131–140 of 242 posts
Trump respects Peter. He's young & rich.
Peter is an engineer. He must believe in global warming. He wants to live forever, so he'll need a good planet for that.
Musk is a firm believer in green tech.
Peter respects Musk?
The future of the planet depends on how Peter Thiel explains the role of clean tech to Trump! (I'm starting to be very happy about that $1 million Peter handed over to Trump)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's too bad Americans cannot vote for some of the most prominent cabinet members the way they vote for President/Vice-President. Many of these appointees will have a more direct impact on people's lives but yet they have no say in who will represent them. Democracy?
What makes you think that would go over any better though? It's not like any of his cabinet picks have been surprising to anyone paying attention to his rhetoric and stances during the election.
Most Americans want action on climate by a pretty wide margin. I double this person would be elected if it was put to a vote.
My worry is that Trump doesn't deny it (well he does publicly), but rather privately realizes that it's already far too late. There's nothing we can do, collapse of global civilization before mid-century is probably inevitable. So what can you do, well ramp up every dirty trick you can think off … because it doesn't really matter and it makes you look good with the public (sorry to say, it does, climate change is sti…
By all reports, Trump can't stay focused on any one thing more than a few minutes, whether it was 20 years ago talking to reporters, people working for him, whatever. So he's not likely to be the person who will care about a long term, non-immediate risk. I still can't believe someone like him can be president. If Jeb Bush had won, I would have been a little disappointed, but I would have gone to sleep and not worrie…
Maybe I'm wrong (also not an American, so I haven't been as exposed to Trump as most Americans have) but my impression is that he's not dumb, he plays dumb.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, there is an Antarctic ice sheet that is gaining mass. As a whole, Antarctica is losing ice mass. As is the case for global ice mass balance. Chart of satellite gravity measurements for Antarctica: http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Antarctica_Ice_Mass.g...
so that chart is from 2003 - 2009 ... and that is evidence of what exactly? 6 samples of a multi century phenomenon and you are ringing an alarm bell ! the chart smacks more of searching around for a chart that shows a decline to prop up the "ice is in trouble narrative". ice extent ( recovered from 2008/12 ) , ice age ( recovered again from 2012 ), ice thickness ( recovered ), ice refreeze date ( recovered ), polar…
What is it going to take to convince you?
Let's just wait a few more decades to be sure though. It would be a waste spending resources trying to prevent the demise of life on Earth when we didn't need to.
What about the Elon Musk Peter Thiel Trump connection? Trump respects Peter. He's young & rich. Peter is an engineer. He must believe in global warming. He wants to live forever, so he'll need a good planet for that. Musk is a firm believer in green tech. Peter respects Musk? The future of the planet depends on how Peter Thiel explains the role of clean tech to Trump! (I'm starting to be very happy about that $1 mill…
While I understand what motivates your thinking so, I don't think you can assume this. I haven't looked for anything that addresses Thiel's opinion on this btw, so I'm agnostic on the issue.
What about the Elon Musk Peter Thiel Trump connection? Trump respects Peter. He's young & rich. Peter is an engineer. He must believe in global warming. He wants to live forever, so he'll need a good planet for that. Musk is a firm believer in green tech. Peter respects Musk? The future of the planet depends on how Peter Thiel explains the role of clean tech to Trump! (I'm starting to be very happy about that $1 mill…
"He must believe in global warming." While I understand what motivates your thinking so, I don't think you can assume this. I haven't looked for anything that addresses Thiel's opinion on this btw, so I'm agnostic on the issue.
This graph of global sea ice area is kind of alarming: https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-JX41K2UK6Io/WCvyXQ6CFvI/AAAAAAAAW... More info: http://arctic-news.blogspot.co.uk/
Fortunately, sea ice does not contribute much to the sea level because it displaces about the same volume it will add when melted.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes trees are a perfect solution. They've optimized this process through millions of years of evolution. However, we're still removing more trees than adding them per year. Quite impressively so, even. It takes time for forests to grow. A lot of its carbon sink properties are because of soil succession, which takes decades to mature.
Who is "we"? I think the US is about equalized because industries like the the US paper industry plant about as many trees as we cut. If "we" is the world the lots of poor countries are unsustainably slash and burning. Starving people want to not die today so they make places to plant crops. If we is people afraid of the expanding growth of the Sahara southward then things like the great green wall are interesting: h…
"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's too bad Americans cannot vote for some of the most prominent cabinet members the way they vote for President/Vice-President. Many of these appointees will have a more direct impact on people's lives but yet they have no say in who will represent them. Democracy?
And Americans vote in even fewer numbers for the non-presidential candidates. So it'd be almost the fringe that would be voting for cabinet members, were that possible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you are unaware of the scope of the problem. (also I did not and cannot downvote you) The amount of life and species lost to human activities already makes the past few thousand years a major extinction event in line with the 5 other major ones. With this fact in mind taking the stance that this is OK because "life had to face a rapid and drastic climate change" is the moral equivalent of saying killing most…
Moral is a human construct and as such it is subjective. Anyhow, I said that the life on earth survived a couple of disastrous events and still flourishes. Life will flourish wether the coast is under water or not. There were times when there wasn't any coast at all, or it was somewhere else. And does it really make a difference? You won't see anything of the war of resources except you live for 200 years. You may ta…
Since the reason people care about climate change, both for and against, is human suffering then we can disregard anything you have to say about it.
That you and you are clearly just choosing the most antagonistic thing to get a reaction from people. This is the last I will be responding. If I could down vote you I would.