81–90 of 242 posts
I don't actually believe this, but it occurred to me the other day as a funny way to look at a very sad situation: What if Trump does believe global warming is real, but recognizes that we're too late to stop its worst effects? What if he expects the world to go to hell over the next 50 years and is focused on protecting the U.S. specifically? What would he do? He'd build a wall across the lower border of the U.S. to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You do realize a plurality of American voters voted for Hillary Clinton? She's leading by margins larger than Kennedy and Nixon. Edited to use correct terminology.
I understand your point, but plurality ≠ majority. Plurality is more votes than any other candidate. Majority means more than 50% of the vote. This doesn't detract from the point you're trying to make, but it is inaccurate. You strengthen your argument by using the appropriate word.
I believe that it is already too late. Here's my proposed solution. Send a robot into space. Pickup an asteroid and bring it to Lagrangian L1. Have it begin weaving a solar curtain.
> According to research published last year, spending a day in Beijing is currently akin to smoking almost 40 cigarettes. Decoupling emissions from economic growth thus helps both people and planet. Convincing Mr Trump of this fact is now an urgent and daunting challenge. How is convincing Trump here the answer? Isn't convincing China more important? How about convincing the American people? Do this and politicians w…
China is convinced.[1] The American public is convinced, although not as much as they probably should be.[2][3][4] The problem here is to convince world leaders to actually do something. [1] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-16/china-tell... [2] http://climatepublicopinion.stanford.edu/sample-page/opinion... [3] https://environment.yale.edu/poe/v2014/ [4] http://www.gallup.com/poll/190010/concern-global-…
> According to research published last year, spending a day in Beijing is currently akin to smoking almost 40 cigarettes. Decoupling emissions from economic growth thus helps both people and planet. Convincing Mr Trump of this fact is now an urgent and daunting challenge. How is convincing Trump here the answer? Isn't convincing China more important? How about convincing the American people? Do this and politicians w…
China is convinced.[1] The American public is convinced, although not as much as they probably should be.[2][3][4] The problem here is to convince world leaders to actually do something. [1] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-16/china-tell... [2] http://climatepublicopinion.stanford.edu/sample-page/opinion... [3] https://environment.yale.edu/poe/v2014/ [4] http://www.gallup.com/poll/190010/concern-global-…
> According to research published last year, spending a day in Beijing is currently akin to smoking almost 40 cigarettes. Decoupling emissions from economic growth thus helps both people and planet. Convincing Mr Trump of this fact is now an urgent and daunting challenge. How is convincing Trump here the answer? Isn't convincing China more important? How about convincing the American people? Do this and politicians w…
China is convinced.[1] The American public is convinced, although not as much as they probably should be.[2][3][4] The problem here is to convince world leaders to actually do something. [1] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-16/china-tell... [2] http://climatepublicopinion.stanford.edu/sample-page/opinion... [3] https://environment.yale.edu/poe/v2014/ [4] http://www.gallup.com/poll/190010/concern-global-…
"Convincing Mr Trump of this fact is now an urgent and daunting challenge." By appointing Myron Ebell to lead the transition at the EPA, Mr Trump has made it clear he's made up his mind. Personnel is policy.
It comes down to the DOD having a serious talk with Trump. They have been taking it just as seriously as the EPA.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-Mjy9ETtRY
I'm not sure how hes supposed to give a damn what they say.
I don't actually believe this, but it occurred to me the other day as a funny way to look at a very sad situation: What if Trump does believe global warming is real, but recognizes that we're too late to stop its worst effects? What if he expects the world to go to hell over the next 50 years and is focused on protecting the U.S. specifically? What would he do? He'd build a wall across the lower border of the U.S. to…
I see this sentiment a lot on HN these days. What's the reasoning behind it? If the temperature in my room increases, I'll go from feeling uncomfortable, to sweating profusely, to fainting, to death. Is there any scientific reason to believe that, say, a 4C increase gives us horrible outcomes, but a 8C increase will be "not much worse"?
I don't actually believe this, but it occurred to me the other day as a funny way to look at a very sad situation: What if Trump does believe global warming is real, but recognizes that we're too late to stop its worst effects? What if he expects the world to go to hell over the next 50 years and is focused on protecting the U.S. specifically? What would he do? He'd build a wall across the lower border of the U.S. to…
recognizes that we're too late to stop its worst effects I see this sentiment a lot on HN these days. What's the reasoning behind it? If the temperature in my room increases, I'll go from feeling uncomfortable, to sweating profusely, to fainting, to death. Is there any scientific reason to believe that, say, a 4C increase gives us horrible outcomes, but a 8C increase will be "not much worse"?