Is Trump Biodegradable?

[schmidlap]

I believe spending less money on wasteful green energy projects is cheaper.

Of course. What about effective spending to mitigate the consequences of anthropogenic climate change?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Of course. What about effective spending to mitigate the consequences of anthropogenic climate change?

How many new nuclear reactors should we build?

 

[Luckyone]

Of course, ones hope so, but Trump has been resolute and relentless in his denial and defiance of accepted science, especially medical and environmental. He dismisses experts in every academic discipline if their empirical data conflicts with his irrational dogma.

Putting aside the comfort that human biology affords us in this matter, the cost of imposed and enforced ignorance in anthropogenic climate change will be monumental, compounded by the human suffering that will, inevitably, result from Trump’s contempt for science and love of dirty fuels.

View attachment 1120474
​

There is virtual global consensus among the most qualified in climatology, but that expert unanimity is treated with contempt by Trump because many of those experts are foreign, from all parts of the globe, and acknowledged by every other nation on earth.

​

When the Trump regime declared two weeks ago that it would largely disregard the economic cost of climate change as it sets policies and regulations, it was just the latest step in a multi-pronged effort to erase global warming from the American agenda.​

​

But Trump is doing more than just turning a blind eye to the fact that the planet is growing hotter. He is weakening the country’s capacity to understand global warming and to prepare for its consequences.​

​

The administration has dismantled climate research, firing some of the nation’s top scientists, and gutted efforts to chart how fast greenhouse gases are building up in the atmosphere and what that means for the economy, employment, agriculture, health and other aspects of American society. The government will no longer track major sources of greenhouse gases, data that has been used to measure the scale and identify sources of the problem for the past 15 years.​

​

“We’re not doing that climate change, you know, crud, anymore,” Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins [a Trump sycophant with no climatological qualifications] told Fox Business on May 8…​

​

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/19/climate/trump-climate-denial.html​

​

Climate and environment updates:
Climate change adds month of extreme heat for 4 billion people

View attachment 1120482
"She called science 'crud!'
I like that!"



​

 

[schmidlap]

Trump's suppression of free speech, when the scientific consensus conflicts with his ideological dogma, is monumentally unAmerican, disgustingly typical of dictatorial rule.

In his first hours back in the White House in January, Trump signed an executive order titled “Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship.” Yet it was immediately clear he was in fact imposing rules on language, ordering the government to recognize only two genders and shut down any diversity equity and inclusion programs. In one executive order, he redefined “energy” to exclude solar and wind power.​

Within days, not just “diversity,” but also “clean energy” and “climate change” began vanishing from federal websites. Other institutions and organizations started scrubbing their websites. Scientists who receive federal funding were told to end any activities that contradicted Trump’s executive orders. Government employees — at least, the ones who hadn’t been fired — began finding ways to take their climate work underground, worried that even acknowledging the existence of global warming could put their jobs at risk...

MSN

​

 

[80zephyr]

View attachment 1121016​

The price of ignorance - climate change denial - will be monumental.

​

“Our analysis shows that climate change will cause massive economic damages within the next 25 years in almost all countries around the world, also in highly-developed ones such as Germany and the U.S., with a projected median income reduction of 11% each and France with 13%,” said study co-author Leonie Wenz, a climate scientist and economist...​

​

Climate Change’s $150 Billion Hit to the U.S. Economy​

Consequences will worsen unless more is invested in clean energy and cities adapt to changing environments​

https://www.wsj.com/science/environment/climate-change-us-economy-c9fbda96

​

And you are denying the science as well, that shows us that not only didn't we cause global warming, we can't control it.

 

[schmidlap]

Trump's suppression of free speech, when the scientific consensus conflicts with his ideological dogma, is monumentally unAmerican, disgustingly typical of dictatorial rule.

In his first hours back in the White House in January, Trump signed an executive order titled “Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship.” Yet it was immediately clear he was in fact imposing rules on language, ordering the government to recognize only two genders and shut down any diversity equity and inclusion programs. In one executive order, he redefined “energy” to exclude solar and wind power.​

​

Within days, not just “diversity,” but also “clean energy” and “climate change” began vanishing from federal websites. Other institutions and organizations started scrubbing their websites. Scientists who receive federal funding were told to end any activities that contradicted Trump’s executive orders. Government employees — at least, the ones who hadn’t been fired — began finding ways to take their climate work underground, worried that even acknowledging the existence of global warming could put their jobs at risk...​

​

MSN

​

A dictator suppresses science and medicine because those disciplines are inherently self-critical and self-correcting, whereas ideological dogma is impervious to fact-based revision or modification.

Rule by edict is antithetical to reason.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Don't be upset if you are unable to deal with the science. Reality does not depend upon your ability to accept it.

There is unequivocal evidence that Earth is warming at an
unprecedented rate. Human activity is the principal cause.

View attachment 1120913​

Unprecedented rate? Sounds serious!

What is the current rate?
What are the next 9 highest rates?

Post up that unequivocal evidence so we can see how doomed we are.

 

[schmidlap]

Unprecedented rate? Sounds serious!

What is the current rate?
What are the next 9 highest rates?

Post up that unequivocal evidence so we can see how doomed we are.

You may need to fantasize that you are doomed. That is your prerogative.

What evidence do you have that the consensus of the world's climatologists and climatological organizations regarding the impact of anthropogenic climate change is incorrect?

Scientific Consensus - Science@NASA​

Why do you believe that you know more than they about climatology? Why do you believe whoever is pretending that they know more?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You may need to fantasize that you are doomed. That is your prerogative.

What evidence do you have that the consensus of the world's climatologists and climatological organizations regarding the impact of anthropogenic climate change is incorrect?

Scientific Consensus - Science@NASA​

Why do you believe that you know more than they about climatology? Why do you believe whoever is pretending that they know more?

I'm sure they're very serious about their consensus.

I haven't seen any real evidence that the rate is unprecedented. Have you?

 

[schmidlap]

I'm sure they're very serious about their consensus.

I haven't seen any real evidence that the rate is unprecedented. Have you?

Of course, I've seen it, but what is far more important is the the data compiled and analyzed by the world's climatologists confirms it.

Why would I believe that a former shlock television performer with no expertise in climatology knows more about climatology than climatologists? That would be monumentally and willfully stupid.

• While Earth’s climate has changed throughout its history, the current warming is happening at a rate not seen in the past 10,000 years.

Evidence - NASA Science

Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 800,000 years, there have been eight cycles of ice ages and warmer periods, with the end of

science.nasa.gov

 

[80zephyr]

You may need to fantasize that you are doomed. That is your prerogative.

What evidence do you have that the consensus of the world's climatologists and climatological organizations regarding the impact of anthropogenic climate change is incorrect?

Scientific Consensus - Science@NASA​

Why do you believe that you know more than they about climatology? Why do you believe whoever is pretending that they know more?

Follow the money.

 

[schmidlap]

Follow the money.

Indeed. The dirty fuel profiteers obviously have a powerful financial incentive to deny science.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Of course, I've seen it, but what is far more important is the the data compiled and analyzed by the world's climatologists confirms it.

Why would I believe that a former shlock television performer with no expertise in climatology knows more about climatology than climatologists? That would be monumentally and willfully stupid.

• While Earth’s climate has changed throughout its history, the current warming is happening at a rate not seen in the past 10,000 years.

Evidence - NASA Science

Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 800,000 years, there have been eight cycles of ice ages and warmer periods, with the end of

science.nasa.gov

Of course, I've seen it,

Nice!

If this is the highest rate of change ever, post rates 2-10.

Thanks!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Indeed. The dirty fuel profiteers obviously have a powerful financial incentive to deny science.

How many new nuclear reactors should we build, so we can stick it to the dirty fuel profiteers?

 

[schmidlap]

Of course, I've seen it,

Nice!

If this is the highest rate of change ever, post rates 2-10.

Thanks!

You have yet to explain why you buy the uneducated opinion of a former shlock tv performer over the consensus of the world's climatologists who compiled and analyzed a massive amount of empirical data..

"The concept of global warming was
created by and for the Chinese in order
to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."​

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You have yet to explain why you buy the uneducated opinion of a former shlock tv performer over the consensus of the world's climatologists who compiled and analyzed a massive amount of empirical data..

View attachment 1121587
"The concept of global warming was
created by and for the Chinese in order
to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."​

I don't know who you're referring to and it doesn't matter.

I'm interested in the science behind the claim, "There is unequivocal evidence that Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate. Human activity is the principal cause"

What is the "unprecedented rate" and what were the next 9 fastest rates of warming?

I understand why you're avoiding the question; the answer would highlight the idiocy of the claim.

 

[schmidlap]

I don't know who you're referring to and it doesn't matter.

I'm interested in the science behind the claim, "There is unequivocal evidence that Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate. Human activity is the principal cause"

What is the "unprecedented rate" and what were the next 9 fastest rates of warming?

I understand why you're avoiding the question; the answer would highlight the idiocy of the claim.

I assume that you are capable of finding the answers to your questions if you deem them somehow pertinent. If the rate of warming since the industrial revolution when greenhouse gases rapidly increased is historically typical, who says so?

I accept the scientific reality, and have seen no contradictory data from credible, scientific sources to challenge the consensus, only from dogmatic ideologues.

 

[80zephyr]

Indeed. The dirty fuel profiteers obviously have a powerful financial incentive to deny science.

They aren't the ones paying the scientists. The government is.

 

[toobfreak]

Is Trump Biodegradable?​

Only if you soak him overnight in a warm salt water then rinse him well with cold water in the morning, you Schleplap.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I assume that you are capable of finding the answers to your questions if you deem them somehow pertinent. If the rate of warming since the industrial revolution when greenhouse gases rapidly increased is historically typical, who says so?

I accept the scientific reality, and have seen no contradictory data from credible, scientific sources to challenge the consensus, only from dogmatic ideologues.

I assume that you are capable of finding the answers to your questions if you deem them somehow pertinent.

I can't find any evidence the current rate is unprecedented (never done or known before).
It's your side making the claim. Looks like you can't find any evidence either.

If the rate of warming since the industrial revolution when greenhouse gases rapidly increased is historically typical, who says so?

If the rate is unprecedented, who will post the evidence?

I accept the scientific reality, and have seen no contradictory data

If you can't find the supporting data to post, how can anyone contradict it?

If the rising levels of CO2 are dangerous, how many new nuclear reactors should we build in order
to release less "dangerous" CO2?