The Trump Presidency

[Quantum Quack]

As an aside:
latest phenomena mention of :
fire balls ( meteorite ) witnessed, up 30%+ since 2012 - reason.. science really has no idea.
High altitude ( 300 ks) Gas type flare/ribbon witnessed with temps up to 3000 deg Celsius on numerous recent occasions over Northern latitudes... Science has no real idea. Detection confirmed and tested.

www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-24/new-light-phenomenon-called-steve-by-aurora-watchers/8466234

so there is a lot more happening than just oceanic warming, permafrost melting, arctic sea ice a melting.. etc... a lot more...
either way Trumps is the go... GO Trump Go trump yeh yeh yeh!!!!!

 

[Michael 345]

I'm getting apparently sincere posts, in a science forum, from somebody who thinks science becomes unsound when it is used to predict the future consequences of present trends, actions, and events.

It does

Frank Luntz

It’s time for us to start talking about “climate change” instead of global warming and “conservation” instead of preservation.1) “Climate change” is less frightening than “global warming”. As one focus group participant noted, climate change “sounds like you’re going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.” While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge.

So my post was correct???

So far they seem to have underestimated the rate of some of the changes they predicted. The Greenland and Arctic Ocean ice is melting a lot faster than they estimated it most likely would, for example, and the ocean is acidifying a bit faster, and the methane clathrate release is ahead of what they had hoped.

So unsound???

And other predictions?

Sound?

Unsound either way worse or better?

 

[iceaura]

I'm getting apparently sincere posts, in a science forum, from somebody who thinks science becomes unsound when it is used to predict the future consequences of present trends, actions, and events.
It does

And yet your internet connection works.

So my post was correct???

You left out the part about your claim being wingnut political spin intended to deceive Republican voters.

You presented the adoption of "climate change" in the mass media it as if it were a disingenuous term adopted by AGW promulgators to conceal their lack of scientific integrity and basis in sound research and solid application of standard theory. Instead, it was political spin vocabulary adopted by AGW deniers to conceal the alarming nature of the situation we face as a consequence of boosting CO2 levels in the air.

So my post was correct???

Your post was idiotically false, an expression of what has been called for good reason "the dumbest of the climate change denials". (Its major competition being the claim that cold weather somewhere disproves claims of global warming)

So unsound???

No.

Not unsound. Underestimates. They predicted the most likely value of a range they calculated from research and theory, and events came in on one extreme rather than the conservative middle value. That happens all the time in every science.

They correctly calculated the direction and type of change (Greenland ice would begin and continue melting), and the range of possible values (pretty rapid, geologically speaking. Not like the past). They have made thousands of such estimates, and their track record is one of conservative, low-ball, prudent, and given that bias largely accurate estimates.

And in coming in on the high side, the actual events strengthened their alarmist warnings - their notification of the implications of the high side of their range of possibilities was the most alarming aspect of their research and analysis, and this aspect has been strengthened.

Which brings us around to Trump's defunding of their research and analysis - by the same Party that tried to hide behind tweaking the vocabulary of the public discussion of that research and the findings of that analysis.

 

[Michael 345]

You left out the part about your claim being wingnut political spin intended to deceive Republican voters.

You presented the adoption of "climate change" in the mass media it as if it were a disingenuous term adopted by AGW promulgators to conceal their lack of scientific integrity and basis in sound research and solid application of standard theory. Instead, it was political spin vocabulary adopted by AGW deniers to conceal the alarming nature of the situation we face as a consequence of boosting CO2 levels in the air.

You MIGHT / COULD be right IF

• I was American
• Knew something about the people you are talking about
• All my thoughts were consumed by Conspiracy
• AND I gave a Cowpat about the politics of America

Living in a real world I call it as I see it

Not unsound. Underestimates

How would I spell UNDERESTIMATES?

How about UNSOUND?

They correctly calculated the direction and type of change (Greenland ice would begin and continue melting), and the range of possible values (pretty rapid, geologically speaking. Not like the past). They have made thousands of such estimates, and their track record is one of conservative, low-ball, prudent, and given that bias largely accurate estimates.

See above how to make

a Scientific

calculated

state of the art

well informed

educated

unsound

guess

And in coming in on the high side, the actual events strengthened their alarmist warnings - their notification of the implications of the high side of their range of possibilities was the most alarming aspect of their research and analysis, and this aspect has been strengthened.

Oh sorry the tiles are not falling from the ceiling

The ceiling is falling WITH the tiles

 

[iceaura]

You MIGHT / COULD be right IF

• I was American
• Knew something about the people you are talking about
• All my thoughts were consumed by Conspiracy
• AND I gave a Cowpat about the politics of America

Irrelevant. None of that stuff affects your being wrong exactly as described. You are posting one of the dumbest of all AGW denials, and not knowing where it came from doesn't help you - especially when you speculate on that very matter.

How would I spell UNDERESTIMATES?
How about UNSOUND?

You would then be wrong, instead of right.

See above how to make a Scientific, calculated, state of the art, well informed, educated, unsound,
guess

Exactly as every other science produces, in the same way, bringing you the internet you are currently spamming with goof.

And further deflecting, with my help to be sure, the thread - Trump's defunding of climate science, and all other environmental sciences, is taken out of the spotlight and defended by such goof.

 

[Michael 345]

And further deflecting, with my help to be sure, the thread - Trump's defunding of climate science, and all other environmental sciences, is taken out of the spotlight and defended such goof.

Then

standing centre stage in the spotlight taking a bow

my job is done

I understood that the thread was about

The Trump Presidency

not

the thread - Trump's defunding of climate science

But what would this

goof

know

 

[iceaura]

standing centre stage in the spotlight taking a bow

You deceptively edited every quote there, without indication - misrepresenting my post not to illustrate anything, but to allow you to pretend to have been merely trolling, instead of actually AGW denying.

Which brings us to the matter of Trump's proposed cutbacks on non-military science funding - one of the most far-reaching of his actions to date, and being favorably considered in the Republican Congress. It gets its favorable consideration partly because of its effects on exactly those centers of government research that are likely to make trouble for large corporate interests - climate change, public health problems, the effects of more extreme income inequality, the consequences of various tax policies, the risks of deregulation in certain industries, etc.

This science budget has attracted support from AGW deniers in particular - an avenue of rapprochement between Trump and the somewhat bruised Republican House.

 

[Randwolf]

Then
standing centre stage in the spotlight taking a bow
my job is done
I understood that the thread was about
The Trump Presidency
not
But what would this
know

What are you doing Michael 345? I mean for real, what is this?

Do you really not believe that human activity is a significant contributor to AGW / Climate Change / Global Warming / Killing the Planet?

 

[Michael 345]

You deceptively edited every quote there, without indication - misrepresenting my post not to illustrate anything, but to allow you to pretend to have been merely trolling, instead of actually AGW denying.

Which brings us to the matter of Trump's proposed cutbacks on non-military science funding - one of the most far-reaching of his actions to date, and being favorably considered in the Republican Congress. It gets its favorable consideration partly because of its effects on exactly those centers of government research that are likely to make trouble for large corporate interests - climate change, public health problems, the effects of more extreme income inequality, the consequences of various tax policies, the risks of deregulation in certain industries, etc.

This science budget has attracted support from AGW deniers in particular - an avenue of rapprochement between Trump and the somewhat bruised Republican House.

If you contend the above so be it

I would remind all who read ANY thread taking out sections of a post to comment on that section concentrates focus on that section

I find it strange when someone makes what is clearly a comment without having a orange attachment

I also remind others if you feel the orange attachment has been manipulated (I am not posting edited)

THE ORIGINAL IS STILL AVAILABLE FOR READING

If you feel the poster has cherry picked a post

go to the post and cherry pick same sections for rebuttal

To keep on thread I have made the point elsewhere many in Australia would take Trump over our current Prime Minister and we would also throw in his female deputy if Trumps wife came as a package

You could also do a deal for our current Prime Ministers predecessor Tony if you sweeten the deal with $2

 

[Michael 345]

What are you doing Michael 345? I mean for real, what is this?

Do you really not believe that human activity is a significant contributor to AGW / Climate Change / Global Warming / Killing the Planet?

I would put myself more as a fence sitter

I also have looked at the past and noted Earth has had Ice Ages as well as Tropical Eons

when no human activity was present

Ummmm how did the Earth heat up again with no pesky humans driving cars and working in factories?

How did the Earth cool down again to move into another Ice Age?

I would also draw focus to Earth is not a closed system

To heat up more heat must be applied to the Earth system than excapes to space

Also more must excape to cool down

A shonky balance is reached when no more application of heat works because extra heat applied pushes out more heat into space

That's why you don't see greenhouses bursting into flames

Back to Trump Presidency

Do we have a deal?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Paris Accord. 12/2015

195 members have signed, 143 have ratified and agreement that is going to cost their nations big time, causing significant sacrifice all in the name of AGW and the threat associated.

Do you think they would be stupid enough to agree to making such hardship if they were not very confident that the need was real and imminent?
Are 195 professional statesmen and women with all their political support blindly signing up to a PR stunt?
Then along comes Trump who can not even spell "unpresedented" properly and with out any real understanding of the issue, denying all the obvious evidence and decides with out bothering to find out, to call all those 195 professional statesmen idiots?

Michael 345
Are they all idiots?

Also speaking of idiocy how do you feel about the recent news that Trump wants to brief the US senate on the North Korean issue?
More fence sitting perhaps?

 

[iceaura]

I would put myself more as a fence sitter
I also have looked at the past and noted Earth has had Ice Ages as well as Tropical Eons
when no human activity was present
Ummmm how did the Earth heat up again with no pesky humans driving cars and working in factories?
How did the Earth cool down again to move into another Ice Age?

I would also draw focus to Earth is not a closed system
To heat up more heat must be applied to the Earth system than excapes to space
Also more must excape to cool down
A shonky balance is reached when no more application of heat works because extra heat applied pushes out more heat into space
That's why you don't see greenhouses bursting into flames

There is a thread on this form attempting to deal specifically with exactly this form of denial.

What's happening now is different from past warmings. You do see greenhouses heat up. And so forth. None of that makes any sense as a refutation or criticism of current climate research and analysis.

You are pretending to be a fence sitter: there is no such fence. You are, by asking such questions as if they were genuine inquiry, simply denying the facts of the matter as they have appeared in front of you and all around you - you pretend the common reality of physical and historical circumstance, the unfenced meadow all around you, does not exist.

And as noted: this rejection of reality in de fence of myth is a major source of political support for Trump - he can pander to it by doing harm to many good things, beginning with climate research in this case. He can easily break what took decades to build, and will take decades to build again.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I would not be surprised that if you took a survey of Trump core supporters you would find most if not all are AGW deniers...

 

[Michael 345]

Do you think they would be stupid enough to agree to making such hardship if they were not very confident that the need was real and imminent?

Do you think I think politicians are stupid? YES

while being political? YES

make encyclopaedia size promises? YES

but deliver postit note size results? YES

Are they all idiots?

I don't know

Never seen any evidence either way

I do know they are politicians

I know politicians make stupid political decisions based on keeping their political jobs

Up to you to make your own mind up about the wisdom of the group thinking

 

[Quantum Quack]

Do you think I think politicians are stupid? YES

as Trump has proved many times over... true...

while being political? YES

Trump is political!

make encyclopaedia size promises? YES

Trump makes huge promises!

but deliver postit note size results? YES

Yep ... that's Trump again....

I don't know

yep that is certain...

Never seen any evidence either way

Never looked have you...

I do know they are politicians

Yep well at least Trump is...

I know politicians make stupid political decisions based on keeping their political jobs

Gosh you have Trump down to a capital "T"



So why do you think that Trump AGW denial is any different as a position than any politicians?
Is it because you agree with him. Is that what makes him legitimate and not dare I say, a politician?
Are you denying that Trump is a politician?

 

[Michael 345]

Never looked have you...

More observed

So why do you think that Trump AGW denial is any different as a position than any politicians?

Show where I posted such please

Are you denying that Trump is a politician?

I will leave that conundrum to the Americans

 

[joepistole]

Trump is now refusing to cooperate with the congressional investigation. It's getting more and more interesting. What is next? Why has Trump refused to provide Congress documents they requested. What is Trump hiding? I'd say that's obstruction of justice. That's an impeachable offense.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

!00 days coming up sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooon.

https://ca.yahoo.com/news/simpsons-trump-100-days-011957112.html

 

[joepistole]

Some very important words for all of us, especially our right wing brothers and sisters:

 

[joepistole]

Some more words of wisdom couched in a little humor: