Donald Trump calls global warming a hoax, until it threatens his golf course

[diplomat019]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/05/24/donald-trump-calls-global-warming-a-hoax-until-it-threatens-his-golf-course/

[The_Field_Ager]

Coastal erosion is a perennial and ongoing natural phenomenon. You didn't know this? Coastal regions have been shaped by the ocean for millennia. Global warming is now apparently anything to do with the weather.

 

I don't think so.

[virgil]

On his application to build the wall, the stated reason is 'global warming and its' effects'.

[diplomat019]

Donald Trump says he is “not a big believer in global warming.” He has called it “a total hoax,” “bullshit” and “pseudoscience.”

But he is also trying to build a sea wall designed to protect one of his golf courses from “global warming and its effects.”

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/donald-trump-climate-change-golf-course-223436

 

[Culvercreek hunt club]

I do believe in global warming. It has happened may time before so to say it isn't happening is not realistic. I do not, however, believe it is US that is the major cause. When you can have one volcanic eruption and  estimates show more greenhouse gas place in the atmosphere than every car since cars were invented, I think we are placing too much importance on humans. 

[The_Field_Ager]

I do believe in global warming. It has happened may time before so to say it isn't happening is not realistic. I do not, however, believe it is US that is the major cause. When you can have one volcanic eruption and  estimates show more greenhouse gas place in the atmosphere than every car since cars were invented, I think we are placing too much importance on humans. 

 

Don't forget, that giant cosmic solar heater in the sky, the Sun, is never included in climate change projections. A fatal oversight 

[virgil]

You guys will continue to believe whatever you want.  But, if I recall correctly, a scientific review of over 4,000 studies on the subject has concluded that there is 97% consensus that human activity impacts climate change.  But hey, I'm sure you guys know better.  Science is for nerds anyway, right?

[The_Field_Ager]

Woot woot!

 

Rasmussen Poll: Trump 43%, Clinton 39%

 

www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/30/rasmussen-poll-trump-43-clinton-39/

[diplomat019]

Trump wants to protect his Irish golf course from the impacts of climate change

 

http://time.com/4345367/donald-trump-climate-change-golf-course/

[pt0217]

Virgil,

There is a huge agenda being pushed on global warming being caused by man. It started with Al Gore, the inventor of the Internet. The thousands of studies you mention may be part of that agenda and have some bias to them. The reason there may not be thousands of studies saying global warming isn't man made may be because there is not an agenda to disprove it. Maybe the smart scientist believe there are better things to spend money on.

[The_Field_Ager]

 

First there was Grexit, the prospect of Greece exiting the Europe Union, which didn’t happen. Then came Brexit, the British voters’ stunning decision to leave the “superstate.”

Now there are calls for a “Clexit,” through which wise and thinking people would leave the U.N. Climate Agreement, promoters say.

“The U.S. needs to join the fledgling ‘Clexit’ movement and demand the U.S. withdraw from the UN Paris climate agreement,” wrote Marc Morano on his Climate Depot site.

“The time has come for a U.S. and Australia led ‘Clexit’ from the climate madness.”

The idea comes on the heels of a Breitbart report about Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s suggestion that the government could prosecute those who deny “climate change,” which was “global warming” until evidence showed warming had stopped.

Lynch said the issue of “deniers” has been referred to the FBI “to consider whether or not it meets the criteria for which we could take action on [sic].”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/06/grexit-brexit-now-some-calling-for-clexit/#V8sf4v76c3tf4Wze.99

 

[The_Field_Ager]

U-Turn! Scientists At The PIK Potsdam Institute Now Warning Of A “Mini Ice Age”!

 

 

http://notrickszone.com/2016/06/29/u-turn-scientists-at-pik-potsdam-institute-now-warn-of-a-mini-ice-age/#sthash.dah4x2aG.dpuf

[The_Field_Ager]

Are we headed for a new solar minimum?

