It is 1 year into the Trump administration. A year end summary is in order.
I am going to list a few things that Trump was right about this past year.
Some of you TDS will not like what I have to say. That’s OK.
They will harp on all the tweets and shocking lies and exaggerations of Trump...but ignore what he has done and was acutually proven right about.
1. The Paris Accord was a joke... even some climate scientists agree.
2. The Obama administration spied on the incoming Trump team.
3. The coal industry is making a come back despite Obama and Hillary claim these jobs are gone forever.
4. Manufacturing jobs return to the US with reduced regulations and tax incentives.
5. GDP growth above 3% is possible.
6. There was no Russian collusion between Trump and Putin. Mueller has not found anything in his year long investigation.
7. Hillary committed crime and was given a pass by the FBI and Comey team. “Crooked Hillary”
8. ISIS will be dealt with. He unleashed our military to take down ISIS.
9. Illegal immiigration is a huge drag on wages. It is also a contributing factor to crime and incarceration. It is also a security risk especially the chain migration of lottery system.
10. The UN as a failed organization. They voted against of recognizing Jerusalem as capitol of Israel state.
11. The Iran nuclear deal was the worst in history.
12. Fake news has been perpetrated on the American public by the main street media.
13. Comey was a leaker. He leaded to the New York Times.
14. North Korea is all bluff. Rocket man is to be confronted. Kim Jon Un is no match for our superior nuclear arsenal. Fact.
1) You're going to raise some major hackles over that one as most people have a firm belief in human caused global warming.
7) Shush. We all know there was no indictment because there was nothing found that was wrong.
9) You can't say that either - it is an accepted fact that illegals only work jobs that US citizens refuse to do, and there are no illegals in jail for committing crimes.
14) This one I'm not happy with, in truth. While I have to giggle at the idea that Trump's words will cause NK to think he means it, while Kim's words are only bluff and they know it, I'm not happy at all with the idea that mutual assured destruction contains a "superior" anywhere in it.
I have been following climate change debate for over 20 years.
Most people have no clue as to what is at stake.
The IPCC and the Environmentalist has created this along with Al Gore to scare people.
The dire consequences of climate change is not so dire. Also, time is on our side. We have the technology to mitigate any long term effect of climate change.
The Sun has more to do with our climate than anything humans can produce.
You literally don't know what you're talking about. You should stop and be pretty embarrassed that you don't understand the very basic science that shows that increasing CO2 emissions into the atmosphere increase the temperature of the earth. Whether or not you want to conclude that this doesn't matter is another argument entirely, but the science is indisputable as is the data that shows the CO2 emissions increasing dramatically.
If you want to argue either of those two points, then you might as well start arguing that the sun revolves around the earth because you are engaging in a scientific argument that, quite literally, does not exist.
Do you believe that the sun revolves around the earth? I mean, there's reason to believe that scientists have been conning us all these years. Plus, if you look into the sky, the sun is moving, not the earth. Plus, 1 in 4 people can't be wrong.
So, just curious, which of these don't you believe:
1. CO2 emissions into the atmosphere and CO2 trapped there has increased dramatically.
2. CO2 in the atmosphere causes the earth to heat up.
Lots of people make me laugh when they take global warming so serious. Global warming is a theory. It is NOT settled science. It's just a way for politicians to get money and that's it.
There are many scientists who do not believe in global warming such as an atmospheric physicist, and founder of the Science and Environmental Policy Project. “I would like to see the public look upon global warming as just another scientific controversy and oppose any public policies until the major issues are settled, such as the cause.”
https://www.nas.org/articles/Estimated_ … al_Warming
“31,000 scientists reject global warming and say "no convincing evidence" that humans can or will cause global warming?”
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/enviro … g-evidence
No, 97 percent of scientists do not believe there is global warming.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 … ian-tuttle
Yeah, sorry, not settled science. If you believe this I have some land in North Korea you may be interested in purchasing. It's at a real reasonable price.
You don't understand scientific theories very well nor science.
Evolution is just a theory too.
Is the earth revolving around the sun "settled science" because there are a whole bunch of people who don't believe in it?
You are right. Evolution is a scientific theory. There are many scientists who have issues with it. Here's one of the many scientific papers on it.
I should say one other thing to:
You can understand the basic science of climate change and still oppose the Paris Accords.
The basic idea of Trump's criticism of those accords, as I understand it, is why should we bear the burden of climate change expenses when China is doing nothing, thus allowing them to overtake us in manufacturing production.
I see nothing wrong with this argument.
Point well taken. That said, China is choking in so much smog it is investing $375 billion over 5 years to fight pollution.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti … n-on-ener/
Trump's argument is really just a cover for another agenda.
Mike, you do realize that those 31,000 people were able to self sign an online petition and self-select whether they had a BS, MS, or PhD. Of those, the majority of signatures are engineers (10,102). 3,046 are in medicine. 2,965 are in biology, biochemistry and agriculture. 4,822 in chemistry and chemical engineering.
What might be a better way? Well, one thought someone had after reading and rereading the 2013 paper that gave us the 97 percent statistic is that it might be more productive to emphasize the negative. The authors looked through the abstracts of 11,944 papers on climate change published from 1991 through 2011, and found only 78 (0.7 percent) that clearly rejected man-made global warming and 40 (0.3 percent) that expressed uncertainty about it. So only 1 percent of published climate abstracts from 1991 to 2011 explicitly questioned the notion that humans are warming the climate. Geologist James Lawrence Powell did a similar if less painstaking examination of the abstracts of 24,210 peer-reviewed climate papers published in 2013 and 2014 and found only five (0.021 percent) that "in my judgment explicitly rejected global warming."
Darwin waited years after his studies to publish, out of fear of the authorities. Galileo was subjected to house arrest for life for defying the political beliefs of the time. Socrates was killed for doing the same.
So...now when you determine what's true by the number of people publishing it vs the number disagreeing, factor in what fear of going "against the grain" of accepted thought might do to them. How many disagree with the politically acceptable answer (man is kill the planet) but don't publish for fear of losing their grant income or university position, finding that no one will publish future articles, becoming an outcast in the scientific community, being the laughing stock of the century, etc. In today's scientific climate (pun intended) that would seem necessary, and doubly so if truth is to be decided by counting noses.
I would also like to point out that there are a lot of lies involved with Global warming. Here is an excellent article abut it from Forbes Magazine.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylo … 13a52d7b8a
I can see you are one of those who were sold a bill of goods. Did you buy into Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth award winning documentary?
I have studied this for many years. Climate science is very complicated. I attended many talks at the Lamont Dogherty Obsetvatory...by scientists of all disciplines.
Guess what? They don’t know any more than you and I. Their whole assumption is based on models in a computer. All their projections have failed in the past 20 years.
If you really want to learn about this, do some research on your own. I recommend this website
WUWT, for a more balanced view.
Also, the scare tactics of the environmentalist has not worked.
Last survery of the Public shows climate change not even on the top 5 things to worry about.
The latest documentary by Al Gore was a bust.
I also debated doc-snow here on HubPages. We each have a hub outlining our case.
I suggest you go take a class on atmospheric science.
Again, which fact do you not believe in:
1. There is an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere
2. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere heats the earth
And do you believe that the sun revolves around the earth?
A disturbing number of people in this country believe Fox News rather than NASA, 31 international science organizations and 195 countries that signed the Paris accords.
They voted agaist Israel as well. What does that prove?
The key points I am making is that they have been wrong in their dire predictions for past 25 years. Why would you believe them for next 25 years?
As my hub clearly shows, the models are inaccurate and they are too simplistic. Climate science is very complex and the Sun plays a big role and yet they discount its contribution.
My article also points out some of the deficientcies of so called experts.
They have not been wrong. They have been saying for a long time that temperatures are climbing. And they are.
Making perfect predictions about the weather is no different than making perfect predictions about the stock market. Experts are right most of the time but not all of the time.
Not been wrong? Perfect predictions? When predictions are off more than a factor of 10 I have to say Jacklee is right - there is a major problem with the computer simulations.
Don't forget - we're not talking weather here, but climate. A whole different concept, or the deep freeze in the east would prove the whole thing wrong right now.
I am glad you brought up the stock market...
Is the stock market a science or a casino?
The stock market was designed to be fickle...and un predictable...
Our climate is not. It is complex but not random.
Let me explain it another way. Assume we have a perfect model of our earth.
Assume we have a super computer able to compute fast and incredible number of computations...
Assume we have enough sensors located across the globe to monitor wind speed and temperature...instantaneously.
Do you think we will be able to predict the weather next week in NYC? How about next Jan. 2019?
How about 30 years from now?
If you have the answer to those questions, then you will learn alot about climate change and the predictions we are told to accept as gospel...
Prove statement #3 with any link.
Job losses in coal have occurred as a result of technology changes. Owners are not going to hire more workers when they can save money by using technology.
You're very good at regurgitating everything you hear on Fox News though.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2017 … ffect.html
The fact is technology was replacing coal with natural gas...
However, it was accelerated under Democrats when they use the EPA to regulate coal companies out of business...Trump has reversed some of those regulations and bring coal back from the dead.
In China, coal is still a major source of their energy source and it will not go away anytime soon.
The reason is simple economics. It is cheap and abundant.
Hey, he's got 3% of the scientific community behind his claim. That must mean it's conclusive.
I like it when people spend some time on the internet and feel like they know as much about any particular subject as the people who have actually spent years and years learning almost exclusively that topic in a formal setting. It’s my favourite. Climate change and vaccines seem to be the most popular Google Degrees from what I can tell.
It is stories like this that make me a skeptic -
http://www.climatedepot.com/2018/01/04/ … te-crisis/
Climate Depot is an anonymous blog as shown by the private registration below. I suggest you find another source for your claims.
Forbes, a powerful science magazine. The author, with a Bachelor of Arts from Dartmouth, employed at a conservative think-tank funded by climate deniers.
Sorry, but I'll get my information from sites such as NASA.
LOL Would you expect the author of an article denying human caused global warming to be employed at a liberal think-tank funded by solar energy companies?
I assume you are being sarcastic when you say that Forbes is a powerful science magazine.
It's a far-right financial magazine owned by a guy who wants the U.S. to kill off the Fed and go back to the gold standard.
I'd expect him to have a science degree at least and not a Bachelor of Arts.
Wilderness: "most people have a firm belief.... We all know.... it is an accepted fact.... I'm not happy...."
Astounding! This is the most thorough and complete summary of the process Leftists substitute for thought that I have ever seen!
I hope for your sake that you forgot the sarcasm tag.
Back in the 70s, scientists said we were heading into a new Ice Age. This seemed right to me at the time, because we had several very cold winters around that time, with record low temperatures.
In the 80s, scientists said we were facing catastrophic global warming. This seemed right to me at the time, because we had several very hot summers, with record high temperatures. Then it was revealed that the global warming "scientists" had falsified a lot of data--and prudently "lost" just about all the data supporting their case.
Some people think we could be entering a Grand Solar Minimum, which, if true, could mean a new Ice Age, or at least a new Little Ice Age. I don't know why they think that, since that would imply that "scientists" believe they can forecast the sun's activity.
Be that as it may, historical records indicate that since 1914 we have been living in a period called the Modern Maximum--high sunspot activity resulting in higher temperatures here on earth. From 1645-1715 was the Maunder Minimum, when it got really, really cold.
Some speculate that the very muted solar activity since around 2000 indicates that the Modern Maximum of high solar activity and higher temperatures may have ended.
These cycles of sunspot activity are very long cycles (from a human standpoint), but if lower sunspot activity continues it would of course mean a long period of much lower earth temperatures and possibly another one of those solar minimums, like the Maunder Minimum or Dalton Minimum.
The Maunder Minimum roughly coincided with the Little Ice Age, during which Europe and North America experienced colder than average temperatures.
However, my somewhat limited investigation of these issues indicates indicates that they are highly contentious, which leads me to conclude that no one really knows much of anything about it.
You sound like a reasonable person. My complaint about these scienctists has been they seem so sure of themselves until the facts doesn’t agree with their projections...they tell us we are naive and to trust them for all the answers... I prefer someone who is honest and just tell us what they know and don’t know...
Here is another point of view -
You should really try taking a science class. It would help you understand science.
I have an Engineer degree and a masters in Computer science. I also am a self studied expert on many topics... you can read some of my articles from solar energy to self driving cars and the human brain...
I am an accomplished reseracher with patents and many successful projects all over the planet.
You don’t have to take my word for anything. You can do the same research and ask the same questions and come to the same conclusion... that we just don’t know much about climate science at this moment and need to study much more before making projections that affect millions of people around the planet.
Yeah, Jacklee's a very stable genius. Didn't you know?
I am not a genius but smart enough to know when someone is bluffing...
At the end of the day, we each have to make our own judgement as to who to trust...
This comes from experience and a history of watching and validating and discernment.
People today are lacking of common sense...IMHO
That is because fox news is the only one that gives him a fair shake...
Fox News sucks, Jack! The very few actual journalists on Fox stay outa the fray about Trump, leaving Hannity and the other "opinion" people to spew conjecture and pure nonsense to people like you who actually think they're "fair and balanced." What a joke they are as a news source.
Well they are the highest rated cable news programs. It is a free country, people use their remote to do the talking...as for you, you are so biased, you can’t even tell when you’ve been lied to about Trump. So answer this simple question if you dare. What rights have you lost since the election of Trump? And what harm have come to you economically since the election of Trump?
by Scott Belford 3 years ago
There are two major would shaping forces at risk with a Trump presidency; an economic meltdown brought on by a sharp decline in American productivity, and, a much more important one, the environment. I will leave the economy to another forum, for it is the environment I am much more worried...
by emievil 10 years ago
I came upon this news that a study showed majority of the Americans do not believe humans caused global warming / climate change. Any idea if this is true? What about the rest of the world, what do we believe?This is the website - http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 … -activity.
by Sychophantastic 5 years ago
These are results of a public policy poll:Q1 Do you believe global warming is a hoax, ornot?Do ................................................................... 37%Do not ............................................................. 51%Not sure...
by Jack Lee 12 months ago
The latest green new deal is one example of common sense going out the window.We have serious politicians and political commentators and media types talking seriously about this. How is this possible? What is in the air and water that allow this to carry on...?The proposals are so extreme and over...
by SparklingJewel 3 years ago
from the patriotpost:::a new study out of England, where scientists are relying not on computer-generated models of the Earth, but the real thing.Wolfgang Knorr of the University of Bristol's Department of Earth Sciences has found that in the past 160 years the Earth's absorption of carbon dioxide...
by Kenna McHugh 8 months ago
The Sun actually has something to do with the Climate Changehttps://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016 … ge-retrea/
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|