President 'The Donald' Trump and Surprising Consequences - Mod warning in OP

weisses

Amerika wrote: »

Yup, a fine administration.


Scott Pruitt - EPA administrator. Good pick as it’s time to drain the swamp that the out-of-control EPA has become with it’s enormous federal regulatory overreaches.

And something to note going forward in our methods of dealing with climate change:
http://www.dailywire.com/news/13274/report-noaa-fudged-2015-climate-change-data-aaron-bandler#exit-modal
I found it interesting how the media was forced to report on this for a day or two, then it became taboo to talk about it. I for one am glad not to have people in some key positions who are not devout disciples to the religion of Global Warming..

So your solution to the religion of global warming is to appoint someone who is in the pocket of the oil and gas companies ? ......

Amerika

Leroy42 wrote: »

Leaving aside the rubbish claim that somehow climate change is a religion (which based on how religion is seen across the world should actually mean that it is taken seriously!), even if you set aside the science, common sense would tell you that dumping waste into rivers and streams is not good.

Whilst coal and oil helped drive the industrial revlution and beyond, it is fully accepted that it is a finite resource and that continuing to rely on it means that we will eventually run out. Does it not make sense, now that the technology exists, to use other renewable forms?

What possible reason is there to continue to use oil and gas when other forms of energy now exist. Not only will the oil and gas, now only used where absolutely necessary, last longer, but will be cheaper and, most importantly, remove the key strategic asset that many of the worlds problem areas can use to force their agenda.

What to have a better relationship with Russia? Remove the power they have over Europe in terms of energy supply. Simple. What to force Saudi to take up human rights? Reduce their world power position by reducing the world dependence on their product.

I am all for the move to renewable forms of energy. But as the old tagline from Paul Masson wineries goes... ‘We will sell no wine before its time.’ Once we can get a sustainable form of renewable energy then the uses of coal, oil and natural gas will diminish as a natural course of action. We aren’t there yet, and won't be for some time on a grand scale. A gradual reduction of non-renewable energy makes more sense as renewable energy becomes more efficient and less costly. Solar and wind is promising and makes sense because with other renewable sources, their production costs more energy than it produces, and is not sustainable. Why do we want to cut off the nose to spite the face right now?

Amerika

weisses wrote: »

So your solution to the religion of global warming is to appoint someone who is in the pocket of the oil and gas companies ? ......

As opposed to those who are bankrolled by renewable energy tycoons like Tom Steyer and George Soros? I prefer to think of Pruitt as someone who intends to put an end to the reliance on junk science policies that drive regulatory overreach.

26000 Elephants

Amerika wrote: »

Perhaps it is time to let somebody without extensive experience in the public education system try something new.

Yeah, coz thats always a great idea. :rolleyes: Are you for real?

Scott Pruitt - EPA administrator. Good pick as it’s time to drain the swamp that the out-of-control EPA has become with it’s enormous federal regulatory overreaches.

If you want to destroy the environment for generations to come to profit a few in the short term, sure. Lets see what his emails reveal about his connections to the power industry first.

< silly nuanced article>
I found it interesting how the media was forced to report on this for a day or two, then it became taboo to talk about it.

Because they found that there was nothing in it? As your man Bates himself admitted in the same article?

Bates himself later said that the main issue was the process, not data manipulation.

The 'process' being that the report was released sooner than he felt prudent.

demfad

Leroy42 wrote: »

What to have a better relationship with Russia? Remove the power they have over Europe in terms of energy supply. Simple. What to force Saudi to take up human rights? Reduce their world power position by reducing the world dependence on their product.

Completely agree. On an aside a hidden sanction against Russia may well have been an agreement between Obama and Saudis to keep the price of oil low. Russia is massively dependent on this marker.

26000 Elephants

Amerika wrote: »

As opposed to those who are bankrolled by renewable energy tycoons like Tom Steyer and George Soros? I prefer to think of Pruitt as someone who intends to put an end to the reliance on junk science policies that drive regulatory overreach.

Given a choice between tycoons who will either save the world or destroy it, I will take the former. Thank you.

And the only "junk" science here is what Pruitt and his cronies will push in order to make a few quid.

Christy42

Amerika wrote: »

I am all for the move to renewable forms of energy. But as the old tagline from Paul Masson wineries goes... ‘We will sell no wine before its time.’ Once we can get a sustainable form of renewable energy then the uses of coal, oil and natural gas will diminish as a natural course of action. We aren’t there yet, and won't be for some time on a grand scale. A gradual reduction of non-renewable energy makes more sense as renewable energy becomes more efficient and less costly. Solar and wind is promising and makes sense because with other renewable sources, their production costs more energy than it produces, and is not sustainable. Why do we want to cut off the nose to spite the face right now?

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2016-05-16/germany-just-got-almost-all-of-its-power-from-renewable-energy?client=ms-android-h3g-ie

We are close. The biggest blocking point right now are the politician's as opposed to the science.

Secondly we are running out of time. We only have one planet. We may not live to see the fruits of destruction currently being sown but future generations definitely will. Even then I reckon I will be alive for it if we don't change course (I have no idea about your age).

weisses

Amerika wrote: »

As opposed to those who are bankrolled by renewable energy tycoons like Tom Steyer and George Soros?

Which you have an issue with ...And then being replaced by a guy who gets bankrolled by the oil an gas lobby which you dont have an issue with ...apparently

demfad

26000 Elephants wrote: »

I'm desperately trying to find grounds to label you as a CT, but despite the apparently outlandish scenario you present above, each part has absolute relevance in the car-crash administration in the WH. :cool:

The draconian laws, to be rolled back and reintroduced as only slightly less draconian, is a tried and trusted tactic. But I still think the election success came as a surprise to Bannon - he hasnt fully game theorized all probable outcomes for his strategy. And he completely under estimated Trumps ability to make a fool of himself on stage, without a director and script writer to manage him. That is Bannons primary failing. At least the lads in Fine Gael had the good sense to keep Enda away from cameras as much as they could.

True. Remember the Mercer/Bannon candidate was not Trump but Ted Cruz. Mercer picked Pence as VP so that this kind of fundamentalist Christian admin would then be controlled by a fundamentalist Christian politician president if the show monkey got blown away.
You are right Bannon miscalculated with Trump and with Flynn. He miscalculated with himself also. He is not a politician, neither is Flynn and their abrasive manner has hastened greatly the WH leaks at least.
Just to give you an idea of the trouble that is coming, have a look at this:
This is Carter Page being interviewed on video by Jon Snow last night:

This is who Carter Page is (from Steele dossier):


Hats off to Snow: This is outstanding interviewing and rivetting viewing. Is Page a traitor?

https://www.channel4.com/news/trump-carter-page-

interview

THERE IS MORE: Carter Page visited Moscow again in December.
Two days later 19% Rosneft sold to unknown buyers as dossier above predicted.
Same day: ex KGB chief and 'close aide' to Sechin found dead in his car. Was this the same source 'close associate of Rosneft' president above in the dossier?

Leroy42

Amerika wrote: »

I am all for the move to renewable forms of energy. But as the old tagline from Paul Masson wineries goes... ‘We will sell no wine before its time.’ Once we can get a sustainable form of renewable energy then the uses of coal, oil and natural gas will diminish as a natural course of action. We aren’t there yet, and won't be for some time on a grand scale. A gradual reduction of non-renewable energy makes more sense as renewable energy becomes more efficient and less costly. Solar and wind is promising and makes sense because with other renewable sources, their production costs more energy than it produces, and is not sustainable. Why do we want to cut off the nose to spite the face right now?

So your plan to move towards a sustainable renewable energy environment is to rid the oil and gas companies of the need to pay for the costs of dealing with the effects of their products?

The only reason the that Oil and Coal is considered to be economic is that the true cost of the product, including the costs to repair the damage to environment is not borne by those companies but by the taxpayer and society in general.

Do the Oil and coal companies pay a levy for the smog in our cities? Factor that in and you will very quickly get to a better comparison.

Professor Moriarty

Amerika wrote: »

First one that came up on my search. Wouldn’t it be better to attack the content rather than the source. Soooooooo... What reporting in the article do you find to be incorrect?

The NYT have a counterargument saying that it was a disgruntlement by Bates due to being demoted and report a rebuttal by fellow scientists.

The Guardian quotes Bates as saying he was misrepresented and report a rebuttal by fellow scientists.

In an interview with this energy magazine, Bates clarified: "The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was,"

Finally, from an article dated 9th February 2017 on this scientific website, a verbatim quote from Bates:
"Global warming is a scientific fact."

Amerika

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

The NYT have a counterargument saying that it was a disgruntlement by Bates due to being demoted and report a rebuttal by fellow scientists.

The Guardian quotes Bates as saying he was misrepresented and report a rebuttal by fellow scientists.

In an interview with this energy magazine, Bates clarified: "The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was,"

Finally, from an article dated 9th February 2017 on this scientific website, a verbatim quote from Bates:
"Global warming is a scientific fact."

Bates told the Daily Mail that the paper was pushed out quickly in order to "time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy." And it just so happened to coincide with the Paris climate conference.

Perhaps there was no tampering with the data, and maybe NOAA's conclusion was correct. But if the process was as shoddy as Bates claims it was, then it's hard to take the study seriously and it needs to be investigated. It would seem unlikely that Bates would fabricate such allegations since he had studied climate and meteorology for 40 years, even receiving a gold medal from former President Barack Obama for his contributions to the fields.

Perhaps the Paris deal, being the world's first comprehensive climate agreement was rushed, also, using NOAA's conclusion? Perhaps Trump will correct the US involvement in this rush to judgement at the Paris climate conference and relook at the crippling combination of laws, regulations and incentives it entails.

Professor Moriarty

Amerika wrote: »

Bates told the Daily Mail that the paper was pushed out quickly in order to "time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy." And it just so happened to coincide with the Paris climate conference.

Perhaps there was no tampering with the data, and maybe NOAA's conclusion was correct. But if the process was as shoddy as Bates claims it was, then it's hard to take the study seriously and it needs to be investigated. It would seem unlikely that Bates would fabricate such allegations since he had studied climate and meteorology for 40 years, even receiving a gold medal from former President Barack Obama for his contributions to the fields.

Perhaps the Paris deal, being the world's first comprehensive climate agreement was rushed, also, using NOAA's conclusion? Perhaps Trump will correct the US involvement in this rush to judgement at the Paris climate conference and relook at the crippling combination of laws, regulations and incentives it entails.

Well no. Subsequent to the Daily Mail's sensationalism, where Bates said he was misrepresented, further data as reported by The Washington Post confirmed the report's findings. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/02/07/as-the-planet-warms-doubters-launch-a-new-attack-on-a-famous-climate-change-study/?utm_term=.558d7b7770b4

It's also important to note that the Paris deal wasn't based on just one report (whose findings are sound anyway) but on hundreds of reports.

All of the NOAA scientists, including Bates himself, believe "global warming is a scientific fact." Plus thousands of other scientists. According to NASA, 97% of scientists believe in climate change. Should we believe these scientists?

Or Trump?

Amerika

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Well no. Subsequent to the Daily Mail's sensationalism, where Bates said he was misrepresented, further data as reported by The Washington Post confirmed the report's findings. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/02/07/as-the-planet-warms-doubters-launch-a-new-attack-on-a-famous-climate-change-study/?utm_term=.558d7b7770b4

It's also important to note that the Paris deal wasn't based on just one report (whose findings are sound anyway) but on hundreds of reports.

All of the NOAA scientists, including Bates himself, believe "global warming is a scientific fact." Plus thousands of other scientists. According to NASA, 97% of scientists believe in climate change. Should we believe these scientists?

Or Trump?

I’ve read a number of articles that also mentions this mysterious ‘independently confirmed by another recent study’ entity.

Took a bit to find out whom it was.