 

 

We can conclude that the evidence provided is sufficient to justify a complete updating and reviewing of present climate models to better consider these detected natural recurrences and lags in solar processes. – Jorge Sánchez-Sesma

 

In pondering how the climate of the 21st century will play out, solar variability has generally been dismissed as an important factor by the proponents of AGW. However, I think that it is important that scenarios of future solar variability and their potential impacts on climate should by considered in scenarios of future climate change.

I have been cursorily following the literature on this topic. I have recently been in communication with Jorge Sanchez-Sesma. He has new paper that was just accepted for publication in Earth System Dynamics, an interactive open-access journal published by the EGU. I am featuring this paper in a post since it provides important new analysis and insights on this topic, and also provides a useful assessment of the literature and current state of knowledge on this topic.

The significance of this paper is reflected in the EGU metrics link  that indicates that this paper has been downloaded 1531 times so far (before it has been formally published).

 

https://judithcurry.com/2016/06/27/are-we-headed-for-a-new-solar-minimum/

[virgil]

pt0217, look up the term 'peer reviewed' study.  Are you really suggesting that 97% of the studies were biased?

[diplomat019]

 The reason there may not be thousands of studies saying global warming isn't man made may be because there is not an agenda to disprove it.

there is an agenda to disprove it.  i believe you and papist are doing that on this thread as we type.    except for the fact that the thousands of studies by scientists keep disproving it.  you really believe that 97% of all scientific studies done on this specific topic are biased in one direction?  

[pt0217]

No Virgil I'm suggesting that you are naive

[virgil]

OK, I won't bother with this thread any further.  Debating with science-deniers is a waste of time.

[pt0217]

OK, I won't bother with this thread any further. Debating with science-deniers is a waste of time.

No offense. I'm just not drinking the kool-aid. I wish it was this easy to make Uptown bail.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

You guys will continue to believe whatever you want.  But, if I recall correctly, a scientific review of over 4,000 studies on the subject has concluded that there is 97% consensus that human activity impacts climate change.  But hey, I'm sure you guys know better.  Science is for nerds anyway, right?

My point was that the model is so dynamic that so many assumptions have to be made it can be steered toward whatever point either side is trying to make and when it is all said and done, one natural event cant dwarf our contributions to it. Humans were not a contributing force when the last ice age concluded in North America and that "warming" was to a greater degree and faster than we are experiencing now. That is not opinion or denying. 

[virgil]

Hi Culver.  I'm sure we agree that opinions have no place in science.  I don't claim to be an expert on climate science and I'm sure you don't either.  But, the studies that I've referred to are conducted by experts.  Do you actually believe that 97% of scientists are biased toward one particular agenda? 

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Hi Culver.  I'm sure we agree that opinions have no place in science.  I don't claim to be an expert on climate science and I'm sure you don't either.  But, the studies that I've referred to are conducted by experts.  Do you actually believe that 97% of scientists are biased toward one particular agenda? 

No not all. and I think it would be even hypocritical on my part to assert that humans have no impact. we are here and polluting so we must have some. May point was more to the magnitude of our "footprint" when one natural event can dwarf one of  the largest claimed contributors, (cars). I also don't get much information shown to me and can't find very good global warming supporting  information that clearly explains how this cycle of warming is any different that hundreds of others that have taken place. 

[Uptown Redneck]

OK, I won't bother with this thread any further.  Debating with science-deniers is a waste of time.

Virgil, those in denial are simply stating the talking points and sheer nonsense fed to them from the republican party and broadcast by Fox News. These people are so warped up in hating anything that has a democratic/liberal point of view that even when faced with scientific facts they will continue to showcase their ignorance.    

[Rattler]

When you look at the "solution", you really have to question the entire climate change assumption.  

 

Why do all the "scientific" studies suggest humans cause it, then support the US government instituting a major confiscatory tax program that amounts to wealth distribution from the world's rich countries to the world's poor countries?  Why is the US the only country that is willing to go along with the plan?

 

That's not a scientific solution to a real climate problem.  That's a political ideology being forced on free societies against their will.  That's the main reason most analytical people do not support the climate change prophets.