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.
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
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;
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.
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."
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.
Table-ized A.I.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Also you should read this detailing how China "China will lead the world for growth in renewable power".
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.
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."
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.
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
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.
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.