So, does this entity who ‘independently confirm the data" claim that UHI (Urban Heat Island effect) has no effect on the temperature trends? And wouldn’t this assumption be in direct opposition to other studies, satellite data, radiosonde data, and common sense? Hasn’t it been demonstrated that UHI has a huge effect on surface temperatures? Didn’t the sets of satellite data in the study indicate that BEST surface temperatures are warming much faster than the air over the land? And doesn’t Global Warming theory require that the atmosphere warm faster than the surface?

weisses

Amerika wrote: »

So, does this entity who ‘independently confirm the data" claim that UHI (Urban Heat Island effect) has no effect on the temperature trends? And wouldn’t this assumption be in direct opposition to other studies, satellite data, radiosonde data, and common sense? Hasn’t it been demonstrated that UHI has a huge effect on surface temperatures? Didn’t the sets of satellite data in the study indicate that BEST surface temperatures are warming much faster than the air over the land? And doesn’t Global Warming theory require that the atmosphere warm faster than the surface?

Should you not at this stage look back to your own position in regards to sources and research the content of the sources you provide? before labeling people as " devout disciples to the religion of Global Warming" ?

PopePalpatine

weisses wrote: »

Which you have an issue with ...And then being replaced by a guy who gets bankrolled by the oil an gas lobby which you dont have an issue with ...apparently

Remember, it's not "draining the swamp" if the tycoons getting their wings clipped are on your side of the debate(s). :rolleyes:

oscarBravo

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Trump isn't a public servant. He intended to run the presidency like a business, making the decisions himself and firing people who caused any problems. Eventually you end up with people who do what they're told and don't ask any questions, and know they may inevitably fall on their own sword.

I just came across this article on that very topic. Interesting reading.

So why the seeming contradiction between his businessman credentials and chaotic governing style?

Well for one thing, Trump wasn’t a genuine CEO. That is, he didn’t run a major public corporation with shareholders and a board of directors that could hold him to account. Instead, he was the head of a family-owned, private web of enterprises. Regardless of the title he gave himself, the position arguably ill-equipped him for the demands of the presidency.

esteve

God we are going backwards here, still debating climate change at this level.

Man made climate change has been looked at by scientists since the end of the 19th century. The real climate change debate started in the 50's. It was discussed vehemently within the science community for the next 3-4 decades before the overwhelming consensus was that humans are contributing to climate change. The debate is over amongst scientists, yet here we remain. Perhaps we are destined to simply wipe ourselves out, simply baffling!

Portugal ran a trial last year. For four days their entire grid was powered by renewables. Costa Rica has been doing the same for two years. The technology is there, albeit some energy storage issues which are being fixed. What is needed is investment, political support and public will instead of powerful lobby groups from the private oil sector influencing our policies. The time to act is now, in fact it was probably decades ago, but there could still be time. The EPA appointment is beyond a joke, just as is the claim of draining the swamp.

Professor Moriarty

Amerika wrote: »

I’ve read a number of articles that also mentions this mysterious ‘independently confirmed by another recent study’ entity.

Took a bit to find out whom it was.

So, does this entity who ‘independently confirm the data" claim that UHI (Urban Heat Island effect) has no effect on the temperature trends? And wouldn’t this assumption be in direct opposition to other studies, satellite data, radiosonde data, and common sense? Hasn’t it been demonstrated that UHI has a huge effect on surface temperatures? Didn’t the sets of satellite data in the study indicate that BEST surface temperatures are warming much faster than the air over the land? And doesn’t Global Warming theory require that the atmosphere warm faster than the surface?

Let's not be deflected from the Mail's article that you quoted.

As well as all of the other rebuttals I've quoted, it is particularly rubbished by the LSE. Interestingly, the Irish Icarus institute also refutes the article.

Also, if you want in depth analysis and rebuttal, check out Hausfather's research which corroborates the report here:https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-mail-sundays-astonishing-evidence-global-temperature-rise

If you need further evidence of the article's irrelevance and downright inaccuracy (remember Bates said he was misrepresented) check out the graph in this article.

So, Science versus Trump and The Daily Mail. Hmmm.

Amerika

weisses wrote: »

Should you not at this stage look back to your own position in regards to sources and research the content of the sources you provide? before labeling people as " devout disciples to the religion of Global Warming" ?

I don't follow you. Are you mixing apples and oranges? I didn't just label a source or research as rubbish merely because of who the entity was (as so many here are quick to do). I provided information as to why I thought the content of a particular source might possibly be suspect. The 'devout disciples to the religion of Global Warming' was a bit of hyperbole towards those who have a strict devotion, believing that the discussion on global warming is settled science and not open to any debate, whatsoever. (Although I have heard The Reformed Church of Latter Day Climatologists is looking for more followers. )

Christy42

Amerika wrote: »

I don't follow you. Are you mixing apples and oranges? I didn't just label a source or research as rubbish merely because of who the entity was (as so many here are quick to do). I provided information as to why I thought the content of a particular source might possibly be suspect. The 'devout disciples to the religion of Global Warming' was a bit of hyperbole towards those who have a strict devotion, believing that the discussion on global warming is settled science and not open to any debate, whatsoever. (Although I have heard The Reformed Church of Latter Day Climatologists is looking for more followers. )

Climate change is entirely open for debate.

If you provine serious evidence countering the current mass of evidence currently in its favour like https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/

weisses

Amerika wrote: »

I don't follow you. Are you mixing apples and oranges? I didn't just label a source or research as rubbish merely because of who the entity was (as so many here are quick to do). I provided information as to why I thought the content of a particular source might possibly be suspect. The 'devout disciples to the religion of Global Warming' was a bit of hyperbole towards those who have a strict devotion, believing that the discussion on global warming is settled science and not open to any debate, whatsoever. (Although I have heard The Reformed Church of Latter Day Climatologists is looking for more followers. )

So who in the previous administration(s) were 'devout disciples to the religion of Global Warming' ?

demfad

oscarBravo wrote: »

I just came across this article on that very topic. Interesting reading.

Just to note: His business men credentials are a a little dodgy:

Here is how he fared in the Casino industry where the house always wins and a monkey should make a killing:



Oh look, Trump Taz Mahal settles in the biggest US case of money laundering violations $10 million.

Now no bank will lend him any money due to his tendency to bankrupt instead of paying up.

Isnt that generous?
Bayrock, run by dodgy Russian money (inc. Felix Sater) starts to invest heavily in Trump Towers across the States!
Oops Bayrock charged with money laundering to the value of $250 million on Trump Soho alone.
Felix's Dad is an under boss to boss of bosses, The most dangerous criminal in the world Semion Mogilevich. (Roman Abramovich also an underboss for perspective). 3 of Mogilovichs underbosses live in Trump tower and the boss himself owned 5 apartments which he laundered to Italian Mafia (see article).

Oh look! Here is Felix Sater back this Sunday!
"someone" (in Moscow) has dirt on the Ukrainian president. Peace is achievable with this great plan: when they install a new (pro-Russian) Pres they can offer East Ukraine and all the factory and mineral goodies to Russia on a 50-100 yesr lease. Excellent! Peace at last, Trump can drop the sanctions (like he promised the boss) and were all good! Trump lawyer Cohen hand delivers this to disgraced General Flynns office. Trump denies knowing anything about it.

Trump actually only owns 3 big buildings: where he owes over 500 million. Stephen Roth bailed him out and the reward? Trumps 1.1 trillion infrastructure contract

If anyone reckons Trump is a competent business man they should substantiate this. The facts indicate that he is anything but: a vessel for the dregs of the criminal world, a man guilty of the most despicable acts who would and has sold his country to enrich himself.

demfad

Trump transition team sent chilling climate change questionnaire to EPA employees asking them to admit or inform on anyone who had been to climate change meetings/conferences etc amongst other things. Gods earth doesn't get warmer according to the Council for National Policy.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/12/10/505105258/trump-questionnaire-raises-concerns-about-retaliation-against-energy-department

BabyCheeses

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Remember, it's not "draining the swamp" if the tycoons getting their wings clipped are on your side of the debate(s). :rolleyes:

I would have thought they would drop the drain the swamp thing by now. You cant use logic to get a person out of a place they didn't logic into.

People like Amerika are fine with the religion of physics when building their house or driving their car but as soon as they don't like it, or in this case, the republicans don't like it so their minions blindly follow. The only way to change their minds is for the people profiting to stop paying republicans and then Amerika and friends will suddenly swap.

Amerika

weisses wrote: »

So who in the previous administration(s) were 'devout disciples to the religion of Global Warming' ?

Personally, I think it started at the top with Obama and Biden, Then we can include both Energy Secretary's Steven Chu and Ernest Moniz. Throw in both Gina McCarthy and Lisa Jackson as head of the EPA. And worst of all was US Attorney General Loretta Lynch who told a Senate Judiciary Committee that not only has she discussed internally the possibility of pursuing civil actions against so-called “climate change deniers,” but she has “referred it to the FBI to consider whether or not it meets the criteria for which we could take action.” But I think just about all of Obama’s administration could be placed into that category. So not only is the matter closed, but if she had her durthers, anyone that questions it would be fined and thrown in jail. Welcome to Obama's America, eh?

Christy42

Can we park the climate change discussion? Last time it came around a poster derailed the discussion for several pages arguing against climate change with the logic that the sun is really really hot (true but not relevant).

Clinate change deniers have no new evidence and nor will they supply any new evidence as climate change is real. They will just run in circles without making a serious argument (giving out to people for being in the "church" of global warming ). If someone comes along with actual evidence that counters the mountain of evidence for climate change then I am happy to debate to figure out who is right. Until then the argument belongs with the anti vaxers and the creationists.

Amerika

Christy42 wrote: »

Can we park the climate change discussion? Last time it came around a poster derailed the discussion for several pages arguing against climate change with the logic that the sun is really really hot (true but not relevant).

Clinate change deniers have no new evidence and nor will they supply any new evidence as climate change is real. They will just run in circles without making a serious argument (giving out to people for being in the "church" of global warming ). If someone comes along with actual evidence that counters the mountain of evidence for climate change then I am happy to debate to figure out who is right. Until then the argument belongs with the anti vaxers and the creationists.

Unfortunately you can’t separate global warming and climate change from Trump’s consequences as it is an important and key issue of the administration that affects domestic and international policy. Unfortunately what usually happens is I make a comment in this thread about global warming/energy/EPA, which is germane to the topic, and it sends many here into a full blown tailspin, derailing the thread for awhile. I dunno, it’s sort of like the term “Niagara Falls’ to Curly from the Three Stooges.

Christy42

Amerika wrote: »

Unfortunately you can’t separate global warming and climate change from Trump’s consequences as it is an important and key issue of the administration that affects domestic and international policy. Unfortunately what usually happens is I make a comment in this thread about global warming/energy/EPA, which is germane to the topic, and it sends many here into a full blown tailspin, derailing the thread for awhile. I dunno, it’s sort of like the term “Niagara Falls’ to Curly from the Three Stooges.

Well until someone provides evidence to the contrary not fighting climate change is bad and indeed is required immediately. We can't wait around for oil barons to make their money first.

Leroy42

Amerika wrote: »

Personally, I think it started at the top with Obama and Biden, Then we can include both Energy Secretary's Steven Chu and Ernest Moniz. Throw in both Gina McCarthy and Lisa Jackson as head of the EPA. And worst of all was US Attorney General Loretta Lynch who told a Senate Judiciary Committee that not only has she discussed internally the possibility of pursuing civil actions against so-called “climate change deniers,” but she has “referred it to the FBI to consider whether or not it meets the criteria for which we could take action.” But I think just about all of Obama’s administration could be placed into that category. So not only is the matter closed, but if she had her durthers, anyone that questions it would be fined and thrown in jail. Welcome to Obama's America, eh?

And you think Obama, you was pretty useless in getting Americas viewpoint across the rest of the world, not only managed to get everyone within his administration to agree to this idea (something Trump is currently finding pretty difficult to do within his own administration) also somehow managed to convince pretty much every other world leader to sign up to a treaty that had the possibility of hurting their country financially if not adhered to.

This all based on nothing more than some dodgy science?

And yet Trump sold himself as the ultimate deal maker?