Trump's climate change denial and green rollbacks poised to fuel warming

What a ridiculously biased article. It is a hit piece, not a piece of journalism.

V CampbellToday  07:20 am JST

What a ridiculously biased article. It is a hit piece, not a piece of journalism.

This is just the start of it. Trump will probably pull out of the Paris Agreement again so his country can start recovering from the net-zero disease, so everyone whose livelihoods are based on perpetuating the climate catastrophe narrative are petrified. It's going to be a fun four years.

Good.

What a ridiculously biased article. It is a hit piece, not a piece of journalism.

What part of the facts of the article can you demonstrate is false? being in denial of the realities of climate change is a much more likely source of bias, not the article.

This is just the start of it. Trump will probably pull out of the Paris Agreement again so his country can start recovering from the net-zero disease, so everyone whose livelihoods are based on perpetuating the climate catastrophe narrative are petrified. It's going to be a fun four years.

There are livelihoods, and lives based on acting against climate change, that have disastrous consequences proved scientifically, the ones that depend completely on perpetuating narratives instead of facts are those profiting from fossil fuels, it is required complete lack of empathy and moral compass to consider fun that preventable deaths on the millions become more likely thanks to refusing to accept scientific truths.

Good

According to the people that know more about climate and sustainable development it is extremely bad, they have a much more valid appeal to authority than nameless people on the internet.

There are livelihoods, and lives based on acting against climate change, that have disastrous consequences proved scientifically, the ones that depend completely on perpetuating narratives instead of facts are those profiting from fossil fuels, it is required complete lack of empathy and moral compass to consider fun that preventable deaths on the millions become more likely thanks to refusing to accept scientific truths.

Nonsense. The predictions of doom have failed to materialise, indicating that the models and data are either faulty or fraudulent.

That doesn't fit in any theory. Either many economies are de-industrialized by the wokies and greenies or they are de-industrialized by the expected trade wars and tariff hikes by Trump. So where does your global warming come from now? lol

Donald Trump's election victory puts a climate change denier back in the White House,

Unsurprisingly, right off the bat starting with a wrong premise. Nobody denies "climate change", as the climate of course is always changing. What Trump and any sensible person denies is the web of childish narratives woven around it, i.e. that a couple of Western countries can (and should) regulate the climate like an air conditioner with laws and regulations.

Nonsense. The predictions of doom have failed to materialise, indicating that the models and data are either faulty or fraudulent.

What predictions of doom? the ones that put the worse consequences still on the future? or the ones that accurately predicted the prodromes that we are already experiencing.

Once again, when the scientific community of the world concludes the same thing in consensus nameless people on the internet saying they are all wrong or in a conspiracy is not an argument, it is just an excuse, the same as other antiscientific groups like creationists, homeopaths or flat earthers.

That doesn't fit in any theory

So you don't understand that the whole purpose is to stop climate change before it destroys (to a point) civilization? are you also surprised that people worry about a toxic fever even if the patient will likely die from it and become colder as a result?

Unsurprisingly, right off the bat starting with a wrong premise

There is nothing wrong, "climate change" in this context clearly and unequivocally refers to the catastrophic changes brought by human activity, something that Trump have repeatedly called a Hoax. The failed excuse of pretending "climate change" can only refer to all an every kind of change is the one that makes no sense.

virusrex

Once again, when the scientific community of the world concludes the same thing in consensus nameless people on the internet saying they are all wrong or in a conspiracy is not an argument, it is just an excuse, the same as other antiscientific groups like creationists, homeopaths or flat earthers.

The IPCC is a political institution and not the "scientific community of the world", in which of course there are many different voices about every complex topic.

Your continuous appeals to authority are thoroughly unconvincing.

Whenever you hear the phrase 'climate change denial', you are not hearing journalism or science; you are hearing propaganda.

Whenever you hear the phrase 'climate change denial', you are not hearing journalism or science; you are hearing propaganda.

I'd say "often" rather than "whenever". I agree the phrase is sometimes aimed at the wrong kind of people. (Thinking of Michael Mann's usage of the phrase in the past.) But in the case of politicians such as Trump who are fairly ignorant of science, should they not listen to scientists and generally accept the majority opinion? Almost all scientists accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that the amount in the atmosphere has increased. There is perhaps less agreement on the effect of that increase. But Trump seems to be the type who believes what he wants to believe, which I think makes him a denier.

According to the people that know more about climate and sustainable development it is extremely bad, they have a much more valid appeal to authority than nameless people on the internet.

I see, I really don't care about their appeal or how valid their opinions are, but that still won't stop in from tapping into our natural energy resources, and good on him for not listening to these people, so I am looking forward to the upcoming years.

Misinformation! Fake News alert! Fake news meter tipping in the red!

Trump is not anti-climate or anti- global warming.

In 2009, Mr Trump actually signed a full-page advert in the New York Times, along with dozens of other business leaders, expressing support for legislation combating climate change and global warming.

Fact! Look it up yourself.

"If we fail to act now, it is scientifically irrefutable that there will be catastrophic and irreversible consequences for humanity and our planet," Donald Trump.

Trump only asked for more conclusive data on Gloabl warming.

On actual man made global warming.

Trump has also pledged to end Biden's moratorium on new liquefied natural gas (LNG) export permits and strike down what he dubs the "electric vehicle mandate" -- actually a set of emissions standards aimed at boosting EV adoption, which are not mandates at all.

EV cars are great. Tesla makes a great product. 

Here are a few more. My top 3 picks.

https://bollingermotors.com/

https://lucidmotors.com/ The best EV car made on the planet. 

https://www.ff.com/

The issue with these vehicles is this. Fire hazard. 

https://www.ctif.org/news/11-electric-cars-and-48-lithium-batteries-caught-fire-after-exposure-salty-flood-water

President Trump wants consumers to make the best choice for said consumer. What’s best for me and my family. What vehicle is best for me based on my wants and needs.

If I live in California, where there is an actual power grid supporting my EV. And no devasting storms. 

Then yeah. I drive an EV. 

You must pay attention to what the man is saying. There is nothing wrong with owning an EV vehicle in the right situation. Or area you reside in. 

I have a Nissan Leaf. Earlier model. But in Japan Fukuoka where I have residence its useful. Honto bendi desu! 

In Korea where I work a diesel truck. No grid yet here to sustain owning an EV.

But getting close to having one in South Korea. Also, Trump seems keen on hydrogen powered vehicles.

The idea that Trump just ‘denies’ the so-called ‘climate crisis’ through gut feeling and ignorance is wrong. He was closely advised in his first term by William Happer one of the world’s most distinguished scientists and a noted sceptic. Check his bio, its stellar and his authority unquestionable. It is important to understand that Happer, and the many other highly esteemed sceptics don’t ‘deny’ any human influence on climate, just that they think its extent and effects are hugely overstated by the climate crisis lobby. I have studied this for about a dozen years and written articles, published, on this topic (very hard to do given the power of the climate catastrophists). My conclusion is that Trump is absolutely correct to be sceptical and he was 100% correct to pull out of Paris, which even true believers like Greta Thunberg and the Guardian in the UK have grudgingly acknowledged was a fraudulent and pointless agreement. It may be very hard (or even impossible for some) climate campaigners, who are generally well-intentioned idealists, to acknowledge, but there really is no crisis.

The IPCC is a political institution and not the "scientific community of the world",

Again, bring any respected institution of science that contradicts the consensus, you have been repeatedly called to do that to demonstrate there is no such consensus.

You have yet to produce any, which clearly proves all of them contradict your personal belief.

Your continuous appeals to authority are thoroughly unconvincing.

Yet you can't refute them at all, not even once, precisely because the appeal is valid and correct, while you not accepting them is just denial without any basis on reality.

Whenever you hear the phrase 'climate change denial', you are not hearing journalism or science; you are hearing propaganda.

On the contrary, it is a something present in scientific discussions and this is very easy to prove

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33355475/

Pretending that this denial is a valid argument is what is actual propaganda.

and good on him for not listening to these people,

Good on him for being demonstrably wrong? that makes no sense.

Misinformation! Fake News alert! Fake news meter tipping in the red!

Not at all he is on record being in denial of the scientific proof of climate change and its importance.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyella/2022/03/21/on-fox-donald-trump-calls-climate-change-a-hoax-in-the-1920s-they-were-talking-about-global-freezing/

There is nothing fake about reporting this.

Trump only asked for more conclusive data on Gloabl warming.

More conclusive than beyond any reasonable doubt? is he going to ask next for more conclusive proof that the heart pumps blood? that microbes exists? Climate change, its origin on human activity and the disastrous consequences have been proved on the same level.

He was closely advised in his first term by William Happer one of the world’s most distinguished scientists and a noted sceptic.

Absolutely not, his fame is completely dependent on his denialism, and how he completely abandons the scientific method to claim things without having the evidence for it, or even worse with evidence that already disprove those claims. He has openly lied to avoid recognizing the conclusions of the actual experts on the field. Infamous is a much more appropriate word to describe how he is known.

I have studied this for about a dozen years and written articles, published, on this topic (very hard to do given the power of the climate catastrophists). 

So you think you know more than the consensus? and have published in peer reviewed outlets but you can't provide any reference? Appeals to personal authority are obviously irrelevant without any credentials, it is as valid as someone saying you are incorrect based on being head of the department of climatology in 17 different universities. Would you accept that appeal as an argument?

Those who do not wish to see the climate change that is not a little shift but radically has changed. The temperatures, the weather storms that are violent and that is worldwide.

Running the US will be dumb, dumber and dumbest (Trump), and those who voted for him will be the ones' will be regretting they voted for this guy and his cronies and yes, all his cronies will be getting cushy paid jobs.

I will be holding my breath to the next election if there is one.

Not at all he is on record being in denial of the scientific proof of climate change and its importance.

Given time, his eyes can be opened to the Earth warming.

I respect your point. I will not deny he has made some off comments.

Here is the proof. You have to go back. At one point he was active taking a stand on the Earth warming.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/03/us/politics/document-Nyt-Ad-Re-Climate-Change-Trump-Signer.html

I know he is on record saying its a hoax. And he did not discuss global warming much or at all on the stump.

But like most. He can grow. He can learn.

Give it some time. At one time he felt strongly about global warming.

Global warming can not be denied. Only a fool would.

If I am wrong on this. Remind me later. I will stand corrected.

I agree with @V Campbell. I really hate to see Japan Today immediately adopting the CNN model of just presenting President Trump in the worst possible light.

Trump has said before that he wants out of the Paris agreement because America was asked to shoulder burdens that China is not going to achieve, and maybe not even attempt to achieve.

Come on JT, try to find some good in the fact that the US is still free enough to democratically elect a president (and Senate, likely House of Rep also) by an landslide/overwhelming majority. If you want to publish "hit" pieces, then target us US citizens since we elected him.

Five families

Give it some time. At one time he felt strongly about global warming.

Global warming can not be denied. Only a fool would.

I do not know if there is or not, but let us assume there is.

The question is what, if anything, to do about it. What is the "correct" global average temperature (if such a thing exists), and how should it be maintained? If it is exceeded, is that a good thing or a bad thing? And how do you regulate the climate? Are you assuming that the only thing influencing the climate is the human made CO2? Otherwise everything is stable? And if it is all human-made CO2, how do you deal with that? By buying EVs and solar panels from China? Do they change anything? And even if you miraculously reduce all CO2 output in the Western world to zero, does that change anything, seeing that the biggest contribution comes from China and India? There is simply no connection from the narrative to the simplistic "solutions".

Here is the proof. You have to go back. At one point he was active taking a stand on the Earth warming.

You understand that this proves Trump can go back on his own word and that he qualifies as a hoax something he previously recognized as true all for personal profit? you are making a very powerful argument against his value as a person.

But like most. He can grow. He can learn.

As you are proving he is going in the opposite direction, devolving, unlearning.

I really hate to see Japan Today immediately adopting the CNN model of just presenting President Trump in the worst possible light.

There is no other light that is accurate, the reporting is either truthful or positive, but it can't be both, the problem with some people is that they refuse to accept what Trump has declared and doing about climate change so any reporting that shows this immediately is rejected as "bad", it is just correct.

I do not know if there is or not, but let us assume there is.

The scientists of the world know there is, is caused by humans and will have disastrous consequences, they are a much more accurate source of information than nameless people on the internet that accept they don't know basic concepts on the topic.

What is the "correct" global average temperature (if such a thing exists)

This is deeply mistaken, the problem is not that the temperature is "incorrect", but that it affects the climate in ways that are disastrous to ecosystems and also for human life, if you consider other humans dispensable then climate change is "correct" but usually this is considered morally inacceptable and a show of being self centered.

Are you assuming that the only thing influencing the climate is the human made CO2?

The scientist have proved that CO2 is the factor that is causing climate change even if other factors have tiny influences as well, without the CO2 produced by human activity there would be no climate change.

And even if you miraculously reduce all CO2 output in the Western world to zero, does that change anything, seeing that the biggest contribution comes from China and India? 

Which is why the objective is to reduce CO2 everywhere, when you propose lukewarm solutions and call them insufficient you are accepting that the actual solutions being proposed are so effective that you had to misrepresent them to have a point.

The predictions of doom have failed to materialise, indicating that the models and data are either faulty or fraudulent.

The danger of a climate calamity is still looming, and is very real. However, we have started to develop solar energy and to shift to electrical transportation, and this gives some hope that our wonderful planet will be salvaged. It turns out that acting to curb the climate calamity does not harm the economy, just the contrary - this effort brings modernization and growth. Trump is a very wise and far-sighted leader. I believe that he will act to save the world, although perhaps not via the silly Paris agreement.