link references 8 published papers all showing a strong consensus. If you don't like Skeptical Science then maybe read the published papers. The site is always well sourced.

      Claims that a Consensus is somehow relevant in scientific endeavors is nonsensical.

      The parent didn't claim that the consensus was relevant to the science. The consensus is informed by the science, not the other way around. The parent just pointed out that the science shows that man made global warming is real and that any crazy hand waving about a Chinese conspiracy is, well, crazy.

    28. Re: yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good job proving him right!

    29. Re: yes! by Jzanu+Syr · · Score: 0

      God damn these whiny ass Republicans embody the very traits they claim to despite. "Oh whoa is me I am despised!" except it is for the shit you are advocating.

    30. Re: yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I'm right and fuck you if you don't agree" way of thinking...

      Yup, sounds like Trump to me.

    31. Re:yes! by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

      Godwin point already?
      That was fast.

    32. Re: yes! by ZipK · · Score: 4, Informative

      Technically, the silent not-even-a-plurality. Clinton won the popular vote, and neither got a majority!

    33. Re:yes! by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Informative

      You'll feel that way until a series of drought condition summers lead to massive wild fires. Look at what happened up in Northern Alberta and Saskatchewan last summer. For chrissake, the fire is still burning!

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    34. Re:yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck conservative slashdot

    35. Re: yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Staying home and not voting won the popular vote.
      45%(lazy non voters) + 26% (Trump voters) of people either wanted Trump, or didn't care if he won. So he did.

    36. Re:yes! by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      There are a whole bunch of fires and they burn incredibly dully. Climate change and winning the vote of an ill informed section of the electorate, who wish to be told what they want to hear, regardless of whether or not it is true, hence religion is also very popular to that electoral vote market segment. Tell them what they want to hear, no matter how ludicrous and they will vote for you, tell them what they do not want to hear, no matter how truthful and accurate and they will not vote for you. Be thankful at least in the recent election cycle none of the candidates waffled on about God speaking to them.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    37. Re: yes! by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      You forgot: therefore let's burn down our country.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    38. Re: yes! by Dunbal · · Score: 2

      If the election were based on total popular vote I would have campaigned in N.Y. Florida and California and won even bigger and more easily

      "If the election were based on total popular vote I would have campaigned in N.Y. Florida and California and won even bigger and more easily" -- tweeted today by your friend, Donald J Trump.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    39. Re:yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I personally cant wait until the City of New York is underwater. It will make great coral reefs!!!!!

    40. Re: yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the same polling approach for "consensus" that led us to conclude that Hillary would win the elections.

      If only one side gets to decide who counts when taking the poll for whether there is a consensus or not, the results are meaningless. More do if those doing the counting have a personal stake in the outcome or a preference for results one way or the other.

      If you took a random poll of all scientists across the country, in all fields, published or not--basically anyone holding a scientific degree of some variety or equivalent experience--it would be more meaningful.

    41. Re: yes! by Layzej · · Score: 1

      No. This is a literature review. Please read the papers.

    42. Re: yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are, of course, deliberately ignoring the whole "we only count absentee ballots in close elections" thing, right?

    43. Re: yes! by BoogieChile · · Score: 1

      When it upgrades to "I'm right and you're going to hell if you don't agree"

    44. Re: yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Consensus doesn't mean a literature review. That's an improper usage of the word. Please read the papers means you are stuck on the idea of only listening to the people who wrote them. It's EXACTLY the same concept that got political analysts to believing that Hillary would win... Only listening to people who agree with your opinion.

      I have no doubt that if you spoke with all the scientists who agree with your opinion, you would find a 97 percent consensus that they agree with you. Congratulations. Now find a methodology for collecting opinions that is really representative of people's opinions. Remember, the goal here is not to identify the scientific view that most approximates nature, but rather to accurately portray the range of opinions that exist. That means, if you are using an artificial means to filter some opinions--like only polling those whose papers have been accepted through a peer review process composed of peers who favor one view--then you failed.

      If all you want is a self congratulatory statistic of consensus, keep using that 97 percent figure. But realize it's totally meaningless, because your survey sensors were prejudicially calibrated.

    45. Re: yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or to put it another way, the study of consensus is a political science topic, not physical science. The idea of climate scientists studying consensus amongst the scientific community is just as crazy as the idea of political scientists studying the climate.

    46. Re: yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same thing in this case. Seriously, climate change proponents treat it as a religion.

    47. Re: yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Humans are not rational and mature. We are creatures of emotion and attachment first and foremost. Learn why this is and how it works, and you will understand humanity.
      Developmental psychologist Gordon Neufeld has done a lot of work in this field. It is mainly about childhood and maturation, but it explains a lot about humans in general. The lectures "kids need us more than friends" and "what makes a bully" on YouTube are good starting points.

    48. Re: yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump implied "I feel the frustration you feel, while she doesn't care". This is powerful. False and misleading, but still powerful.

    49. Re: yes! by yuriklastalov · · Score: 1

      It's less "religious" behavior than it is "righteous" behavior. The idea of righteousness may have developed as part of religion, but doesn't require it.

    50. Re: yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not-even-a-plurality?

      Exactly a plurality.

    51. Re:yes! by grub · · Score: 1

      I was joking. Warm here in January spells doom for most other places.

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    52. Re: yes! by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Please, those papers have thoroughly discredited by numerous studies.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    53. Re: yes! by Layzej · · Score: 3, Informative

      Consensus doesn't mean a literature review

      Needless to say, scientists disagree with you. If the science clearly and unambiguously shows something to be true, then there is considered to be a consensus around that fact.

      Please read the papers means you are stuck on the idea of only listening to the people who wrote them.

      As opposed to making things up whole cloth? Well yes. That's the whole point of science.

    54. Re: yes! by Layzej · · Score: 1

      All eight? You may not like the findings, but you will have a hard time finding a paper that finds otherwise. Anyone who looks at this finds the same. There is a strong consensus. This is not surprising to anyone who has taken even a cursory review of the literature.

    55. Re:yes! by Omnivorax · · Score: 1

      By then, the ocean will be too acidic for coral.

    56. Re: yes! by quax · · Score: 1

      Makes me sad that puppies had to die for that crap.

    57. Re: yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once again, this isn't about whether the science is right or not, or whether the science accurately depicts nature. It's about whether it's honest to claim that a consensus of views exists among the scientific community. On that point, climate scientists are simply unqualified to judge. The scientists themselves are the subjects being studied... They can't make the judgment on the study of themselves without interfering with the outcome.

      It is also outside their expertise... Maybe anthropology or sociology.

    58. Re: yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, there is a consensus because the science is clear and unambiguous, and the science is clear and unambiguous because there is a consensus? No.

    59. Re: yes! by Layzej · · Score: 2

      So, there is a consensus because the science is clear and unambiguous,

      Yes.

      and the science is clear and unambiguous because there is a consensus?

      No,

    60. Re: yes! by Layzej · · Score: 1

      These studies are often executed by sociologists and science historians, although it's not clear why a physical scientist would be unqualified to perform a literature review.

    61. Re: yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      None of those eight papers appear to be written by sociologists or historians. Rather, they are written by climate scientists attempting to analyze the community of which they themselves are a part. Both a conflict of interest and a nonsensical approach to observation and conclusion... It's like putting a subatomic particle on the board of scientists assessing whether it is a Higgs boson or not.

      Even if a literature review were a complete approach to determining a consensus, no one should execute a literature review that includes their own work and expect it to be considered unbiased.

    62. Re: yes! by Layzej · · Score: 1

      None of those eight papers appear to be written by sociologists or historians

      Only if you don't take a second to check. Authors of climate consensus studies — including Naomi Oreskes (Science historian), Ed Maibach (Professor of Communication), J. Stuart Carlton (Social Scientist), and John Cook (web page designer/climate communicator)

  4. Facts, those darn facts again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Facts are a conspiracy started by the Chinese to make Trump non-competitive!

    1. Re:Facts, those darn facts again... by DickBreath · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Just because a scientist makes a logical sensible argument with valid points and facts is no reason you should listen to him or her. Especially where public policy is concerned and some corporations might make less money.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    2. Re:Facts, those darn facts again... by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Just because a scientist makes a logical sensible argument

      Wrong discipline. You want philosophy, that's just down the hall. I really don't give a shit about the scientist's argument. Show me the experiment and the data.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    3. Re:Facts, those darn facts again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you believe a scientist's argument exists without an experiment and data? There is no purpose in doing an experiment if a scientist does it for the purpose of "I feel like doing this for no reason at all". Experiments always exist with a purpose and the scientist's argument is based upon the purpose and the outcome of the experiment.

    4. Re:Facts, those darn facts again... by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      The experiment and data does not EXIST until I can reproduce it. That's the only way I know he's not making it all up.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  5. Facts don't scare Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    He makes up his own reality.

    1. Re:Facts don't scare Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple licensed their Reality Distortion Field(r) from Trump during his transformative years at the beginning of the 80's.

    2. Re:Facts don't scare Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When Adam Savage says "I reject your reality and substitute my own!" we laugh because he's obviously just making a silly joke.

      When Trump et al say this we can but raise our palms to our faces in awed, depressed silence.

    3. Re:Facts don't scare Trump by Verdatum · · Score: 1

      When pressured on it, he'll just say the same as usual "It was something I heard. People send me this stuff, maybe I take a quick look at it, I pass it along."

    4. Re:Facts don't scare Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't Rove say that they made their own reality in the early stages of the Iraq screw-up?

      It's entirely possible that a big enough idiot can blunder on believing their made-up reality until they stub their toe on a rock that they're convinced isn't there. Everyone else gets to pick up the pieces for, what, a decade?

    5. Re:Facts don't scare Trump by felixrising · · Score: 1

      Clearly not! https://www.facebook.com/NowTh... Reality distortion field engaged!

    6. Re:Facts don't scare Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, Chuck Norris did it first.

  6. ok by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mega post

  7. Wrong! He never said that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If you don't stop saying that he did he'll sue you!

  8. Historical evidence is yet another Chinese scam! by John+Allsup · · Score: 1, Funny

    This 'historical evidence' thing is another scam exported by China to the world. Indeed they have many sweatshop factories where children are worked to death to produce 'historical evidence' to export to the US.

    --
    John_Chalisque
  9. Re:fascinatingly crafted reply... by Karl+Cocknozzle · · Score: 5, Informative

    Paranoid much? No part of their statement says what you claim it is. None.

    --
    Who did what now?
  10. Re:fascinatingly crafted reply... by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Except China doesn't think AGW is a hoax, so this appears to be yet another climate denier simply inventing claims.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  11. Logic? by nycsubway · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Why is China trying to use logic with Trump. The media would play back the exact words or video of Trump saying something ridiculous, and he'd say "I didn't say that."

    But I appreciate China trying to be serious about it. Our new president certainly won't be.

    1. Re:Logic? by DickBreath · · Score: 5, Funny

      Trump can simply build a wall around China.

      It will be a great, Great wall, I tell you. I promise.

      And we'll make the Mexico pay for it.

      Everyone who has ever seen one of my great walls has just loved it. Believe me. I know my great walls. Classy beautiful stuff.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    2. Re:Logic? by ugen · · Score: 1

      Chinese are too straightforward for this type of thinking. It is beyond them that someone may ignore basic facts and claim 2+2=5, and a large swathe of population would cheer on and support that claim.

    3. Re:Logic? by swillden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Chinese are too straightforward for this type of thinking. It is beyond them that someone may ignore basic facts and claim 2+2=5, and a large swathe of population would cheer on and support that claim.

      Right. It would never occur to them to claim the Tianenmen Square protest never happened, or that Tibet was never independent, or...

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    4. Re:Logic? by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      Read this.

    5. Re:Logic? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Why is China trying to use logic with Trump

      Perhaps out of random curiosity, such as, "What happens if I give a walking cane to a fish?"

      Anyhow, Trump can claim Bush #1 was duped by Those Evil Scientists.

    6. Re:Logic? by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      Indeed.

      Are we sure that Trump and Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf are not the same person? Has anyone seen them together?

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    7. Re:Logic? by phorm · · Score: 1

      Well he might have some plausible deniability on that front soon...

    8. Re:Logic? by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      Trump can simply build a wall around China.

      If Trump really believes climate change isn't real, then why is he building walls around his golf courses? (to be correct, he wants it around Ireland).

      He should put his money where his mouth is and not do it. Hell, Ireland should say since it's not real, he doesn't need the wall. It's either real, and it's in his economic best interest to protect his properties, or it's not real as he claims, in which case he doesn't need the walls.

    9. Re:Logic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe Trump will contract one of his corporations to dismantle the Great Wall of China and use it to wall off Mexico.

      Trump will get rich
      Tourism will boom with all those people wanting to see the great wall of China/Mexico
      He can claim its recycling, so STFU about warming you Hillary sponsored protesters
      He could even use illegal immigrants as slave/prison labour to keep costs down, and if they get hot the can cool down at the waterboard.
      He could then use carbon dating to prove the white men were there first and remove all the rights Native Americans have because clearly they were not there first .

    10. Re:Logic? by swillden · · Score: 1

      Read this.

      I don't see the relevance to my point.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    11. Re:Logic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh maybe because Sesame St said they had tried 5 times and Trump still did not understand so they were not going to try a 6th time, even if China asked them to.

    12. Re:Logic? by Jzanu+Syr · · Score: 0

      Try thinking about the article itself, put your past post in context, then it does.

    13. Re:Logic? by swillden · · Score: 1

      Try thinking about the article itself, put your past post in context, then it does.

      I did. Don't see it. My point was that the Chinese are perfectly capable of doublethink; I was making no comment about climate change.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    14. Re:Logic? by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      "What happens if I give a walking cane to a fish?"

      You absolute bastard it was you!

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    15. Re:Logic? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      I imagined something more like:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    16. Re:Logic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Butthurt much?

    17. Re:Logic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly, they've tried to brush all that under the rug. And nearly succeeded too, but luckily some people remember and keep reminding them.

    18. Re:Logic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And we'll make the Mongolians pay for it.

      FTFY

  12. Re:fascinatingly crafted reply... by wierd_w · · Score: 1

    I am NOT a climate change denier. The data is incontrovertable, regardless of what morons say about hockeysticks.

    I am pointing out that the verbiage used is suspicious.

  13. File under.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    File under: More shit Trump said to get elected. Hopefully.

    Ever higher storm surges in NYC affect him personally, and his businesses, after all.

    1. Re:File under.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This was tweeted a while back, in his reality TV days. I'm guessing (hoping) what he really meant was the concept of having the first world rush and make hurried decisions and changes to their manufacturing and industries to cope with climate change (a very costly endeavor) was created by the Chinese, as they are the ones who would benefit the most.
       
        This at least, is what I truly hope he meant. Perhaps I'm wrong, but despite what people wish to believe, Trump is not an idiot. His entire life hasn't been lived for him, so that means he's made some very good decisions that got him to where he is. I would hope someone who can be smart enough to do that is smart enough not to really believe the Chinese invented a hoax for the world.
       
      One of his biggest problems is saying things in a blurt, then not caring to back off of it later. He's gotten much better in the last few weeks but in his reality TV prime like 2012 (His Comedy Central Roast days) it was all about attention, branding and staying in the news for things. I don't count his stuff from back then as "real".

    2. Re: File under.... by KenHansen · · Score: 1

      File under: More shit Trump said to get elected.

      Right, he said in in 2012, then repeatedly pointed out it was a joke the three intervening years between that tweet and his announcement of running for President because he knew THAT TWEET would help him win the White House. Really?

    3. Re:File under.... by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think you'd best look at who is in charge of Congress now, and who Trump has surrounded himself with. It will be quite something if NOAA isn't defunded and Federal money to universities doing climate change research is clawed back. The one thing is certain is that whatever Trump is, he's at the center of a large body of people who hate science and believe scientists, particularly climatologists, are evil schemers out to destroy the America.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    4. Re:File under.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, by the time that happens he would have created a law that make the government liable for compensation

    5. Re: File under.... by Verdatum · · Score: 1

      He was absolutely building a constituency in 2012. He was thinking about running then, but decided it made more sense to wait another 4 years. Further, since then, he has doubled down on denying climate change. So if he was joking, then he was just joking about the Chinese involvement; not the hoax part.

    6. Re:File under.... by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      I don't think he'll be alive in 100 years. I know Presidents get good health care but...

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    7. Re: File under.... by KenHansen · · Score: 1
      You seem to think that he had an articulable strategy back in 2012 - he had no strategy then or now, he literally said whatever popped into his mind.

      Trump won because he spoke to the white majority, Hillary lost because she spoke to the minorities. On election night, the major TV networks spent the first 2 hours of their coverage focusing on the Latino vote, as if that was the deciding factor - it wasn't.

    8. Re: File under.... by Verdatum · · Score: 1
      I'll admit that, yes, I absolutely think he had a rough plan at that point. I think that was his true motivation for digging in on the whole Obama birth certificate thing. Trump has been thinking about the presidency since 1988. He ran briefly in 2000. So we know the interest was there. Then, in picking at that birther scab, he developed a following of conservative conspiracy theorists. I don't know if you remember, but Trump intentionally left us to wonder whether or not he would run until pretty late in the game. He addresses exactly this in his Comedy Central Roast. (He also hints at a bunch of this in his commentary for the History Channel program, The Men Who Built America) I think that birther diversion is where he started to discover that by appealing to that group, and then running an extremely negative, and unabashed campaign, heavily leveraging his reality TV success and twitter following, he could at least secure the republican nomination. And I think that's where he confirmed that you can talk about "things that my people are uncovering", and even when it's impossible that those things had any merit, you just stop mentioning it and your constituency will not fault you for it. So just keep using that technique. Say crazy stuff, get disproven, doesn't matter, say something new. And once you have the nomination, you can potentially largely rely upon the republican fear and contempt of the democratic party, especially when (lucky, but not surprising) going up against a woman with potential legal concerns to slingshot him into the White House.

      The media was expecting that the latino vote would be the deciding factor in the Florida election, and you're correct, it turned out that it wasn't. Still, it certainly might have contributed in other swing states that he did lose, such as Virginia and Colorado. Obviously, that's of no help if you don't win the other, often larger swing states. Trump did a fantastic job in that respect. He chose the right states to focus on, and it seems to have helped.

      Hillary lost for a lot of reasons. Trump won for a lot of reasons. I really admire the guy. I don't think I want him to be president, but I still admire him.

  14. It's alot easier to believe human climate change by JoeyRox · · Score: 1

    When you live in a country that's so polluted you can't see your own hand in front of you.

  15. Re:fascinatingly crafted reply... by Marsoupial · · Score: 1

    Well of course, who really wants to be fingered?

  16. Re:Nice try by unixisc · · Score: 1

    Besides, it's RINOs that they are talking about, if they have to go back to President Bush XLI

  17. Re:fascinatingly crafted reply... by WhiplashII · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yes, but are you a climate change HOAX denier?

    I posit that this is an area on which we can all agree!

    Either you are a (climate change) (HOAX denier), or you are a (climate change HOAX) (denier). But we are now all (climate change HOAX denier)s! So let us bask in our reconciliation!

    --
    while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
  18. Re:fascinatingly crafted reply... by DahGhostfacedFiddlah · · Score: 5, Funny

    I agree 100% with Karl Cocknozzle. Thank you, Karl Cocknozzle, for being the voice of reason in this thread.

    The year 2016 has found me saying a lot of things I never thought I'd say.

  19. Re:Historical evidence is yet another Chinese scam by WhiplashII · · Score: 2

    Mr President, we cannot allow a "historical evidence" gap! - Gen. Buck

    --
    while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
  20. Re:Nice try by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Funny

    Nice try, China! I don't believe you!

    Indeed. If climate changes is a Chinese hoax, then of course they would deny it. So by denying it, they are actually providing even further evidence that it is a hoax. Now we just need to figure out how they photoshopped NASA photos to show a million square miles of open ocean where there use to be arctic ice. The obvious explanation is that NASA is in on the hoax.

  21. *Bag of Popcorn* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm going to enjoy watching other nations make a fool out of Trump. Sure it's going to hurt every other American out there but we asked for it apparently since he's in even though I didn't vote for him.

    1. Re:*Bag of Popcorn* by daniel23 · · Score: 1

      this will be a bitter taste of fun and I may speak for many saying we'd rather not have to make those jokes.

      That said, you don't need a nation to make him look like a fool.
      You don't need anyone else at all.

      --
      605413? Yes, it's a prime.
  22. Re:fascinatingly crafted reply... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > they just dont want to be the ones fingered for creating it.

    Looks like China is setting up for the trade wars early. First deals cut will (hopefully for them) be to reduce emissions (which they wont). Well played China.

  23. Re:fascinatingly crafted reply... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, the verbiage used is not suspicious.

    The Chinese are denying the specific allegation by Trump that they invented the whole thing. They're saying "your claim simply doesn't match the recorded facts, look here and here, you can check this for yourself". (Good luck trying that on Trump, by the way.)

    They are not addressing the "hoax" part in particular (although they do dismiss it in passing), because that part is not theirs to address. They probably figure, if Trump won't believe American scientists on that subject, he's hardly likely to take their word for it.

    Trump's claim is what we call a "compound lie", and it's much more reasonable to address it one part at a time than to try to tackle the whole thing at once. This is not "suspicious", it's how we Earth people usually work.

  24. Re:Nice try by Guybrush_T · · Score: 4, Informative

    -1 Troll

    But seriously, what the hell ? China, like the US never wanted to do any effort about climate, they never cared that much about pollution and global warming. You could say it was invented by Europe, or Japan, but ... China ???

    Anyway, it was not invented, it is a reported fact. There is no intent to find here.

  25. Re:fascinatingly crafted reply... by JoshuaZ · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Unfortunately, Trump has shown a complete unwillingness to care about facts when they don't fit his narrative. Many on the right have taken this as a cue to do the same. I've now had two separate arguments with Trump supporters who have claimed that a majority of voters voted for Trump in the election. One of them kept repeating the claim in other locations even after I had explained to him the myriad things incorrect about the claim. Most likely the same is happening here. At one point I had a very negative view of the whole "reality has a left-wing bias" meme, but it seems like we're moving closer and closer to that.

  26. Re:fascinatingly crafted reply... by wierd_w · · Score: 1

    Please read my initial post, and process it with that clearly labyrinthine brain of yours.

    You will see that my objection revolves around this:

    1) China objects to being called the source of what trump calls a hoax.
    2) Stays strangely silent to the fact that it is not even a hoax at all, and that climate change from human action is very measurably real.

    I think that very clearly demonstrates that I deny that it is a hoax.

    The only hoax that china has come out against, is that they started it. (which they didnt.)

  27. Re: They're Chinese by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's sad is that some people dont understand irony and will read posts like these litterally.

  28. One only has to... by sudden.zero · · Score: 1, Informative

    ...use one's eyes to know that climate change is real. When I was a kid, in the 80's, I normally had my coat, and gloves out by this time in November. Shoot we had at least 1 to 3 inches of snowfall by this time in November. Don't believe me then look here: https://www.currentresults.com... Then fast forward to 2016: there is no snow in sight, and it is 72 degrees currently in Overland Park, KS where I am. Don't tell me climate change doesn't exist. If you don't believe your senses then look at the great barrier reef that is slowly dying due to the water being too warm http://news.nationalgeographic... Climate change is real, but IMO there is nothing that we can do about it now. Humanity hasn't invested enough time in developing clean energy, clean transportation, etc. to turn things around. A few people like Elon Musk are trying, but the price point for Teslas are still beyond most peoples reach. Very few people that are in that price point are also Earth conscious / green.

    1. Re:One only has to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Musk isn't for saving any environment, that is marketing. Musk is for saving the green in his wallet with shoddy quality control and denying product defects. Rest of your post is good though.

    2. Re:One only has to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'll see your anecdote with, here in Virginia it's been a lot colder than usual at this time of year. I have plenty of pictures of me and the family at Thanksgiving with t-shirts on and all sitting outside in the back yard. This year everyone is already bundled up in coats and scarves (except me because I am always hot natured). Soon after the official end of summer, it got quite cool quite fast.

      My friend in Norway has told me it's already freezing where she is too, and usually she has at least a little bit of warmth in the sun at this time.

    3. Re:One only has to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Climate change has been ongoing for billions of years. Global warming AND cooling has been ongoing for billions of years. Conflating climate change with catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is disingenuous at best. The average snowfall in your area in November is 1.10 inches according to wikipedia. In December the average is 3.00 inches. In January it is 5.70 inches. Looking outside at the weather one year and comparing it with a memory you had when you were a kid isnt going to help you very much. The simple fact is that some people want to use the term climate change as opposed to the rhetoric (that was pushed by Al Gore) words CATASTROPHIC GLOBAL WARMING. See how using climate change instead of the goofy term confuses the issue. Then you have millions of people parroting the phrase 'omg climate change is / is not real'. CLimate change is real. Gloabal cooling and warming are real. Catastrophic global warming murdering polar bears is bunk. In fact , the global total for polar bears has been increasing for quite some time. Al Gore would tell you that the Vostok ice cores show definitively that CO2 rose before temperature. That is not what the PEER reviewed papers written about the testing says. It is really cute you think weather in November is proof of climate change. Guess what , climate change has been real longer than you have been alive and it will happen LONG after you die. Pollution is a problem since humans create a lot of it. However, CO2 is not air pollution. It is NECESSARY for us to survive - Indirectly through plants. The extra CO2 in the atmosphere has helped plant growth across the globe. I hope we get closer to 500ppm since that is probably the sweet spot for plant growth in general. Disagree with me if you must, but climate change has been happening LONG before humans showed up on the planet and will continue to do so long after we murder each other over silly arguments about the climate.

    4. Re:One only has to... by NetNed · · Score: 1

      Ah wasn't KS pounded with snow and cold temps 2 years ago LIKE THE REST OF THE FUCKING COUNTRY? But yeah, let's ignore that, the year before that too, where we had record cold across the nation. I am sure your need of a coat is much more accurate. All the money that was poured in to it and yet it's "still dire" every year does make your statement about not being able to do anything true, but it's a little concerning that more people don't see it as an outright scam. It's the same as a televangelists of the 80's that always needed just $10,000 more to complete their goals or else doom and gloom will follow. Some mantra, different scam.

    5. Re:One only has to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought climate and weather were different. Are we changing that story now? Doesn't fit the narrative anymore?

      Also anecdotal stories about how it was colder in your youth I have heard all my life from many people, long before climate change was even discussed. In all likelihood you just don't remember it well.

    6. Re:One only has to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Use some common sense. It is called Climate Change, not everything is going to get warmer. And while we don't need to go around wrecking the economy. You don't have to be a complete dick about things and pollute and waste away. Electric cars are a good thing. Eco friendly processes are a good thing. Stop trying to turn everything into an evil conspiracy scam. Use some common sense.

    7. Re: One only has to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://xkcd.com/1732

    8. Re:One only has to... by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      And once again, weather is not climate, and regional climate is not global climate. Global warming means overall average temperatures rise, not that every single location on the planet is going to get hotter, or heat equally.

      But I suspect you know that, it's just all you can do in the face of insurmountable evidence is throw out moronic asides. It's really about making yourself feel better, isn't it?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    9. Re: One only has to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ice doesn't lie. Look at Arctic Ocean, Greenland ice sheet, the glaciers, all melting at accelerating rate; unprecedented coral bleaching due to rising ocean temps; rising ocean acidification, rising sea levels and the delta of that rise. There is a mountain of data of the most diverse type and origin in support of the theory that human caused rising CO2 is the driving factor. But that's OK; Trumplike, you will deny you ever said it when Marco Rubio's congressional district slides gently beneath the waves.

