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.
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.
Climate change AND Trump!
Get your popcorn ready!
He makes up his own reality.
If you don't stop saying that he did he'll sue you!
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
Paranoid much? No part of their statement says what you claim it is. None.
Who did what now?
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.
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.
http://github.com/gbook/nidb
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.
File under: More shit Trump said to get elected. Hopefully.
Ever higher storm surges in NYC affect him personally, and his businesses, after all.
When you live in a country that's so polluted you can't see your own hand in front of you.
Well of course, who really wants to be fingered?
Besides, it's RINOs that they are talking about, if they have to go back to President Bush XLI
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;
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.
Last post!
Mr President, we cannot allow a "historical evidence" gap! - Gen. Buck
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
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.
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.
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.
-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.
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.
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.)
...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.
Just several years ago, I would have assumed that you were joking. Nowadays scientists are being inundated with death threats.
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.
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?
"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.
...because you are a mutant and it grew out of your ass. Your eyes are just fine, thank you.
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!
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?
...that think republicans think that climate change is a hoax started by China are Democrats. This is ridiculous.
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.
President Bush XLI
Is that like SLI? Can we get 2 or 3 Bushes in tandem for increased governing power?
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.
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."
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
Roman for '41'
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.
No need or request for exceptions, China is leading the US in terms of alternative energy developments primarily with Nuclear power.
Actually, China already has a Great Wall. Shouldn't they cede all territory north of that to Mongolia?
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"...
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
Also you should read this detailing how China "China will lead the world for growth in renewable power".
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.
Why would you think that the level of CO2 has any effect on the visual transparency of air?
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
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.
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.
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.
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."
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?
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.
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.
Because the smog in china is produced by the burning of fossil fuels, which also produces CO2.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
Table-ized A.I.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That would just lend legitimacy to the idea of intellectual property rights.
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.
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?
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.
Humanity has always been post-truth. We're just finally starting to admit it again.
I'd go for that instead of Hitler 2.0 (Trump).
So it's a guilt by association thing, more an emotional rationalisation the logical.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No, I'm a climate-change-hoax skeptic! The difference between skepticism and denial is left as an exercise for the reader.
-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.
You tax things that you want less of. You need to raise funds anyways, so why not tax GHG generation?
That's what Xi said.
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.
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".
Last post!
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