Home | About | Donate

Top Scientists Decry Trump's "Inconsitent With Reality" Climate Denialism


#1

Top Scientists Decry Trump's "Inconsitent With Reality" Climate Denialism

Jon Queally, staff writer

Spurred by the continued failure of too many political leaders and "great concern" over Donald Trump's specific threat to cancel U.S. participation in the Paris climate agreement if elected president, 375 top American scientists published an open letter on Tuesday castigating climate denialism and urging bold action to address a threat that is "real, serious, and immediate."


#2

Trump is a lunatic and none of his supporters are playing with a full deck.
But that doesn't explain why Hillary loves fracking and wants to burn fossil fuels far into the future.
Sure she mouths all of the platitudes about climate change being real and a danger to our existence. As well as costly in real dollars.
Hillary also tells us that we must replace our current energy system with one that relies almost entirely on renewable energy sources.
Yes, she says all of these wonderful things.
But Hillary still loves fracking and wants to burn fossil fuels far into the future.

Isn't there something about talking out of both sides of your mouth?


#3

I see CD has decided to do a full court press on Trump.

No articles discussing Clinton's fake shift left or militarism, it's all anti-Trump, all the time.

No more of even the minimal coverage of Jill Stein and the Green party.

Just unrelenting fear mongering, 24/7.

Just like HuffPo.

Hate to see a good site go down that way. :frowning:


#4

I am a "Drop Out Democrat" and now a "Reborn Green". I refuse to read any more Trump bashing articles unless the title gives equal time to Hillary! Our government is comprised mainly of Democrats and Republicans. These two parties have failed our country and the world for many years now which means that functionally, our government is a failure. It is time to face facts and get rid of the entire bunch. There is no savior in this plutocratic-oligarachic system. The answer will lie in a fresh start, not in a rerun of the stale thinking of the same people, from either party, who have brought us to the brink of disaster in which we now struggle to escape.


#8

Well, the purists are posting as usual. Hillary is the only choice, but so many love their imaginary world. Hillary understands that we can not switch the world to all renewables immediately. She does know that the world needs to make huge changes relatively quickly. Near half of Americans are thinking of voting for Trump or Johnson. That's mighty depressing. Quite a few lefties won't vote for Clinton. That's depressing too. Maybe humans are too stupid or greedy to survive?


#10

Bernie said for me as one of his financial supporters, to support HRC's fracking because Trump was so bad! Bernie! Bernie! Bernie! When it comes to climate devastation, why bash Trump? Hillary is no better! Never, never will I take your corrupt advice and support Hillary rotten Clinton! Not Hill, I am with Jill.


#12

I seem to remember 8yrs ago Obama promising an economic revitalization driven by a sustainability re-make. Don't know how committed he really was to this, but the push-back was ferocious, and that promise faded long before his other projects.

It is scant comfort that Clinton acknowledges the reality of AGW and the ominous climate future when most of her history and important current policy postures are counter to what is really needed to act with haste. Most importantly (but not only) her "defense" posture, which as many here would note is not defense but offense and hegemony and de facto colonialism through regime change.

The only ameliorating circumstance is that now the evidence is coming much more frequently and no amount of denialist propaganda is going to convince people not to trust their lying eyes. But will this widespread acceptance of the truth translate into anything meaningful? Recent studies statistically prove that government policy is little affected by popular opinion. (-sorry for lack of citation; my aging brain increasingly refuses to imprint new information)

I remarked to my wife last night, and she agreed, that our 2016 choice of POTUS feels exactly like extortion.


#13

Need a hanky? So unfair to Trump. Science being so biased and all


#14

Obama has, as McConnell says, waged a war on coal. Clinton has leveled with miners and stated a lot of them would lose their jobs in the mines. It cost her politically. But let's pretend CD is being unfair to Trump.


#15

Climate denial = fact denial. You can't think clearly enough to register your own point.


#16

Most people must have missed where Bernie said support fracking.


#18

I don't think you can call them purists anymore. Their motives now seem to have little to do with the environment or any other critical issue. The made up facts are a refutation of any assertion of purity.


#20

Well, I'm no "purist" by any means. I recognize that Hillary Clinton is indeed against the use of coal and recognizes that climate change is important and won't pull out of the Paris agreement, so that is certainly better than the position Trump takes. However, her idea to substitute natural gas for coal in some kind of a two decades long transition period is extremely misguided. The reductions in carbon emissions won't be nearly helpful enough, we simply don't have that much time to procrastinate, and the main way of obtaining natural gas (fracking) has a multitude of other atrocious environmental affects. Supporting natural gas is both politically/financially expedient for her. She's already lost Kentucky and West Virginia because of coal and she doesn't want to lose Pennsylvania because of natural gas and secondly, oil companies are international business and she is a proponent of the untaxed "free trade" flow of petroleum products. The equation that drives both of those expediencies needs to change.


#21

forked tongue devil.


#22

I archived the work of Gilens and Page for people like us with aging brains http://zerowastenews.org/Archive/Gilens-and-Page-3-9-14.pdf


#23

Just wait the wrath of Trump is upon them. Why is there not any mention about environmental damage in the three states where the leak is?

Corporate overload media in bed with fossil fuels? oh no!


#24

Those who will vote for Hillary Clinton do not mind destroying democracies for north american corporations.

Remember Berta Cáceres!

The murder of women and children outside the US is part of what being a war monger is all about. Women's rights stop at the US border for Hillary.

Jill Stein is the real choice for first woman president.


#25

Looks to me, like you missed my satire. But thanks for your reply.


#27

No doubt Trump supporters will dismiss these scientists as elites and continue to believe Trump's baloney that climate change is a hoax created by China. But the truth of course is climate change is real. And what we know about it is always changing. In fact, a new study indicates that the urgency to address climate change is even much greater than many people including myself thought even two days ago. An article in the Washington Post discusses a study which found that there is a good possibility that this century part of the East Antarctica ice could collapse and raise sea levels over 3 feet in addition to the sea level rise from Greenland and West Antarctica ice loss and thermal expansion of the oceans.The indicates that this likely occurred 2-5 million years ago when temperatures were only 1-2C higher than now, According to my calculations this means sea level on average could rise from 6-9 feet this century and even higher along the east coast where sea level rise is predicted to exceed the global average.


#28

The fracking thing is a bogus argument. Two-thirds of natural gas in the US comes from fracking and one third of electricity comes from burning natural gas. That is why you can't ban fracking. It is not feasible. And yes fossil fuels will continue be used for a long time. Particularly oil. There is no easy way to stop using oil for plans and ships. You need a liquid fuel. Certainly it is going to take a long time to convert heating from oil and natural gas to an alternatives such as geothermal and heat pumps. Almost 80% of the world's energy comes from fossil fuels. It will take awhile to stop using them. The main thing is stop worrying about how long they will be used and start doing something to implement other sources of energy as quickly as possible. Clinton has a plan for large scale implementation of green energy. She is describing a sensible course for action. Unfortunately the world has waited so long to act that it is probably too late to achieve the goal of staying under 2C which itself is a risky goal. But clearly our chances are far better with Clinton as president than with Trump as president.