    10. Re:One only has to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Exactly. I used to get quite emotional trying to convince thick-skulled people that we might want to consider doing something about climate change before it was too late. Now I don't, because (a) it almost certainly is too late and (b) most people genuinely do not seem to care. If they cared then they would have at least - at bare minimum - changed their patterns of consumption in some sort of token effort to save the joint. They didn't then. They don't now. We are literally staring disaster in the face and people. just. do. not. care. At all. They would rather be distracted by the various circuses that fill their vacuous present than make the most token attempt to secure a better future.

      Easier just to sit back and try to emulate the mulish blindness of the masses, because if you know the cliff if approaching but can't do anything to avoid it there is really no point worrying about the future.

    11. Re: One only has to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like how you guys tie in global warming with ZOMG THE WORLD IS ENDING!!! Please note that plenty of people have called the end of the world and so far every single one of them has been wrong. Also, do educate yourself on the metric system. You'll learn that 18cm a CENTURY is not really all that shocking. Your great great great grand-children will have plenty of time to move. Venice is sinking much quicker than that.

    12. Re:One only has to... by Minupla · · Score: 1
      --
      On the whole, I find that I prefer Slashdot posts to twitter ones because I don't get limited to 140 chars before
    13. Re:One only has to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhm, step back a moment here.
      He responded to a post containing a weather report with another post containing a weather report.
      If you got tilted by his post but not the previous then you are most likely not using honest arguments to prove you point.

  29. Re:Nice try by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

    Just several years ago, I would have assumed that you were joking. Nowadays scientists are being inundated with death threats.

  30. Or denier of climate change hoaxes by raymorris · · Score: 1

    Personally, I deny, vehemently, that San Francisco will be underwater by 2020. There are many, many claims that are climate change hoaxes.

    There is also legitimate reason to be concerned about a very slow increase in temperature.

    1. Re:Or denier of climate change hoaxes by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

      Yes, people have made a lot of foolish claims, like trying to pin an exact year on when cities go underwater. And conservatives often paste a big list of hundreds of predictions (deserts, floods, famines, etc.) to mock scientists.

      But let's be realistic. No one has never changed the composition of the atmosphere before, raising the concentration of its most optically active constituent by 30%. Nobody knows exactly what will happen. But it's probably going to include things we don't like, some of which are on that list.

    2. Re:Or denier of climate change hoaxes by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Some of us hope an earthquake will slough San Francisco off into the ocean long before the current Ice Age* ends.

      (*Geologic time, you gotta love it.)

  31. Deals Don't Include Developing Nations/China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I believe that was Trump's point. That these climate deals make exceptions for developing nations. That means they can continue to increase CO2 output, so nothing is stopping it.

    China has anti-pollution laws, but they aren't obeyed (and I hear they actually remove heavy metal filters from factories moved to China). The U.S. has effectively been exporting its pollution to China.

    Trump's trade policies will likely reflect this fact. They'll force factories back for existing in such a polluting country.

    1. Re:Deals Don't Include Developing Nations/China by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      The theory behind giving developing nations more time is to allow them to use fossil fuels to get their economies to the point where they can transition to alternatives. For the most part the industrialized world is probably within a decade or two of a major transition, if it just pulls the finger out of its ass, starts pricing carbon for the damage it is doing (in other words, remove what effectively amounts to a massive subsidy to an unsustainable means of energy production). As it is, alternative energy is making major inroads in the industrialized world.

      Yes, China's emissions are a problem, but the fact is that the West, and the US in particular, are still responsible for the overwhelming amount of greenhouse gas emissions, so blaming it on China is little more than a farting man blaming the stink on his dog's bad breath.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  32. Re:fascinatingly crafted reply... by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

    The data is incontrovertable, regardless of what morons say about hockeysticks.

    Yeah, what evidence? "The Earth hasn't warmed in 18 years" based on data from a satellite in a decaying orbit?

  33. so, China looked Trump in the eye and said... by boskone · · Score: 1

    "I'm not lying to you"?

    How is that any more or less authorative than the original statements they've made? It proves nothing. If they aren't hoaxing, they'd say the same thing as they would if they are hoaxing.

    1. Re:so, China looked Trump in the eye and said... by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      Except for all this.

    2. Re:so, China looked Trump in the eye and said... by ShooterNeo · · Score: 1

      What they did give were some verifiable facts. If Trump were to bother to have someone investigate whether or not Republican legislators from his own party were the first to bring it up or not, instead of relying on random internet rumors, he'd have an actual piece of evidence he could use to make a decision with.

    3. Re:so, China looked Trump in the eye and said... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look, all he knows is what the internet says.

  34. Largest CO2 emitter on Earth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No more exemptions for China.

    1. Re:Largest CO2 emitter on Earth by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      No need or request for exceptions, China is leading the US in terms of alternative energy developments primarily with Nuclear power.

    2. Re:Largest CO2 emitter on Earth by Jzanu · · Score: 4, Informative

      Also you should read this detailing how China "China will lead the world for growth in renewable power".

    3. Re:Largest CO2 emitter on Earth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chinese lies, parroted by the a jewel of the left wing echo chamber; The Guardian.

    4. Re:Largest CO2 emitter on Earth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honestly guys, put down the Guardian pipe. It's a matter of time before these figures, both the exaggerated "reductions" and the exaggerated amount of investment get exposed as the lies they are. Only doe-eyed libtards believe this Chinese propaganda.

      Even "progressives" acknowledge that Chinese CO2 numbers are fictional, when they aren't themselves trying to use those lies as leverage over Western nations. Communists lie. They lie about their achievements and they lie about their failures, and the fact that they've got fellow travelers in the Western Media parroting their lies is not novel.

    5. Re:Largest CO2 emitter on Earth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This has nothing to do with factory emissions, this is about growth in renewable production capacity. The IEA says China's growth in renewables last year was highest in the world. Guardian is UK not US newspaper idiot. Also look here for simple chart that doesn't require as much literacy to understand. See the big bars? The US isn't one of them, in any year.

  35. Re:It's alot easier to believe human climate chang by Marsoupial · · Score: 1

    ...because you are a mutant and it grew out of your ass. Your eyes are just fine, thank you.

  36. When China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whe china has the moral high ground over us, something has gone very very wrong.

  37. Re:fascinatingly crafted reply... by Moofie · · Score: 1

    Uh. You don't know how to spell "weird". I don't think we should take you very seriously.

    --
    Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  38. Re:fascinatingly crafted reply... by wierd_w · · Score: 1

    Are you being purposefully obtuse?

    How about all the mountains of measurements collected by NOAA? Ice core samples collected in Antarctica?

    AGW is very real, there is very solid data behind the claim. It is NOT a hoax.

    Your replies indicate that you believe that I think that it is one, despite my rather pointed corrections to the contrary. Why do you feel it necessary to promulgate a falsehood?

  39. The only people... by Bartles · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ...that think republicans think that climate change is a hoax started by China are Democrats. This is ridiculous.

    1. Re:The only people... by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      You mean despite this article showing direct quotes from Trump's social media campaign?

    2. Re:The only people... by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      Well, one can argue Trump is a RINO, not a true Republican. To be honest, nobody knows what the fock he is yet; his stated plans are not only all over the map, but he draws his own of places nobody's ever seen.

    3. Re:The only people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First, Trump was a democrat first, and nobody made him "King of the Republicans", so what he said doesn't qualify for all republicans. Second, he said that early on, then almost immediately dropped it. I'm guessing he spoke very poorly and didn't quite mean how it came out. Maybe he did, but judging how other things he said came out, I doubt it. Another one of those times when Democrats took Trump literally and Republicans did not.

    4. Re:The only people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      THen WHY DID TRUMP SAY IT bartles. Comon, why did he say it, and dont be a trumpite and make me go find the video, he said it DURING THIS ELECTION CYCLE. We BOTH KNOW HE DID.

      Comon Bartles. HE CLAIMED IT SO I GET TO MOCK HIM FOR IT.

    5. Re: The only people... by KenHansen · · Score: 1

      Trump's social media campaign

      Please, you can't be serious - a random tweet from four years ago (3 years before he entered politics, and nearly 5 years before he holds his first elected office), and you call it "Trump's social media campaign"? It's a sexagenarian with a twitter account, and finding evidence of him using the word 'hoax' when describing the "for profit" climate change industry is not him "repeating" his claim.

    6. Re: The only people... by Jzanu · · Score: 2

      So something 4 years ago only matters when it is a Democrat then, right? In this case it wasn't Republicans de-funding embassy security and blaming the results of an attack on a Democrat but is a DIRECT STATEMENT BY TRUMP.

    7. Re:The only people... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      This is ridiculous.

      You must be new to politics.

      Although, Trump did crank the knob from "ridiculous" to "Yuuugely Ludicrous".

    8. Re: The only people... by Bartles · · Score: 1

      Lol. Thanks for the reminder.

    9. Re: The only people... by KenHansen · · Score: 1

      Democrats 'evolve' and 'clarify' their wording all the time, why is Trump's first utterance on the subject the only one acceptable to you? Shall we hold HRC to her first position on Gay Marriage, for example? While she was First Lady she opposed gay marriage, then, when the polls changed her position 'evolved'. Want to argue 'she wasn't an elected official? Go ahead, then I can remind you that neither was Trump 4 years ago when he tweeted it. One time. Then 'evolved' into his claim it was a joke. My point was the absurdity of calling a 65 year-old businessman posting on twitter a 'Trump Social Media Campaign' - it was more 'shit my dad says' than a 'social media campaign'.

  40. Re:fascinatingly crafted reply... by wierd_w · · Score: 1

    Ah, yes. Assume that I do not know the correct spelling is "weird", and that I did not spell it that way on purpose. Yes. Lets do that. Let's also assume based on this assumption that he is an idiot too. That's very convenient.

    I would personally conclude that a person who is so intellectually lazy has no business making criticisms of this nature. But that's just me.

  41. Re:Nice try by hesiod · · Score: 1

    President Bush XLI

    Is that like SLI? Can we get 2 or 3 Bushes in tandem for increased governing power?

  42. Climate change,yep millions of years of change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My issue with climate change is that we only seem to focus on the change or no change that could have been affected by humans. Not including thousands if not millions of years of evidence of cooling and warming. Some of these proven to be of the extreme category and yet not included in this climate change theory.
    One then would conclude scientists only seem to care about what is changing under human effects not anything else. Although, one could argue clime changes might just be a fact of what happens with Earth. Maybe a focus on just trying to be good inhabitants would serve us better, than simply touting some end of world prediction that climate will kill us all. In fact it may very well do just that on cue and very possibly there is nothing we can do to stop it. If we assume Earth was once a bare planet with little life. We can assume that it is capable of that again. Why is it, we as humans think we have so much control?

    1. Re:Climate change,yep millions of years of change by Jzanu+Syr · · Score: 0

      So fucking what? What matters NOW is what effects HUMAN habitats and especially human settlements i.e. everything from mega-cities like NY, Shanghai, Tokyo, etc. to the subsistence farmers in Burma and everywhere else on the entire planet. Massive population shifts are exactly what brings increased death, disease, and destruction. Humans have been fucking up the global atmosphere for more than 200 years and it was KNOWN 200 fucking years ago.

    2. Re:Climate change,yep millions of years of change by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Interesting

      YOur issue is a non-issue. Human civilization began and has flourished in a fairly narrow band of climatological conditions. While, in the space of geological time, those conditions will change, the nice about geological time is that it is a LONG FUCKING TIME. What we're doing now is leading to major climactic changes in a very SHORT FUCKING TIME. It's one thing to adapt to changing climate on the order of centuries or millennia, it's another thing to try to adapt to major changes in the order of decades.

      The focus should be on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and trying to do as much harm reduction as we can, not on pretending that the problem doesn't exist and going for easy targets so we can pretend that there is no problem. CO2 emissions caused by humans are leading to warming, so humans can fix the problem. Otherwise all your advocating is we fuck over our grandchildren because we're too stupid and evil and selfish to work towards the solution now.

      And for what? So you can gas up your car cheaper or have cheaper electricity? Do you hate the future that much? Do your kids fill you with such loathing that you would just dispense with their welfare and pretend we can do nothing? What the fuck is wrong with you?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:Climate change,yep millions of years of change by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      YOur issue is a non-issue. Human civilization began and has flourished in a fairly narrow band of climatological conditions. While, in the space of geological time, those conditions will change, the nice about geological time is that it is a LONG FUCKING TIME. What we're doing now is leading to major climactic changes in a very SHORT FUCKING TIME.

      Which could have happened before. Probably happened before. If the theories about methane and permafrost are true, definitely happened before, and without human intervention, and on a far grander scale than any human affect so far. But we have zero evidence either way. Proxies more than a thousand years old simply don't have the granularity to show changes on the order of decades. This lovely XKCD is totally deceptive because it hides any and all fluctuations in the historical record that were on the order of the current fluctuation because they're invisible. No proxy can reconstruct them. The only one we can see is the current one. We have no proof whatsoever that it's unique. None.

      Otherwise all your advocating is we fuck over our grandchildren because we're too stupid and evil and selfish to work towards the solution now.

      Do you hate the future that much? Do your kids fill you with such loathing that you would just dispense with their welfare and pretend we can do nothing? What the fuck is wrong with you?

      Hyperbole. Useless, stupid, blind, overblown, absurdly ridiculous hyperbole. A trend that's a mere few decades old doesn't even qualify as a change in climate. It's fucking weather. A trend, but still weather. Humanity has existed in a more or less recognizable form for 100,000 years. We survived the onset of an Ice Age. (Barely.) That is climate change. We survived the aftermath of the Ice Age. Flooding like you would not believe. (Possibly the origin of the pervasive Flood myths in human cultures the world over.) That is climate change. Oh, the snow is a two weeks late in Minnesota? Stop whining, asshole.

      It's people like you that inspire climate change denial, in precisely the same way your political counterparts inspired Trump supporters. You rant and you rave, you attack and you berate, because you've internalized hysterical media that bears no fucking resemblance to the considered opinions of actual climate scientists. No, he doesn't hate his kids or yours, and you're a shithead for suggesting it.

      You're a fucking End Times lunatic who has just picked a different hobby horse than the usual Second Coming bullshit, and you have just as much credibility. Take off the strap sandals and the white toga, put down your picket sign, shave off that scraggly-ass beard, and rejoin reality.

      No, everything that humanity cares about will not flood. No, storm damage will not become universally catastrophic the world over. No, wildfires will not wipe out every forest on Earth. No, giant deserts will not form in the most inconvenient places possible and wipe out all food production. This is not the end of the world, no matter how much you might wish it. This is barely even NOTICEABLE .

      Do you not get that? The changes are argued about because they're TINY. Within the margin of error of thermometer accuracy for any given year. There is no catastrophe to masturbate over here. They're having to wear jackets in Virginia this week, when they used to be in shirt sleeves. Boohoo. They're not wearing jackets in Minnesota yet this week. Boohoo. Get over yourself. The world will continue spinning, warm and green and fertile and habitable, long after your panic-stricken self is dead. We'll make adjustments as we go, and as needed.

      I bought an electric lawnmower this year, which radically reduces my emissions of noxious fumes. What have you done, Internet Warrior?

    4. Re:Climate change,yep millions of years of change by Whibla · · Score: 1

      While you make some interesting points I'm not sure I can agree with all that you write:

      Humanity has existed in a more or less recognizable form for 100,000 years. We survived the onset of an Ice Age. (Barely.) That is climate change. We survived the aftermath of the Ice Age.

      Big Picture: Within the time frame you mention there is evidence that the total human population was as low as 5 thousand individuals. Moving forwards, the population of the world 10,000 years ago was roughly 5 million people. Today it stands at over a hundred times that number, over 5 billion people. Historically, when local factors changed, specifically climate for the purposes of this discussion, people were able to simply move on (and if they weren't they tended to die out). Given the already fraught situation regarding immigration I'm pretty sure it's not going to be that simple in the foreseeable future.

      A trend that's a mere few decades old doesn't even qualify as a change in climate. It's fucking weather. A trend, but still weather.

      Years ago I was pointing out that weather is not climate but, while I slightly misspoke then, I think you're going too far now. Any change in climate is a change in climate! If average temperatures in a region rise by 0.1 degrees then the climatic temperatures have risen by 0.1 degrees. If local fluctuations mean specific highs are now 1 degree hotter than previous records that's weather. A trend over a couple of decades is a trend over a couple of decades (which may - in this case almost certainly will - continue for years to come) not weather or climate, though it will affect the specifics of both.

      There is no catastrophe to masturbate over here. ... We'll make adjustments as we go, and as needed.

      I wonder at what point it might be considered a catastrophe. How many inches of sea level rise are needed for it to qualify as one? How many species lost due to climate change constitute a catastrophe? What number of people suffering severe water shortages, once the glaciers they rely on are all gone, will it take for it to be a catastrophe? Right now it does't look to me as though the adjustments we're making, made against huge opposition it should be pointed out, are quite sufficient to the task.

      I bought an electric lawnmower this year, which radically reduces my emissions of noxious fumes. What have you done, Internet Warrior?

      I'm not sure I could cope with such a huge change in my lifestyle, so I make do with driving considerably less and walking much more, growing as much of my own food as possible (with no added chemical inputs), recycling approx 95% of everything I use / buy, and wearing an extra layer of clothing rather than putting the heating on when it's "slightly chilly". Each to their own I guess.

    5. Re:Climate change,yep millions of years of change by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      I bought an electric lawnmower this year, which radically reduces my emissions of noxious fumes. What have you done, Internet Warrior?

      I'm not sure I could cope with such a huge change in my lifestyle...

      Sarcasm noted.

      ...so I make do with driving considerably less and walking much more...

      As do I.

      ...growing as much of my own food as possible (with no added chemical inputs)...

      That I don't do. My property is covered in trees.

      ...recycling approx 95% of everything I use / buy...

      Same here. I don't even have trash service. Don't need it.

      ... and wearing an extra layer of clothing rather than putting the heating on when it's "slightly chilly".

      That I've been doing since I was a child, a habit learned from my parents. I take it a bit further than they did—I've gone whole winters without turning on the heat, and it snows here.

      Each to their own I guess.

      Indeed.

  43. Re:Nice try by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They certainly have profited from US environmental laws. I don't blame them for pushing for more laws that hurt US businesses.

  44. Did not invent hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone else invented hoax, or
    China invented the real thing!

  45. Re:fascinatingly crafted reply... by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    And once again, the MightyMartian rule of pseudo-skepticism, "If I can raise an objection to a scientific theory, no matter how idiotic and fallacious the objection, I can claim the theory is disproven."

    First of all, what does a decaying orbit have to do with anything, and why would you imagine there's just one satellite up there monitoring terrestrial temperatures?

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  46. Re:fascinatingly crafted reply... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, but then again, they are not doing that much about it either.
    Out of 50Gw of new coal plants that were to go in this year, they shut down 15 GW. Yet, their plan has always called for 35-50 GW of new coal plants EVERY YEAR until 2030.
    IOW, they are still on track to do 3/4 TW of new coal plants in less than 15 years. They simply swapped some of the schedule.
    Basically, they expect the west to spend all the money even though China accounts for a LOT more than 1/3 of the emissions (and they KNOW that they do).

  47. Re:fascinatingly crafted reply... by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Informative

    Unfortunately, Trump has shown a complete unwillingness to care about facts when they don't fit his narrative.

    Facts are #totallaypassay. We're like in the post-truth era now.

    Politician: Crime is up 47,000 percent!
    Journalist: No, figures say it's down roughly 13 percent.
    Politician: But people believe it's up 47,000 percent. That's what matters.

    I forget who it was. Newt "Family values" Gingrich?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  48. FTFY by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1, Troll

    China didn't invent climate change, they have just been funding the useful idiots (Democrats) to hobble our economy with onerous environmental regulations (far beyond clean air and clean water, which we all want) a la CO2 cap and trade while they steal our jobs and manufacturing capacity by manipulating their currency and producing our products with 10X more pollution while those same Democrats say nothing.

    If we are smart, and heres hoping Trump is, we will start assessing an import tax that not only accounts for the currency manipulation of other countries, but also accounts for the actual amount of pollution that the country generates. Clean, green countries get no environmental import tax, but China, that creates nearly half of all pollution on the planet and who is killing nearly 4000 people per day with their pollution, should get slapped with a massive import tax.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...

    --
    If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
    1. Re:FTFY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The whole point of the carbon tax is to provide such a mechanism.

    2. Re:FTFY by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Yes, but that would cost fossil fuel companies a lot of money, so they send out their useful idiots and shills to spread disinformation, even when said fossil fuel companies have known about AGW for decades

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:FTFY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess my question is when we start to slap on these massive import taxes and the other countries do the same to us, who are the ones that actually lose out? It will be us the American consumer I am pretty sure. Isolationist taxes will greatly increase our cost of living while also significantly lowering the demand for the goods we produce. This sounds like a recipe for something bad to happen.

  49. Re:Nice try by unixisc · · Score: 1

    Roman for '41'

  50. Re:fascinatingly crafted reply... by Sique · · Score: 1

    You could come and visit me. I live in the Alps, and I could show you the moraines the glaciers left in the 19th century, the ones from the mid-20th century and the current glaciers. We are currently at about 2 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial levels on average, which means that the glaciers have retracted and now end around 2000 feet higher than at the begin of the 20th century. Ah yes... there are old postcards from about 150 years ago, which we could use for comparision.

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*
  51. Trump should brush up on history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every good conspiracy theorist knows that Margaret Thatcher is responsible for the hoax called Climate Change - it's something she invented to break up the coal miners' strikes in 1984-5 that ultimately led to the formation of the IPCC in 1988.

  52. Great Wall by unixisc · · Score: 1

    Actually, China already has a Great Wall. Shouldn't they cede all territory north of that to Mongolia?

    1. Re:Great Wall by yuriklastalov · · Score: 1

      There is no such place as Mongolia, comrade, and never has been. Now please go along with these armed men so we can talk about it more in private.

    2. Re:Great Wall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is the whoosh moment of that going over the head with you or me?

    3. Re:Great Wall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, China already has a Great Wall. Shouldn't they cede all territory north of that to Mongolia?

      China already has a Great Wall?!? This is the first I've heard of it. Is it new?

  53. So Combating Climate change was a GOP 'thing' by KenHansen · · Score: 1

    "If you look at the history of climate change negotiations, actually it was initiated by the IPCC with the support of the Republicans during the Reagan and senior Bush administration during the late 1980s,"

    So, unless my math is wrong, that puts the GOP on the right side of Climate Change fully ten years before Al Gore and the Democrats... I don't remember Al Gore giving the Reagan Administration for working on this ten years prior to his PPT deck, book, and movie "An Inconvienient Truth"...

    1. Re:So Combating Climate change was a GOP 'thing' by citylivin · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "So, unless my math is wrong, that puts the GOP on the right side of Climate Change fully ten years before Al Gore and the Democrats"

      I think you are confused because as much as i loathe reagan, conservatives used to believe in environmental protections. In fact i remember there being a broad consensus about the science of it in the 80s and 90s.

      Face it, the so called republican party in the USA simply does not stand for the same things it did 30 years ago. Things are leaning much more to the authoritarian, anti science and pro-ignorance right than probably even classical republicans are comfortable with.

      Very few countries have as much of a problem recognizing climate change as real as much as the USA seems to. It's probably going to be a very fascinating historical study, if we survive it. Most other countries at this point are capable of acknowledging AGW but then disagree over what to do about it. This includes conservatives in those countries. Outright denial though seems to be a purely american thing from what i have observed.

      --
      As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy
  54. Re:fascinatingly crafted reply... by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    CO2 emissions are a lot more than coal burning, but even if this is true, how is this an excuse for doing nothing?

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  55. Re:fascinatingly crafted reply... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That's because we live in a post-truth world now.

    “post-truth” has been named as Oxford Dictionary's word of the year.

    Usage of the adjective, describes circumstances where emotions and personal beliefs are more influential than facts. When used in a sentence: Snowflakes who cannot accept the historic loss of thier presidental candidate have created a "post-truth" reality for themselves.

  56. Re:fascinatingly crafted reply... by budgenator · · Score: 1

    Of course if you could get away with these emissions levels while your competitors are hamstringing themselves to reduce emissions, and quite successfully too, would you be quick to end the gravy train!

    --
    Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  57. They're right. They didn't invent it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Jews did.

  58. Don't Worry by tekrat · · Score: 1

    The coming Nuclear Winter will cancel out the Global Warming. Of course, you won't be around to appreciate it unless you live in an underground bunker.

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
    1. Re:Don't Worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most bunkers didn't give their occupants much help during the year from hell. In fact, one of the things we did during that year was seal up the luxury vaults that the 1% had retreated to in droves when the siege of Denver began. However, you are correct. The academic community was recently successful at compiling global temperature data in 2039, three years before I left. It looks like global temperatures are about a degree cooler than the last records available from late 2024.

  59. Re: Nice try by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Woooosshhh!

  60. Gyna by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Funny

    This story is based on a liberal myth. In fact, Trump never said that "Climate change was a hoax invented by China". He said it was a hoax invented by Gyna. He was referring to Melanomia's body part, which speaks to him and has been known to spread pseudo-science, albeit in a Russian accent.

    It also told him that the solar system is heliocentric.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  61. Re:fascinatingly crafted reply... by budgenator · · Score: 1

    That's called Affirming the consequent fallacy;
    in your line of reasoning"
    If P, then Q, Q; Therefore, P.
    If increased CO2 levels cause warming, it's warming, therefore anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the only cause of Warming.

    --
    Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  62. Re:fascinatingly crafted reply... by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    No, this is called you misusing a logical fallacy, not to mention invoking one of your own by using it to construct a strawman.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  63. Re:It's alot easier to believe human climate chang by budgenator · · Score: 1

    Why would you think that the level of CO2 has any effect on the visual transparency of air?

    Carbon dioxide (chemical formula CO2) is a colorless and odorless gas vital to life on Earth. Carbon dioxide

    I know the air in Bejing China is frequently smoggy, but that is do to photo-chemical reactions to hydrocarbons emitted by motor vehicle, not CO2.

    --
    Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  64. Re:Nice try by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    -1 Troll

    But seriously, what the hell ? China, like the US never wanted to do any effort about climate, they never cared that much about pollution and global warming. You could say it was invented by Europe, or Japan, but ... China ???

    Anyway, it was not invented, it is a reported fact. There is no intent to find here.

    Exactly. Why would one of the earth's best-polluting nations [they pollute very well] invent fake "science" that "climate change" is caused by pollution?

  65. Re:Nice try by ZipK · · Score: 1

    Now we just need to figure out how they photoshopped NASA photos to show a million square miles of open ocean where there use to be arctic ice. The obvious explanation is that NASA is in on the hoax.

    The obvious explanation is Stalin's photo lab.

  66. The Wall by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 2

    I met a traveler from the borderland
    Who said, "A vast unfinished concrete wall
    Stands in the desert. Near it, on the sand
    Half-sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown
    And puckered lips, and sneer of cold command
    Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
    Which yet survive, stamped on these unpaid for things,
    Small hands that mocked them, and the sons that led;
    And on the concrete wall, these words appear:
    My name is President Trump, King of Flings,
    Look upon my Wall, Mexicans, and despair!
    Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
    Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
    It's one hundred fifty degrees today."

