Slashdot Mirror
Trump Admits 'Some Connectivity' Between Climate Change and Human Activity (cnn.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNN: President-elect Donald Trump conceded Tuesday there is "some connectivity" between human activity and climate change and wavered on whether he would pull the United States out of international accords aimed at combating the phenomenon, which scientists overwhelmingly agree is caused by human activity. The statements could mark a softening in Trump's position on U.S. involvement in efforts to fight climate change, although he did not commit to specific action in any direction. During the campaign, he vowed to "cancel" the U.S.'s participation in the Paris climate agreement, stop all U.S. payments to UN programs aimed at fighting climate change and continued to cast serious doubt on the role man-made carbon dioxide emissions played in the planet's warming and associated impacts. "I think there is some connectivity. Some, something. It depends on how much," Trump said Tuesday in a meeting with New York Times reporters, columnists and editors. He has previously called climate change a "hoax" invented by the Chinese. Asked if he would withdraw the U.S. from international climate change agreements, Trump said he is "looking at it very closely," according to Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Mike Grynbaum, who were live-tweeting the meeting. He added that he has "an open mind to it," despite explicitly promising to withdraw from at least one climate accord on the campaign trail. The President-elect on the campaign trail repeatedly vowed to slash environmental protection regulations burdening U.S. businesses and said that beyond the consequences to the planet, he is particularly mindful of the economic impact of combating climate change. He said he is considering "how much it will cost our companies" and the effect on American competitiveness in the global market, according to a tweet from Grynbaum.
Really? Let's see what he said in his own words...
https://twitter.com/realdonald...
http://www.snopes.com/donald-t...
You are welcome on my lawn.
Scott Adams predicted this in May.
Predicted that Trumps real position on climate change was actually "I don't know because I haven't looked into it," and that once he did, if he decided it was a problem, he'd be the only person who could convince the Republican base that it was a problem and that something needed to be done. That no Democrat ever could, but Trump could carry the Republicans right along because they see him as one of them, and very credible.
Mr. Adams is a very observant wingnut.
Woosh!!! That was the sarcasm flying over your head...
Can you explain how Obama is not a total failure at fighting climate change or cite links as to how he has had a meaningful impact on reducing global warming?
The fact that progressive policies have been implemented on working towards goals, open, rational and above all educated dialouge. Most importantly not idiotic pro-business, anti-middle class policies that counteract any attempt to deal with the main issues that would need to be in place for this: the consumer public and the actual economy, not the millionaire+ economy.
Two words:
Republican Congress.
'Nuf said.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
As per USC title 18 Section 37 Para 793(f), mishandling of classified information is a felony offense. It has no intent requirement. Fail to handle classified information correctly and you are guilty, putting classified information into unclassified emails is mishandling at a minimum. One or two minor incidents can usually be waived. A systematic intentional disregard for the proper handling of classified information cannot. She needs to face charges. She could even be charged with intentional release of classified information. She intended to operate outside the established system, laws and regulations pertaining to classified information. But even if we let that slide her mishandling was still extensive and criminal.
It is not nonsense, it's a serious felony and needs to be prosecuted. If she can beat the charges or work out a plea deal that's fine, but to let her just skate establishes that there are two tiers to our justice system, the tier most people are subject to. And second tier for the privileged elite.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
Yeah, he hired Bannon just to handle coffee around the office.
Trump's threats to cut off NATO and other states that the US has typically defended scares me a lot more. Because the result would be a rapid military buildup in said states. Including an increase in the number of states that have nuclear weapons, and the quantity of weapons therein. Some places that currently rely on the US as their source of Mutually Assured Destruction are particularly concerning to think about: if the US abandoned Saudi Arabia, leaving them exposed to Israel and Iran, how long do you think it would be before they had a nuclear weapon (esp. given that some sources suggest that they helped fund Pakistan's program in exchange for a right to acquire the nuclear technology if they ever needed it)? A nuclear-armed Israel, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, doesn't that sound like a dream? Japan would certainly give up their pacifism and go heavy on militarization; they've already been drifting that way. More military confrontation between Japan and China or North Korea, doesn't that sound like a safe world? South Korea would likewise have to scale up even further from how they currently are, and again, go nuclear. Eastern Europe would be terrified and likely form an anti-Russian alliance with a huge increase in military spending (if they couldn't establish a Europe-wide alliance); Poland would likely be at its core, but it'd likely welcome Ukraine and Georgia.
The further you drill down, the more potential for upheaval you run into. It's really a terrifying concept, what could happen if Trump were to carry out his threats. Much of global stability hinges on countries feeling safe and secure. When countries don't feel safe and secure, they stockpile arms and sleep with one eye open.
Wingus, Dingus! Listen up!
Actually, in the case of Germany the U.S. is older as a country by something like a hundred years. The unification of something like what we now call Germany did not begin until the German Empire began in 1871. The Confederation of States was formed in 1781, and the Constitution (so U.S.) was seven years later in 1788. So depending on when you were talking about, either 100 years, or 93 years. Prior to that you don't really have anything that could be called Germany, rather you have separate German-speking states. It does not look like you understand history enough to be using it to make broad sweeping statements like you are doing.
Another major problem in your argument is that the U.S. is much bigger, population wise, that most countries it is going to be compared to. So when you say things like "richest", that is true for aggregate wealth. But it is not true for per-capita income (U.S. is #11).
And the statement "Capitalism and free markets have lifted more people out of poverty and lifted the standards of living of more people than any other system yet tried, combined" ignores that China has lifted billions of people out of poverty. You can make lots of truthful bad statements about China, and I certainly would not want to live there. But it does prove that statement wrong.
But even more to the point: Germany has a much more social-based system than ours. Clearly in areas of heath-care, education, workers rights, and welfare systems. But they are doing better than the U.S. in terms of growth, average wage, and unemployment. How does your argument survive that?