What I Heard from Trump Supporters

Do you feel that Trump supports have made an effort to understand you and where you're coming from? Or that they would have, had Clinton won the election?

In a literal sense, ANY help from the government. Be it roads, police (military), fire protection, etc; is a handout. The word may as well be meaningless aside from attaching an emotional buzzword response to something.

Please focus on the actual ideas discussed, and not the language (unless commenting on a more effective way of conveying the message with a specific wording).

Honestly I think glibness is the only sane response here: poor baby. Seriously this is politics, and this is absolutely not the first election with this kind of hyperbole. You don't think we hear the same thing when you guys whine on about feminazis, muslim-lovers and communists?

What you're really saying is that the "mainstream online left", which has NOT heretofore been much into name-calling that has been a mainstay of right wing discourse for going on two decades now, has now grown a spine and (now finding itself with essentially no representation in the federal government at all) is giving back as it gets.

To wit: cry me a river.

>> What part of the "CO2->Global Warming->Catastrophe" thing is it that you don't buy?

I don't buy that CO2 emissions are going to be a problem. I don't buy that the observed changes in climate are due to CO2.

>> What is "false consensus"? Are you in a position to judge the conclusions supported by a vast majority (that's only my perception, but how likely is it to be completely mistaken?) of experts?

I do not believe that a majority of experts believes that stuff. The IPPC reports are not actually singed by a majority, only a few people who claim to represent that majority. To be honest, I trust engineers judgement more than I trust funded scientists. If you like that idea you may want to read Burt Rutans take on it here: http://rps3.com/Pages/Burt_Rutan_on_Climate_Change.htm Like you say it's your perception of experts.

What about the documented case of a computer program that showed the same "trend" regardless of input? There is documented fraud on the GW side. Does that invalidate all of it? Of course not, but it should call it into question.

>> What brings you to the conclusion that global warming could be a hoax?

I never said that. I do think it's being used to further political agendas (don't you?) whether those people believe in it or not.

>> Do you have a reason for not trusting the experts?

Sure, go read about climate and weather models. They are very tricky. Sometimes a part of a model is improved based on some real experimental data, but it throws off the weather models which had been tweaked to work with the old assumptions (sorry, I don't have a link handy). New tweaking is needed. This points to known problems with the models, which are not 100% physics based and are not inclusive of all phenomena as they'd like you to believe.

One of my biggest complaints is the lack of consideration of water vapor in the models - it is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. Here, just read this: http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/artificial-weather-revealed...

I live in Michigan and while everyone was feeling the trauma of those events, I noticed the unusually cloud-free the sky was at the time. It was a beautiful deep blue every day. Notably different to the norm. One may also notice that the change in "climate" over the last 50 years is also concurrent with the rise in air travel. I don't think that's a coincidence. BTW, the weather models do not incorporate much in the way of contrail effects - precisely because they are very sensitive to it. Until we can understand the effects of water vapor, I don't see how we can vilify carbon.

Then there is the benefit plants - had we not dumped carbon into the air we were dangerously close to having too little. Lots of studies are starting to show how plants thrive in our modern high-carbon world.

Let's talk historical records - not 50, 100, or 100 years. I'm talking 100K or 10M years. We are in an interglacial period, which is near it's end if you look at history. If we do nothing, you should expect glaciation in geological short order. Then there's the fact that glaciations didn't used to happen at all. If you go back even farther, the earth was in fact warmer and life flourished.

If you watched the recent Cosmos series, I believe the whole thing was propaganda. I watched the final episode which was on Climate Change. It was sadly science-free. That is to say he talked a lot about the things you see in the paper but didn't give any evidence - no data, no plots, nothing. And then at the end he's up in the arctic talking about some coastal tundra eroding and there's old plant matter buried in there! Imagine plants thriving in the arctic - I don't even see a problem with some warming even if it's not caused by CO2.

Then lets talk about desertification, which people like to attribute to climate change. Here's a great TED talk about how farming practices can reverse that (and may be the cause): https://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_worl...

I would hope that all of this at the very least can cast some doubt on the notion that CO2 is this big global problem that's going to destroy everything if we don't do something about it. Cast some doubt. Start a debate based on data not a media promoted "consensus". And not doctored data: https://www.google.com/#q=doctored+ocean+temperature

Oh, and finally this has been going on so long that the longer term predictions are starting to fail: https://www.google.com/#q=failed+climate+change+predictions

But I'm not trying to convince you, just maybe cast a little doubt.