  67. it's a Chinese copy by swschrad · · Score: 1

    the real Global Warming (tm) was invented here

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  68. First scientific assessment of climate change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The first person to ever posit that CO2 might affect climate was Fourier. After him, the next person to continue that line of reasoning and examine human contributions to CO2 was Svante Arrhenius in the late 1800s.

    I don't think China was influencing them.

    Of course, given Trump's level of reasoning and behavior, he'd simply say (were he aware of it) that China simply found an historical reason that they then used to pressure the US, or else China secretly went back and printed all that old research and infiltrated all the old libraries where it is stored.

  69. Re:fascinatingly crafted reply... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, but are you a climate change HOAX denier?

    I posit that this is an area on which we can all agree!

    Either you are a (climate change) (HOAX denier), or you are a (climate change HOAX) (denier). But we are now all (climate change HOAX denier)s! So let us bask in our reconciliation!

    Thereby proving the commutative property of climate denial.

  70. Re:Nice try by gman003 · · Score: 1

    Chinese citizens are among the most visibly affected by pollution in general, through smog, and they have sufficient communications and disposable income to organize a movement against it. That movement has coalesced and is pushing for reduced air pollution in general, with carbon dioxide as merely one of the problems. But because the movement formed while climate change was an article of discussion internationally, the Chinese movement has ingrained a fight against climate change into their philosophy.

    China is far from an ideal democracy, but no government is immune to the ill will of its citizens. The Chinese government does not have any particular conflict of interests here - they need to keep manufacturing up, in order to keep their population employed, but oil and coal are mostly imported so reducing their use would actually be a minor improvement. The pressure from the Chinese citizenry isn't particularly hard, but with no reason to fight back the Chinese government is willing to go along to avoid possible unrest. And the Chinese government has historically taken a very long view compared to most Western governments, so the whole "leave a livable Earth for future generations" thing might actually matter to them.

  71. Re:fascinatingly crafted reply... by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

    First of all, what does a decaying orbit have to do with anything,

    Because the distance to something affects the intensity of radiation measured by the satellite. If you walk toward a light, it looks brighter. Try it sometime and you'll see. That satellite was actually measuring the temperature of only one layer of the atmosphere. When scientists corrected for the decaying orbit, it seemed like there was no warming. Then, they realized they were overcorrecting for the orbital decay, adjusted the data to account for that, and suddenly it's a conspiracy where scientists are "ignoring data they don't like".

    and why would you imagine there's just one satellite up there monitoring terrestrial temperatures?

    Actually, that's the exact question I would ask you. All of these "global pause" arguments are based on the cherry-picked data from that one satellite. Data from other satellites isn't politically acceptable.

  72. Re: Nice try by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it was Stalin's lab, the legs holding up the ice would have been left in the picture.

  73. Re:It's alot easier to believe human climate chang by JoeyRox · · Score: 1

    Because the smog in china is produced by the burning of fossil fuels, which also produces CO2.

  74. Re:Nice try by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trumps view is you are more likely to see his tax returns than see him say global warming is a thing.

  75. Scrap it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't care who started it. The fact is that the science behind it has been so polluted by politics and money that it can't be trusted. Scrap it. If the earth is getting warmer we probably can't do anything to change it. All global warming does is throw money at a problem hoping it will go away with no indication it will be successful. If you can show me something specific we can do to address a specific problem that's one thing. But to just make this blanket assertion with a proposed potential solution is bs.

    1. Re:Scrap it. by Chmarr · · Score: 1

      You say it can't be trusted, but it's still the most trustworthy thing there is at the moment. So, just like hundreds of years of science before it, you assume it's true while continuing to prove or disprove it further, and then when better evidence comes along, you shift your position appropriately. Right now, the "better evidence" says it's true.

      I do agree it's been highly politicised. Who's fault was that?

  76. Cheesy Orange Blows it Again by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    There is a point at which insanity and ignorance become the same thing. We have a president who is nuts with a knowledge base that is so screwed up that he can not possibly function.

  77. No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anthropogenic Climate Change is a hoax that was invented by Americans.

    USA! USA! USA!

  78. Re:fascinatingly crafted reply... by JoshuaZ · · Score: 5, Informative
    Thank you for completely missing the point. At no point in my comment did I make any argument about whether the popular vote winner should win. The point is that the claim that Trump got a majority of the votes is *false*. Heck, what you are talking about is the even weaker issue of a plurality of the votes. Discussion of the electoral college is a complete sideshow.

    But, if you want to discuss the electoral college and the popular vote we can. There's nothing wrong with people in cities having a lot of votes if there are people there. It is in only because those people don't vote the way you like that you have the opinion you do. Moreover, the actual cause for an electoral college was primarily two things: First, to prevent populist demagogues by having another layer between the population and the electorate. Hamilton discussed this in Federalist 68 http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp. In that context, having an electoral college that just votes the way the state popular vote directs it to is exactly counter to that goal. Second, the electoral college preserved the power of the slave states http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/12/13598316/donald-trump-electoral-college-slavery-akhil-reed-amar. It should be clear why the second reason is not acceptable.

    And if you really want to look at the "popular vote" numbers, you have to take into account the number of votes the Dems should not have gotten due to fraud such as illegal immigrants voting. The D's cheated and STILL lost. Their policies are obviously so popular that they're now trying to implement them by force.

    Thank you for giving an excellent further example of the complete disregard for facts that some on the right are demonstrating. There is essentially zero evidence of any substantial immigration voting. See for example here http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-noncitizen-voters-20161025-snap-story.html. Facts matter. And if you want to play that game then it is worth noting that massive numbers of legitimate votes in swing states were disenfranchised due to voter ID restrictions, and even federal judges agree that many of those restrictions were designed to deliberately target minorities. Look for example at North Carolina http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/07/north-carolina-voting-rights-law/493649/. Again, facts matter. There's a good argument for not using the popular vote in this *specific election* because we have a system right now, and we don't know if it would have ended up this way if Hillary and Trump had focused on turning out the maximum number of voters rather than voters in swing states, but that's a distinct issue that's completely removed from the basic facts.

  79. Re:fascinatingly crafted reply... by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    Even if this is the case, you can certainly correct the data for anything like that, so I'm going to call this bullshit. Once again another denier comes up with an idiotic objection and then acts like they discovered the key to destroying an entire scientific theory. There was no global pause. That pause, as it were, is the product of your fellow travelers cherry picking data, not the other way around.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  80. Read: The Sheep Look Up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sometimes (maybe often) Science Fiction gets stuff eerily correct. I think we are probably headed, slowly, in the correct direction, but that will almost certainly change now that Trumpholes have taken over.

    So go read The Sheep Look Up (John Brunner). Great book period, but also extremely apropos. One of the most memorable endings ever (but don't skip to it). Not quite impactful an ending as "The Last Question", but IMHO pretty darn close.

  81. Don't try to present facts to Trump or the GOP by mark_reh · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Objective truth is meaningless. The only facts that matter are political facts- what people can be made to believe. If objective truth forces itself to be recognized, you merely have to explain it the right way to diminish its importance. Perception is all there is.

  82. Prove it then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Show me a video demonstration or something proving that the actions of man cause temperatures to rise.

  83. Re:It's alot easier to believe human climate chang by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pollution != Climate Change

  84. Don't feed the... by hawguy · · Score: 1

    China has obviously suffered under the "Great firewall" that walls them off most of the internet.

    Otherwise they would have learned by now: "Don't feed the trolls".

    1. Re:Don't feed the... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      The global anti-troll-feeding talks were initiated even before China knew that negotiations to cut feeding were starting,

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  85. Re:It's alot easier to believe human climate chang by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Except anthropogenic global warming is caused by human induced release of carbon into the atmosphere by burning chains of hydrocarbon as fuel.

  86. Re:Nice try by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    Climate change is no hoax. That a carbon tax will do anything about it - THERE'S the hoax...

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  87. Re:fascinatingly crafted reply... by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately, Trump has shown a complete unwillingness to care about facts when they don't fit his narrative.

    No I think you have him confused with the media, who had Hillary winning by a land-slide up until the day of the election. Because a Trump victory didn't fit the narrative they'd been spouting for the past year and a half.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  88. We're in the post-truth era by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The same Trump that denies initially supporing the Iraq war despite direct quotes of him saying that? Reality doesn't matter him.

  89. Re:fascinatingly crafted reply... by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

    Did you mean reply to me or the GP?

    The "global pause" was 18 years long so they can cherry pick 1998 (an El Nino year) as the baseline. Nowadays, the average normal year is about as hot as 20th century El Nino years, so they argue there's been no change since 1998. I don't think the 2015-2016 El Nino will put an end to the nonsense.

  90. Take The Orange Pill by Tablizer · · Score: 1, Informative

    He makes up his own reality.

    He's ahead of us all! He's the first virtual reality president. Forget "the cloud", that's so 2000's.

    We don't need the dusty shackles of physical reality; we can make our own reality, our own facts, or own logic, our own hair that follows our own gravity and tint. You can even grope Jupiter and sock it in that big red eye when it tries to sue you! Make Saturn's rings into your hair, Lady Gaga will drool with jealousy.

    2 + 2 does not have to be 4. It can 7, or -99.2, or 666, or FLEEB, whatever the hell you want! Deficit Smefficit. Go ahead and divide by zero; he made a deal with God.

    Robots can't take your job because you ARE the robot...and Lady Gaga at the same time. The sky is NOT the limit, everyone gets their own Personal Matrix, and Sharia Chinese Mexicans will pay for it!

    Get with it: The Future is here, and it's Virtually Yuuuuuge!

  91. Re:fascinatingly crafted reply... by JoshuaZ · · Score: 1

    That's not at all accurate. The polls going into the election had Hillary up 2-5% points, and she did ultimately win the popular vote by about 1-2% points, well within reasonable error given the noisiness of polls and the last minute issues with Comey's letter which may have depressed Hillary turnout or increased Trump turnout slightly. Fivethirtyeight for example kept saying that this was a close election.

  92. Re:Nice try by dbIII · · Score: 1

    but ... China

    It was a fantasy created as a sales spiel, it doesn't have to make sense just like the stupid wall fantasy does not make sense.
    Anyone who has taken Trump at his word is in for a long series of shocks. I'd say that's starting with the Russian banks that financed his campaign who took his word that he would pay them back so at least we don't have to worry about the Russian angle, he'll screw them over just like all those contractors he didn't pay.

  93. Re:fascinatingly crafted reply... by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    The polls going into the election had Hillary up 2-5% points

    The NY Times had Hillary as an 85% chance to win the day before the election. But if you're going to pretend that the media was sure it was going to be a close race from the beginning when actually most of them ranged from "he's a clown" to "no chance" for the entire campaign, there really is no point in talking. The gods themselves argue in vain against fools.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  94. Re:Nice try by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

    There has definitely been a decrease in the quality of death threats in the information age. When every single person of nay significant level of notoriety gets death threats like how they get junk mail, they kind of lose their potency. While some celebrities still manage to find a way to be crippled over it, it's pretty hard not to be desensitized when you are literally inundated with death threats, and never see evidence that any are credible.

  95. Ronald Reagun and George H.W. Bush Were Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'nough said Dan-O.

    Book'm.

    Dan-O: Vegan powers .... gone! In the Slammer chink.

  96. Re:Nice try by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But seriously, what the hell ? China, like the US never wanted to do any effort about climate, they never cared that much about pollution and global warming. You could say it was invented by Europe, or Japan, but ... China ???

    If someone told me that: Climate Change was a hoax invented by the West to retard Chinese/Indian/African industrialisation - I might be inclined to believe it.

    Cui bono? Sequitur pecuniam

  97. But they are taking advantage of it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am sure China just wants what's best for the USA. She is letting us know that we should power our economy with windmills and butterflies instead of the Evil coal that it is buying from the USA. See China is soo nice and gracious that it is buying USA's coal so that the USA is not forced to pollute the the nice mother earth with coal. China will take the coal. USA gets to use butterflies. Butterflies is best for USA. Only China can use coal safely. Coal too dangerous for USA.

    Let us all hail new ruler of world: China. Best listen to China and not listen to Trump. Trump stooopid. China would not lead USA wrong. China knows whats best for USA!

  98. Re:fascinatingly crafted reply... by JoshuaZ · · Score: 1

    85% is still not at all a low chance. I agree that there were media sources which assigned him a low probability in general, but that's a distinct claim than anything about the polling numbers or the claim that the "who had Hillary winning by a land-slide up until the day of the election" since the NYT model predicted a 4-5% popular win for Hillary which is not generally considered at all a land-slide by most notions of the term.

  99. Jimmy Carter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thank you, President Carter, for teaching an entire generation how to speak goodlies English!

  100. Re:fascinatingly crafted reply... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    CO2 emissions are a lot more than coal burning, but even if this is true, how is this an excuse for doing nothing?

    Because you members of the Church of Global Anthropogenic Warming have been such lying and scheming, weaselly shits that even if all the alarmist propaganda is true, we STILL won't listen to a damned thing you say.

    YOU'VE done this, not 'denialists'. You *CREATED* the denialists as a reaction to you acting like tyrants.

    Fuck you, DIAF.

  101. Re:fascinatingly crafted reply... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    YOU'VE done this, not 'denialists'. You *CREATED* the denialists as a reaction to you acting like tyrants.

    Yup, exactly the same reasons why Trump won the election. Regular folks got tired of being told they should feel guilty about being white, or born in the USA, tired of "safe spaces", "trigger warnings", "white privilege", OWS, BLM, AGW, and all the rest of poisonous Leftist propaganda and agendas.

    It's over. Deal with it.

  102. Re:fascinatingly crafted reply... by yuriklastalov · · Score: 1

    Humanity has always been post-truth. We're just finally starting to admit it again.

  103. Re:Nice try by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 1

    I'd go for that instead of Hitler 2.0 (Trump).

  104. Re:It's alot easier to believe human climate chang by budgenator · · Score: 1

    So it's a guilt by association thing, more an emotional rationalisation the logical.

    --
    Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  105. Climate Change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    George W imbraced climated change with the help of BIG Oil && the Coke Brothers. Koch Brothes.
    Our party was able to make a dent in global climate change.
    We waited to get answers from the Scientists that we hired. Big Oil gave them a BIG Bonus check if they didn't find any Climate change issues.
    Well, Our GOP didn't receive any hard facts from Big Oil & the Koch(pronounce Koke) brothers.
    Our SuperPac also provided our party with a little bit of monies.
    ** Now when I look back && look at other countries. It almost looks like we are getting left behind in the Alternative energy market.
    ** I know it's a Multi Trillion dollar market. But, in that time frame, everyone had their ears for the SuperPac in our party and the other party too.

  106. Re:fascinatingly crafted reply... by TopherC · · Score: 1

    GP's statement that we're in a post-truth political era is chilling, but I think it's apt.

    Two things have changed in recent years, and not exclusively in the U.S. (The Leave party in the UK for example.) One is, as you're pointing out, false statements are being bandied about by political front-runners long after they have been debunked (birther hoax, etc). The other is that these candidates make far more false claims than true. And the false claims are not just distortions or a twisting of words or the invention of a different context. They are just bald-faced and obvious lies. Those features alone do not make us post-truth, but the fact that the public warmly embraces these politicians does.

    In the U.S., it's really been the Republicans that's brought us into post-truth. Not that the Democrats have been honest, but they are just 20th-century-dishonest. They mostly stick with the truth but try to mis-represent it in various ways. While that's terrible and unacceptable, it suddenly doesn't seem so bad by comparison.

    I would have laughed at the idea that we are going in the direction of the DPRK or even shades of Nazi Germany. But now we have Trump telling journalists "We're going to open up [sic] libel laws, and we're going to have people sue you like you've never got sued before."

    Wow. Just wow.

  107. Re:fascinatingly crafted reply... by TopherC · · Score: 1

    People in the U.S. seem to be divided into believing one of two non-overlapping realities. The two realities are accessed with this decision of belief:

    1) Trump is very, very dishonest

    2) Trump is the only one brave enough to tell the truth. All journalists are involved in a nationwide conspiracy to elect Crooked Hillary. All historical documents, footage, and transcripts have been faked. Your memory of recent events has been overwritten by high-tech drugs. The entire election was rigged so badly that Hillary *almost* won the popular vote. All internet content is a hoax, with the exception of photographs of Killary with block lettering printed on them.

    It seems our nation is nearly equally divided between these two options. Note, however, that the hallmark of a master manipulator is to make claims of widespread conspiracy against themselves.

  108. Re:fascinatingly crafted reply... by TopherC · · Score: 1

    No, I'm a climate-change-hoax skeptic! The difference between skepticism and denial is left as an exercise for the reader.

  109. Re:Nice try by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

    -1 Troll

    But seriously, what the hell ? China, like the US never wanted to do any effort about climate, they never cared that much about pollution and global warming. You could say it was invented by Europe, or Japan, but ... China ???

    Anyway, it was not invented, it is a reported fact. There is no intent to find here.

    Look at what they said carefully. They didn't invent the hoax and they're right.
    As noted, the Republicans were looking into it. Things are warming up. This all was going well until in 1993 when Maurice Armstrong (and this is verifiable fact) on his own, without any discussion, any science, anything just unilaterally decided it was man causing it and it had to do with CO2. CO2 is a green house gas and greenhouses are hot. Great opportunity for a scam with almost unlimited ensured income from dumb people. So many bought this crap. Greenhouses aren't hot because of CO2. We're simply returning to how things were before this last little ice age, more when the Roman empire was around. When they used to grow grapes in England. Look it up. It's undeniable fact. Nothing to do with CO2. THAT's the hoax they're talking about.

  110. Re:Nice try by gumbi+west · · Score: 1

    You tax things that you want less of. You need to raise funds anyways, so why not tax GHG generation?

  111. Oh, sure... by aarce · · Score: 1

    That's what Xi said.

  112. Haha, silly Chinese by gzuckier · · Score: 1

    They think you need to answer Trump's random vocal blurts as though anyone might think they might have some sort of reality.

    --
    Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  113. Re:fascinatingly crafted reply... by DahGhostfacedFiddlah · · Score: 1

    Snowflakes who cannot accept the historic loss of thier presidental candidate have created a "post-truth" reality for themselves

    That's...not actually what post-truth means, unless you're suggesting these "snowflakes" actually believe that Trump hasn't been elected president and won't reside in the White House for the next four years.

    Expressing displeasure at a truthful reality is the exact opposite of "post-truth".

  114. Re:Nice try by Layzej · · Score: 1

    You mean all was going well until 1896 when Svante Arrhenius showed the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground