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.
He makes up his own reality.
Paranoid much? No part of their statement says what you claim it is. None.
Who did what now?
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.
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
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,
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!
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.
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...
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.
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."
Also you should read this detailing how China "China will lead the world for growth in renewable power".
Technically, the silent not-even-a-plurality. Clinton won the popular vote, and neither got a majority!
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.
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.
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.