ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

Flashback: Jesse Jackson Praised Trump for 'Commitment' to Diversity

http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/Trump_won_Ellis_Island_Award_for_helping_the_Black_Community

https://nypost.com/2016/08/31/jesse-jackson-once-sang-donald-trumps-praises/

"

The Rev. Jesse Jackson once praised Donald Trump for being a “friend” who embraced “the under-served communities.”

“We need your building skills, your gusto . . . for the people on Wall Street to represent diversity,” Jackson, a civil-rights leader, said at a Rainbow Push Coalition event in 1999.

And at a 1998 event in front of the same organization, Jackson said, “I now want to bring forth a friend — well, he is deceptive in that his social style is of such, one can miss his seriousness and commitment to success, which is beyond argument.

“When we opened this Wall Street project . . . He gave us space at 40 Wall Street, which was to make a statement about our having a presence there.”

Trump signs executive order on black colleges

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/trump-signs-executive-order-black-colleges

This happened a little over a month after President Trump's inauguration (anybody recall any coverage of this on CNN?):

"

President Donald Trump signed an executive order Tuesday aimed at signaling his commitment to historically black colleges and universities, saying that those schools will be “an absolute priority for this White House.”

HBCU presidents are hoping Congress will bolster Trump’s actions to strengthen the schools with dramatically increased funding in the upcoming federal budget. They are calling for $25 billion for infrastructure, college readiness, financial aid and other priorities.

So much for Trump being racist against black Americans. =^[.]^=

"

rojimboo wrote:

"

DalaiLama wrote:

Because the point you are thinking I am arguing for is not the point I made.

Ok, adding inability to meet people half-way, to blatant science denialism, to the list.

Great.

Consensus is not science. Experiments that demonstrate the predictive ability of hypotheses are science.

Please try to understand again. Where did I say I thought the environment will be worse under Trump?

You assumed it would be worse. You assumed I thought it would be worse. You may have "sources" that say it will be worse, but that doesn't mean I think it will be worse.

Here's a simple analogy:

Person X: "You are defending Trump against murder allegations"
Person Y: "I am not defending Trump against murder, because no murder charges exist"
Person X: "Our Sources say Trump murdered Elvis, why do you deny defending him?"
Person Y: "No indictment has been made, and the idea itself is ludicrous"
Person X: "Consensus says Trump will in the future Murder Elvis, stop defending him!"


Because the point you are thinking I am arguing for is not the point I made. YOU believe the environment will be worse under Trump. I don't think it will be worse at all.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

YOU believe the environment will be worse under Trump. I don't think it will be worse at all.

"

rojimboo wrote:

Let's have an example here, something concrete.

Obama EPA vs Trump EPA
Clean Power Plan vs Affordable Clean Energy

Obama CPP:
The EPA estimates the Clean Power Plan will reduce the pollutants that contribute to smog and soot by 25 percent, and the reduction will lead to net climate and health benefits of an estimated $25 billion to $45 billion per year in 2030. That includes the avoidance of 140,000 to 150,000 asthma attacks among children and 2,700 to 6,600 premature deaths.[28] EPA projects that the plan will save the average American family $85 per year in energy bills in 2030, and it will save enough energy to power 30 million homes and save consumers $155 billion from 2020–2030. The plan would create 30 percent more renewable energy generation in 2030 and help to lower the costs of renewable energy.[29] It also would create hundreds of thousands of jobs, according to the NRDC.[30]

The EPA estimates.... hahaha. Might as well have Tobacco companies giving us estimates. They devolved into a highly corrupt and politicized institution a long time ago. They are about as impartial as Breitbart.

The CPP was about more power for the EPA. Unconstitutional power, which is why the US Supreme Court ruled against the CPP twice.

"

rojimboo wrote:

Trump ACE:
https://news.syr.edu/blog/2017/10/10/study-clean-power-replacement-worse-than-nothing-costs-more-than-3500-lives-and-33b-yearly/

A better source than just the EPA :-)


“The current EPA has the cost-benefit science wrong. There is no credible evidence that there is a safe level of fine particulate pollution that does not harm health. Our study showed that the value of the health benefits would outweigh costs by $33 billion a year,” adds Buonocore.

No safe level. Zero. An impossible number to reach, and one not warranted by any other than alarmists. The EPA will need to start regulating sneezes since they put unsafe particulates into the air. All trees will need nets since the pollen they produce is particulates. We will need to pave over the Sahara desert too, to make sure no particulates of sand get in the air anywhere, ever. That hydrogen dioxide particulate coming from those evil clouds will have to be stopped too!


Furthermore, the logic of this study was faulty at best, disingenuous bordering on intentional lying at worst.

How so?

"The deterioration in air quality under an “inside the fence line” approach would be caused by emissions rebound at coal-fired power plants, according to the study. Emission rebound refers to the increase in emissions that occurs when facilities undergo efficiency improvements and then operate more frequently and for longer periods of time, leading to increased emissions."

In other words, the power plant would have to run more to generate more pollution.
Unless it is producing zero pollution, this would be true in any scenario.

Math must be hard for environmental scientists.

Their conclusions are less than worse than nothing.

"

rojimboo wrote:

Why exactly is government intervention EVILLLL when it comes to limiting pollution?

I didn't say it was. Are YOU saying it is evil? Why are you defending Trump's EPA plans?

(see top of post for explanation of that)

Not all legislation is bad, including government rules on environmental issues. Most have been historically good. That does not mean all future ones will be magically good. You can pass laws regulating that only zero radiation bananas can be sold, but it won't benefit the public.

"

rojimboo wrote:

Gold King Mine incident was an accident.

It was an accident where the EPA was warned not to do what they did. They did it anyway. It's very likely the buildup behind the mine was caused by previous EPA approved actions to "reduce pollution" decades before.

"

rojimboo wrote:

To blame the problem on increased environmental protection by Obama and the EPA baffles believe though.

Increased EPA spending and increased EPA laws do not equal increased environmental protection.

What does and did happen was that as the EPA's power grew, so did it's idea that it could do no wrong, and that people should be prosecuted for disagreeing with them. Since they no longer needed to answer to critics, the EPA started assuming that whatever they liked was the best science.

"

rojimboo wrote:

Let's go through the list, shall we?

1. Woodcock
He states in an interview to a local newspaper his thoughts on climate change.

First claim by him:
"There is no reproducible scientific evidence CO2 has significantly increased in the last 100 years."

Errrr.

What.

Stopped reading there.

This is literally like saying water is not wet. Literally.

"Anyone with a rudimentary physics knowledge WILL acknowledge anthropogenic climate change" is what you stated.

You are free to disagree with him. You are free to say that 97% of scientists disagree with him.

It doesn't change the fact that he has an understanding of physics. You aren't going to get to be a professor of chemical thermodynamics without at least a rudimentary physics knowledge.

You aren't going to be a NASA scientist without at least a rudimentary physics knowledge.

Posit one "Anyone with a rudimentary physics knowledge" is satisfied.

The premise that such a person "WILL acknowledge anthropogenic climate change" is shown to be false by your own acknowledgement of his positions.

"

rojimboo wrote:

It is unequivocal

Whether this is true, is immaterial to your claim.

"

rojimboo wrote:

How is the ACC industry defined by the way? Where did you get that number?

I think it was either UN or GAO reports. It is a pain to find ACC spending vs doom and gloom ACC "costs" given the amount of info and search engines bias (towards results they think people want to see versus exact terms, which they fudge and reinterpret) IIRC, there is a tiny blip where an image should be in one of my posts, and that image (source must not allow hot linking) should have a source printed on it. The numbers I was finding were around 450 to 460 billion for current year ACC spending, and the rate of year by year increase was dramatic.

If ACC was as dangerous as the ACC community claims - then that amount is reasonable if not too low - if again it is being spent productively. If ACC is a hoax, then it is a disaster. In either case, it is big money.

"

morbo wrote:

Overpopulation is the top problem Earth has, when you look at it holistically, not just through "climate change". Pollution of rivers / land / oceans, deforestation, soil depletion due to agriculture, mass extinction of species, destruction of biodiversity, depletion of natural resources (oil, rare earths)...

There is one historically proven humanitarian approach to population control that has proven effective.

Raise the standard of living and the education levels. When people in a society have access to a system where they will be much better off economically if they delay having children and get an education or advance in their jobs, then the birth rate of that society declines. It has happened in Japan, the US and Europe.

It could happen in most nations on Earth. The problem isn't one of lacking investment money. There are trillions of dollars that would be invested in many of these developing countries if they had stable less corrupt governments. The risk of loss right now outweighs the potential gains.

It is sickening to see people suffering in poverty because some corrupt government would rather fight over scraps than settle down and bring in investment dollars.

If we could reign in the violence and corruption around the world, most of our other problems could be solved.

"

deathflower wrote:

No. You can't be Both Captain Planet AND Looten Plunder!

Let me know when Google starts to scale down their server power, or Apple starts to produce phones with less memory and less processing power and I might agree.

DiCaprio is a perfect example of the ACC Captain Planet jet setters.

Leonardo DiCaprio flies 8,000 miles in private jet to accept ‘green award'
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/leonardo-dicaprio-flies-8000-miles-in-private-jet-to-accept-green-award-a7042326.html

"

rojimboo wrote:

Good luck trying to live like a monk. I'll take the science and technology route and keep a high standard of living, thank you very much.

"

Overpopulation is the top problem Earth has

Not even remotely, as debunked with the simple graph I posted.

Look at the impact 10% of the population had in your graph. Now imagine the other 90% climbing up the graph - and they will as economies increase and "luxuries" like phones, televisions and cars become more available.

The other 90% aren't going to live like monks either, when they can afford it.

You only have to look at China for a great example of what happens when a nation's income relative to the costs of 'luxury' goods goes up.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

"

deathflower wrote:

No. You can't be Both Captain Planet AND Looten Plunder!

Let me know when Google starts to scale down their server power, or Apple starts to produce phones with less memory and less processing power and I might agree.

DiCaprio is a perfect example of the ACC Captain Planet jet setters.

Leonardo DiCaprio flies 8,000 miles in private jet to accept ‘green award'
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/leonardo-dicaprio-flies-8000-miles-in-private-jet-to-accept-green-award-a7042326.html

What does Leonardo DiCaprio efforts to raise awareness on climate change have to do with his private jet. Nothing. He got the award for his publicity for Climate Change not because he is a saint. If Looten Plunder does his part to help environmental causes, he should get a "green" award too.

People get awards all the time for philanthropy just for donating money and doesn't relate to how they are in real life. They could be terrible and awful person. Some people shouldn't get them but they do. Can't stop our wasteful lifestyle so we "outsource" our responsibility.

It is a false choice question. What is more worrying is people don't point it out. I'd already pick Shikamaru. Since we are ignoring that, Are you Captain Planet AND Looten Plunder?

"

DalaiLama wrote:

Consensus is not science. Experiments that demonstrate the predictive ability of hypotheses are science.

Please try to understand again. Where did I say I thought the environment will be worse under Trump?

You assumed it would be worse. You assumed I thought it would be worse. You may have "sources" that say it will be worse, but that doesn't mean I think it will be worse.

That's not even remotely my point, but seeing as I've explained not once, twice, three times, four times, but FIVE (!) times now, you will not get it.

So let's pretend the point now is that the environment will be worse under Trump. (I will address the consensus argument again, at the end).

I already posted a running list of damaging environmental policies under Trump. You dodged it.

I made a case example of the biggest effect likely, which is the repealing of the Clean Power Plan, and replacing it with Affordable Clean Energy rule, under Trump.

You don't have to believe the EPA's own estimates (which for Trump and his EPA's own estimates show that ACE is worse than nothing, fancy that), you can look at some peer reviewed science, like here.

In the most respected peer reviewed journals by the way, Science and Nature.

Driscoll Jr, C., & Forest, K. F. L. H. (2017). Replacing the Clean Power Plan with an “Inside the Fence Line” Alternative Would Do More Harm than Doing Nothing. Science.

https://science-policy-exchange.org/news/air-quality-and-health-harmed-under-inside-fence-line-option

Buonocore, J. J., Lambert, K. F., Burtraw, D., Sekar, S., & Driscoll, C. T. (2016). An analysis of costs and health co-benefits for a US power plant carbon standard. PloS one, 11(6), e0156308.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0156308

But let me ask you this. I've provided ample evidence, mostly peer reviewed science, that says Trump and his EPA and his policies are far worse for pollution, human health and the environment, than Obama's.

What is your evidence to the claim that these things will be better under Trump's environmental policies? How does MORE pollution = BETTER?

I mean, I haven't even touched on repealing clean air and water regulations, outside these two plans...

"

No safe level. Zero. An impossible number to reach, and one not warranted by any other than alarmists. The EPA will need to start regulating sneezes since they put unsafe particulates into the air. All trees will need nets since the pollen they produce is particulates. We will need to pave over the Sahara desert too, to make sure no particulates of sand get in the air anywhere, ever. That hydrogen dioxide particulate coming from those evil clouds will have to be stopped too!

Good lord. Lookup fine particulate matter PM2.5 and its definition. Pollen and dust and water droplets are much larger particles.

I don't even know what to say.

"

Math must be hard for environmental scientists.

Their conclusions are less than worse than nothing.

Look in the mirror pal.

"

"Anyone with a rudimentary physics knowledge WILL acknowledge anthropogenic climate change" is what you stated.

The premise that such a person "WILL acknowledge anthropogenic climate change" is shown to be false by your own acknowledgement of his positions.

Did you really just argue this strawman, after I clarified it again?

"

By the way, if you must know, I've clarified a couple times now that I don't believe deniers are not bright or intelligent, nor that Trump is dumb. People have incentives to not believe something scientific sometimes, and they think they benefit from non-belief. I still maintain anyone with a rudimentary physics knowledge that familiarises themselves with the science, will come to the conclusion there is no other major contributor for the recent rapid warming than human activities, *unless* they have some incentive/benefit for non-science belief.

I'm starting to suspect something, but yeah whatever.

Consensus

You believe this means a bunch of scientists sitting in a coffee room interviewed by CNN, mostly agree that human activities are causing most of the climate change, i.e. ACC.

That's really dishonest and dumb.

I already explained this in the other thread, but you dodged it.

You seem to be getting caught up in semantics, and the definition of a scientific consensus.

You are right, a consensus without the scientific method is completely useless.

However, here what is meant by 'the consensus was peer reviewed', is that scientists looked at publications to see if there was actually any or many disputing the basic tenets of anthropogenic climate change, i.e. man is responsible for the majority of it.

Their methods were peer reviewed. Each are by separate methodologies, arriving to the same conclusion.

"

"
The consensus has been studied and peer-reviewed. Naomi Oreskes started it all in 2004 and continued with her 2007 paper, where 928 abstracts in climate science were investigated and categorised as follows:

"

http://www.cpp.edu/~aebresnock/aebres/ec435/oreskespaper.pdf

Figure 1 shows the results of an analysis of 928 abstracts, published in refereed journals during the period 1993 -2003, produced by a Web of Science Search using the keyword phrase “global climate change.”15 After a first reading to determine appropriate categories of analysis, the papers were divided as follows: 1) those explicitly endorsing the consensus position, 2) those explicitly refuting the consensus position, 3) those discussing methods and techniques for measuring, monitoring, or predicting climate change, 4) those discussing potential or documenting actual impacts of climate change, 5)those dealing with paleoclimate change, and 6) those proposing mitigation strategies. How many fell into category (2)? That is to say, how many of these papers present evidence that refutes the statement: “Global climate change is occurring and human activities are at least part of the reason why”? The answer is remarkable: none.

Doran and Zimmerman 2009 continued this investigation, after some attacks on the apparent ambiguity of Oreskes' methods.

"

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009EO030002/epdf

They found that of people actually specialising in the field of climate science and climate change and publishing new research as members of AGU, 97.4% agreed with the consensus that mankind was a significant contributor to climate change.

Anderegg 2010 also performed a consensus report. http://web.stanford.edu/group/CCB/articles/Anderegg_ClimateConsensus_Report2009.pdf

We estimate that climate change skeptics constitute less than 5% of the overall community of climate scientists. Two independent studies, based off separate datasets, place the percentage of climate change skeptics at around 2.0–3.5% of relevant experts in climate science (Doran & Kendall-Zimmerman 2009, Anderegg et al., forthcoming).

And then there is the Cook et al. 2013 consensus paper http://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/31387999/Cook_et_al._2013_ERL.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJ56TQJRTWSMTNPEA&Expires=1478962185&Signature=YNMkVhoqGILsN6c9qALclvKO09Q%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DQuantifying_the_consensus_on_anthropogen.pdf

Abstract We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors’ self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research

And then there is anectodal evidence. When is the last time you read a paper debunking ACC? I read journals, and I have never read such a paper in my (admittedly, relative brief) lifetime.

Regarding the Legates and Tol (and I can see wattsupwiththat lol) critique of the Cook 2013 paper (which as you can see is one of many peer reviewed studies about the consensus, each with its own separate methodology), most of the critique completely squashed in the new 'consensus on consensus' paper, a Cook and Oreskes 2016 paper:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002/meta

The issue is that Legates and Tol are very keen on including papers published by non-experts, such as economists, usually in unrelated low impact ranking journals. THis of course changes results a bit, as the more expertise you have in climate science, the higher the consensus, according to most of the papers.

At this point the burden of proof is on the one making the extraordinary claim, that scientists do not agree on anthropogenic climate change.

And

That the rapid recent warming is not caused by man and is instead caused by....?

I still haven't gotten an answer from you regarding this. Or any comments on the basics of the physics behind climate change, which you dodged again:

"

- If you ignore the consensus, how can you explain a myriad of physical phenomena that has left a human fingerprint on climate? Such as the stratosphere cooling, but the troposphere (below it) warming? If the Sun was the cause then the stratosphere would also be warming. Instead of there being a blanket on Earth warming it. Or that nights are warming faster than days (if it were the Sun, obviously it would be the other way around). Or that less heat is escaping to space? Or that more heat is returning to Earth? Or that the oceans are building up heat? All of these have been empirically measured and shown in peer reviewed papers, by the way.

=^[.]~=

*posts a page-long list of Trump achievements - from the trump administration*
*expects to be taken seriously*

"

Raycheetah wrote: