Trump says keeping 'open mind' on climate change: New York Times

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
SuperLuigi said:
Not even close.

There will be a recession, but not for the reasons stated here. There has been a real recovery in the last 10 years and a correction is due for all this printing of money, low interest rates and bailouts. But after this the economy will be booming if Trump can deregulate unnecessary regulations and lower the corporate tax rate.
Click to expand...
I can’t argue against the proposition that we’re overdue a recession, notwithstanding that the DOW is up about 1,000 points since Trump got elected.

But there is something to consider. It’s a little unclear to me whether or not we have been in a “recession” for some years now. I don’t mean in terms of prices or what corporations are making or what the top 1% are making or have.

I mean in terms of what average workers get in terms of wages and salaries. But for cheap foreign imports of goods, would we perhaps be in an very extended period of “stagflation” in which wages stagnate while inflation further decreases buying power?

Supposedly the market is an indicator of the future. But it’s more an indicator of peoples’ expectations about future corporate profitability. Lowering taxes automatically increases retained earnings. But I would say Trump and congress are going to have a tough time making the reality meet the expectations.
 
East Anglia emails ***PROVE ***the fraud with AGW or man-made climate change.

Read them for yourselves.

Visit Amazon and look it up.
 
Ridgerunner said:
It is just fine for people to believe in it or disbelieve it, as they choose. As hundred of posts have established on CAF in the past, there are studies supporting the proposition and studies opposed to it.

Meanwhile, of course, people don’t actually experience it, and most now no longer believe in it at all or think it’s real but not really harmful. Most meteorologists hold the same opinion.

I have no problem with the idea of any person doing what he can to reduce his own emissions. That’s a free choice. What I do have a problem with is forcing hardships on people to serve what is more an ideology than it is a known fact. And when the elites supporting it do not act as if they believe a word of it, my problem is made more keen.
Click to expand...
99% of scientists disagree with you.
 
meltzerboy said:
Why not do both? I think this decision on the part of Trump is unfortunate.
Click to expand...
“We see Nasa in an exploration role, in deep space research,” Walker told the Guardian. “Earth-centric science is better placed at other agencies where it is their prime mission.
Click to expand...
Doing both is certainly an option - just not doing both at NASA.
 
Corki said:
Doing both is certainly an option - just not doing both at NASA.
Click to expand...
Why? NASA does space stuff. One of the fundamental sources of basic observational data in many fields is scientific satellites. Satellites are in space. It makes a whole lot of sense that the people designing and maintaining these satellites should be the people who know how to design things for space and put them there.
 
Ridgerunner said:
I can’t argue against the proposition that we’re overdue a recession, notwithstanding that the DOW is up about 1,000 points since Trump got elected.

But there is something to consider. It’s a little unclear to me whether or not we have been in a “recession” for some years now. I don’t mean in terms of prices or what corporations are making or what the top 1% are making or have.

I mean in terms of what average workers get in terms of wages and salaries. But for cheap foreign imports of goods, would we perhaps be in an very extended period of “stagflation” in which wages stagnate while inflation further decreases buying power?

Supposedly the market is an indicator of the future. But it’s more an indicator of peoples’ expectations about future corporate profitability. Lowering taxes automatically increases retained earnings. But I would say Trump and congress are going to have a tough time making the reality meet the expectations.
Click to expand...
So do you hold that the recession of 08 never ended?
 
LeafByNiggle said:
It is important to understand that man spreading out to other planets, even if it happens, will not be a solution for the people living here now, or for the vast majority of their descendants. It would be a very elite few who actually got to leave earth.

Nothing in the last 100 of history projected forward 100 years in the future suggests it could ever be anything more than that.
Click to expand...
:sad_yes:
Also MHO…
 
Speculation. If this becomes reality, it will be news and you can post another thread on it.

Thread closed
 
Monte_RCMS said:
They may have been hacked and stolen, but they are not fake:

junksciencearchive.com/climategate.html
Click to expand...
For the third time, aren’t you the least bit surprised that so few people have taken these e-mails as proof that MMGW is a hoax? If I were you, I would wonder about that. After all, they have been known for quite a long time. It is not as if this is brand new information that the scientific community or even the meteorological communitiy is just now learning.
 
TheAmazingGrace said:
99% of scientists disagree with you.
Click to expand...
I think that percentage has been shown to be excessive many times right here on CAF.
I would, however, agree that most articles on the subject of climate change espouse the theory.

But let’s say for a moment that 99% of all scientists say it’s true. It’s also manifestly true that the most powerful political promoters of the theory do seem to agree with me, at least as manifested by their actions. And, one can’t help wondering just how many of the “scientists” act as if MMGW is an endangering reality.
 
GEddie said:
So do you hold that the recession of 08 never ended?
Click to expand...
I think it depends on how one thinks of it. If by “recession” one means the classic definition of two consecutive quarters of negative growth, the answer is that there has been no recession since 2009.

But if one thinks of it in terms of average earnings, then manifestly we’re still in one, and have been since at least late 2008, though possibly there was an uptick in late 2016.
 
Ridgerunner said:
I think that percentage has been shown to be excessive many times right here on CAF.
I would, however, agree that most articles on the subject of climate change espouse the theory.

But let’s say for a moment that 99% of all scientists say it’s true. It’s also manifestly true that the most powerful political promoters of the theory do seem to agree with me, at least as manifested by their actions. And, one can’t help wondering just how many of the “scientists” act as if MMGW is an endangering reality.
Click to expand...
That is switching the target to political promoters, as if scientific truth could be changed by the actions of those people. But let us suppose for a moment that all the most influential political types are really hypocrites and choose to have a larger carbon footprint and waste more energy than is necessary. What difference does that make on what scientists say. You don’t have to listen to Al Gore. Just listen to your local weatherman. I don’t know what yours says, but our town our local weatherman (actually several of them) routinely mention global warming as a fact. They are not powerful political types. They are not jetting here and there in their private jets. They are just well-educated meteorologists. So focusing on Al Gore, etc. is just a distraction.
 
Ridgerunner said:
I think it depends on how one thinks of it. If by “recession” one means the classic definition of two consecutive quarters of negative growth, the answer is that there has been no recession since 2009.

But if one thinks of it in terms of average earnings, then manifestly we’re still in one, and have been since at least late 2008, though possibly there was an uptick in late 2016.
Click to expand...
So how would you define a recession in terms of average earnings?
 
GEddie said:
So how would you define a recession in terms of average earnings?
Click to expand...
I’m not an economist or a pundit entitled to create economic definitions, but I would say a decline in average earnings over a period of nearly eight years could hardly be discounted as one.
 
meltzerboy said:
Wouldn’t the polar bears et al agree with you? Not to mention most of the scientists who study climate change.
Click to expand...
Some people live in their own “reality”; what happens outside of it doesn’t matter to them.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
That is switching the target to political promoters, as if scientific truth could be changed by the actions of those people. But let us suppose for a moment that all the most influential political types are really hypocrites and choose to have a larger carbon footprint and waste more energy than is necessary. What difference does that make on what scientists say. You don’t have to listen to Al Gore. Just listen to your local weatherman. I don’t know what yours says, but our town our local weatherman (actually several of them) routinely mention global warming as a fact. They are not powerful political types. They are not jetting here and there in their private jets. They are just well-educated meteorologists. So focusing on Al Gore, etc. is just a distraction.
Click to expand...
I don’t much doubt weather people talk about global warming some. I don’t hear it myself, but few people here believe in it and maybe the weathermen and women don’t talk about it for fear of seeming tedious or simply becoming unpopular. TV people are not entirely unlike politicians, lots of them won’t swim against the tide of popular opinion in their areas of operation.

But in some places, they probably talk about it a lot. I do have to be at least modestly amused that all the “nature” shows now feel themselves obligated to at least tip the hat to MMGW, as in a show about grizzly bears, for example, a clumsy insertion: “Grizzly bears eat a lot of salmon during the salmon run, but if global warming kills all the salmon, the bears are in a world of hurt”, then on to the rest of the program. Then, if you look at the credits, more often than not the producers received either government funding for the show or from some environmentalist organization. But it does seem the funding sources are usually satisfied with just a few seconds of MMGW in programs that otherwise have nothing to do with global warming.

But those are nationally-televised shows, so they are in the unenviable position of having to use a very light touch. They have to mention it, but they can’t really be too heavy with it lest too much of the audience switches to Fox Business or some show about digging up mummies in Egypt. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top