You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Trump is a lot greener than you think he is
I don't think I could disagree more. Donald Trump objected to an offshore wind farm off the Scottish coast. That was a local energy program that focuses on technological innovation. It was nothing to do with the USA, he should of let the people that live there decide how they produce the energy they consume.
I'm not sure you disagree with me. I am not taking a stance or claiming anything about Trump one way or the other.
If Trump, as a foreign business owner, was able to influence Scottish infrastructure development decisions then that is a problem for the Scottish people to resolve. Maybe there is something is wrong with the process there?
My point is that the US focus away from feeding into the global warming hype and towards effecting US policy, fits better into where I think the focus should be and where the real solutions lie.
There's nothing wrong with the legal process in Scotland. Trump lost his legal battle in the the supreme court. I used to think there was a lot of hype about global warming but then I looked at the small percentage of scientists that are skeptics. They convinced me that the majority of scientists that are claiming it's a problem that needs drastic action now are correct. Most of the skeptics I researched have a not very well hidden agenda or are more like conspiracy theorists.
Even if the small number of "scientists" that are still skeptical are correct, I don't see any harm in moving away from fossil fuels. There's wind farms, solar farms and a wave energy project near where I live. They might be expensive now but in the long term, they will be cheaper than digging up and burning coal. 15% of the UK's electricity was provided by wind farms last year.
I'm not surprised a businessman would object to something that would impact his business. But it is great that the right outcome was achieved.
I think you might be missing my point on the global warming issue. It is about what are the most important threats to life and having the focus on those threats in the appropriate proportion.
How many humans and other species are dying every year from 'global warming'? Provably? None.
Compare that number to the provable number dying directly from ecosystem destruction, like oceans & rain forests and from direct pollution in the air and water ways. Then from all the diseases that stem from those and others factors like diet & farming practices etc.
This number is in the tens of millions. And that's just humans.
The focus is completely skewed. And there is a clear agenda behind that. The global economic system that has developed relies on the practices that do the damage.
And regardless of whether humans cause climate change, the earth is always changing. The carbon cycle is alive. Humans would have to experience this process at some point even if we'd released zero carbon. Just look at the history of earth temperatures. It got a lot hotter when we were not about and it will do so again.
My career is in renewable energy so I am already sold on that part, its a given, nothing will stop it.
Last point: I think 'conspiracy theorist' has just become a new word for someone who questions any mainstream narrative. It doesn't carry any weight as a criticism anymore.
Why can't we do both at the same time? The scientific consensus is that global warming is going to cause huge problems. While there's a chance they could all be wrong, I think it's wise to take their warnings seriously. There's no reason why we can't improve the oceans, rainforests, water and air at the same time.
I know that the natural cycles of the earth mean that it will be uninhabitable to humans one day. Why should that prevent us doing our best to make sure that we aren't adding to the problem?
I disagree about conspiracy theorists, it seems quite an accurate description. I would say David Icke is a conspiracy theorist but I'm quite happy to call him someone who talks claptrap, if you want an older word.
I agree its better to do something just in case. And the areas I suggest to focus on, do also simultaneously push back on the potential drivers for climate change. The focus being the important point. Focus on the things that are destroying life and that people can affect.
I'm not sure David Icke is a climate scientist, although he has an opinion on it. There are plenty of well established scientists whose research does not support human-induced climate change. But as I mentioned it's not the big issue - its actually a futile subject to debate given we address it by focusing on the more pressing issues that people can affect.
Of the well established scientists, for every 3 that disagree with human-induced climate change, there's 97 that have the opposite opinion. I believe that prevention is better than cure and will save a lot of lives and money in the long term.
It probably is a futile subject to debate because the US is locked into the Paris agreement until almost the end of Trumps term in office. I dread to think what the US economy is likely to be like by then, if the democrats can find someone electable, Trump will be history.
The 97% claim is a tired argument and has been exposed as manipulation. A more accurate statement based on the data sample is '97% of scientists did not rule out the possibility of human-induced climate change'. The fact is that if all the papers were true science, the figure should be 100% because you cannot have certainty one way or the other. Many of the papers cited, spoke up against association with the manipulated claim.
I'm not intending to debate the percentage of scientists who believe in a concept that we have agreed is basically irrelevant. The whole point of this post was to move the narrative away from climate change hype and to focus attention on the real issues that people can affect.
11 years ago, I would of agreed with you. Now I'm more skeptical about the skeptics than the scientists. Saying that the 97% claim is a tired argument and has been exposed as manipulation, looks very much like the 4th most used climate myth here https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm