Sunday, June 4, 2017

Reaction to Trump taunting "Drop Dead, World!" from @wattsupwiththat

Sou | 12:48 AM Go to the first of 55 comments. Add a comment
Over at WUWT, eight of the nine most recent articles are celebrating Trump's decision to abdicate his responsibilities to people in the USA (see here). As you'll have heard, he has declared his intention to isolate the USA even further than he has already. In particular, at WUWT they are celebrating Trump declaring that he refuses to fulfil US obligations to mitigate global warming.

Let America and the world go jump, is the cry at WUWT. We live for the moment. If tomorrow we drown, starve or burn, at least we'll have shown those libtards what we think of them. We don't give a damn about people in far flung places, or the fact that the USA is responsible for more global warming to date than any other country on Earth.

(The picture shows how Trump's recklessness is viewed elsewhere in the world, by Der Spiegel. H/t Brian L Kahn.)

Alarmism from professional disinformer Paul Driessen

The most recent WUWT article (archived here) was by a professional disinformer, Paul "bring back smog" Driessen. He's paid to write disinformation for an extremist right wing propaganda machine in the USA, CFACT. Paul churns out lies day after day for a living and Anthony lets him use WUWT as a freeby publisher. (I don't think he would pay Anthony an advertising fee when it's probably not necessary. Anthony plays the role of useful idiot for CFACT.)

Here's an example of Paul Driessen's hogwash:
President Trump was 100% correct (not just 97%) when he showed true leadership this week – and walked America away from the madness laid out before him and us on the Paris climate table.

From suggestions that Earth’s climate was balmy and stable until the modern industrial era, to assertions that humans can prevent climate change and extreme weather events by controlling atmospheric carbon dioxide levels – to claims that withdrawing from Paris would “imperil our planet’s very survival” – the entire process has been driven by computer models and hysteria that have no basis in empirical science.
Notice CFACT is a right wing authoritarian organisation. It is pro-Trump, the demagogue. Deniers are in raptures that finally, though not within his promised 100 days, finally, Donald Trump has kept a promise. They were getting edgy, with no "repeal and replace" in place to kill off all the people who were so reckless as to get sick or have an accident. No wall to keep everyone from moving to Mexico; no tax deductions for the rich paid by the poor; no stopping of visitors from the middle east and other places that scare the pants off racist xenophobic right wingers; and no stopping climate science yet, though the smog lovers are encouraged by the dismantling of the EPA and delighted they are now allowed to pollute waterways to their hearts content.

Notice too the mixed up second paragraph. Paul doesn't say who made suggestions that "Earth’s climate was balmy and stable until the modern industrial era". It certainly isn't supported by climate science so I'd say he just made that up out of thin air. It makes a good lie and who at WUWT would question it. After all, wasn't Greenland so green and balmy they grew pawpaws there?

Then there's Paul's disbelief that we can control the amount of carbon dioxide we pour into the air each year. He's got to be faking that. No-one could be that ignorant about the current shift to renewables.  It looks as if he's a greenhouse gas denier too, hinting that CO2 has nothing to do with climate, though he doesn't say that outright.

How about him claiming that "the entire process has been driven by computer models and hysteria". He must know that's not true. In all his years of fabricating climate propaganda I find it hard to believe that he hasn't come across some paleoclimate studies, and hasn't heard of surface weather stations, satellites, or Argo floats. And if he really and truly thinks that hysteria is a scientific instrument (or maybe that it causes weather to change), then he's pretty well certifiable, wouldn't you say?

There's lots more. Paul Driessen is not merely a shameless liar, he is a raving ratbag alarmist, claiming that modernising the energy sector would have this result: "Malls, factories and entire energy-intensive industries would be eliminated. Like families and small businesses, they would also face the new reality of having pricey electricity when it happens to be available, off and on all day, all week, when the wind blows or sun shines, instead of when it’s needed. Drilling and fracking, gasoline and diesel prices, trucking and travel, would also have been hard hit."

Is the world better off with Trump on the outer?

Anthony Watts was very daring in a couple of the articles he copied and pasted. I say that not because of his fans, for whom no rational article would dent their insane rejection of climate facts, but because they would inform stray lurkers who unwittingly stumble upon WUWT without knowing beforehand that it's a conspiracy blog.

One of them was a commentary article by Luke Kemp  in Nature Climate Change. Anthony only copied and pasted a fairly short excerpt (archived here), which included this comment on a table presented, about a "rogue US":
The modified matrix of risks posed by a recalcitrant US administration summarized in Table 1, and explored in detail below, highlights the paradox of US participation: a rogue US can cause more damage inside rather than outside of the agreement.
In the full article, Luke Kemp suggested the world may be better off with the US federal government out of the way, rather than having them, for example, water down the Paris agreement. I see that he put forward a notion I wrote about in my last but one article, too, saying:
There are positive opportunities that could arise from US withdrawal. One is the re-emergence of climate trade measures, such as border carbon adjustments. The idea of instituting a carbon tax of 1–3% on US imports in the event of withdrawal was raised by former French presidential nominee Nicholas Sarkozy13. Trade measures are risky maneuverers that could trigger negative impacts such as a trade war14. However, trade measures have tended to be a key component of successful international agreements, such as the 1987 Montreal Protocol15, and institutions like the World Trade Organisation. Even the occurrence of a trade war or other perverse effects would likely result in a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and greater political salience.
A trade war is preferable to a world war, and may prevent one.

I feel a little sick

Counters to the argument that the US is better out than in while Trump is President can be found all over. On the one hand Trump's actions have definitely spurred people and many countries to make a greater effort to mitigate global warming. Conservative columnist at the Washington Post, Kathleen Parker, wrote about how US cities and states are forming alliances and committing to action. On the other hand, Donald Trump is pitting himself against the entire world, and wrecking not just the scientific fabric of the USA but the environment we need for our very survival. Trump could even be considered an existential risk.

Another article worth reading is by Andrew Freedman and Maria Gallucci at Mashable. They quote the renowned climate scientist Michael Oppenheimer:
Michael Oppenheimer, a climate scientist at Princeton University, said that Trump’s decision and the echoes it will send throughout the business and international communities will put the 2-degree target further out of reach than it already was.

"I’ve worked on this issue for 35 years and I feel a little sick," he said. "In one fell swoop he [Trump] took the air out of the balloon."
Freedman and Gallucci make the point that if a rational responsible US President was elected in 2020 then there's still hope. On the other hand, if the nightmare of a second Trump term happened, then there is a huge risk that global warming will escalate quickly. If that happened the world will be facing enormous damage and costs next decade and those following.

Trump weather disasters

The authors also wrote:
While you won’t be able to blame a specific heat wave on Trump’s decision, any move that forestalls emissions cuts, as the Paris withdrawal does, will serve to worsen climate impacts in the coming decades. This includes changes in the distribution of rainfall, an increase in the frequency and severity of heat waves, more hydrological extremes such as droughts and floods, and greater amounts of sea level rise.  
I suppose I agree with that. However it won't prevent me and lots of other people from blaming Donald Trump for future weather disasters. Just as one measures likelihood of a weather event with or without global warming now, I can see articles (perhaps peer-reviewed, perhaps not) attributing weather events to the Trump factor.

That's enough for now. I'm still easing back into the swing of writing about climate and those woeful deniers after being distracted by other things in my life. Nice to be back here with you all though :)


  1. There are comments to the effect that Trump might be the worst US President ever. But surely, as somebody choosing to put the future of all humanity in harm's way, he is in the competition for worst human being ever.

    That might seem offensive when comparing him with Assad. Assad and not Hitler? Well, let's remember: according to the Trump administration Hitler wasn't as bad as Assad.

  2. If anyone is around to record it a century from now Trump will probably not be regarded well. However the citizens of the USA who voted him into office knowing what he would do should be regarded as at least as culpable. Most 'evil' leaders achieved power through violence and intimidation (even Hitler, although there are those who insist otherwise) but Trump got there via the exploitation of the ignorant masses! If we, as a species, survive this crisis Trump's election may signal the death of democracy!

  3. Glad you're back Sue.

    WUWT still hasn't posted its usual monthly link to Roy Spencer's UAH TLT update for May.

    Perhaps they don't want to spoil the party?


  4. Day three and still euphoric that the U.S. had the nerve and brains to exit a rotten deal that would do nothing except finance a bunch of corrupt unelected UN bureaucrats. The three readers of Hotsnapper should follow a high-impact blog like WUWT. Hotsnapper is a no-impact blog. This blog is so dead it isn't even worth trolling.

    1. Troll much?

      If WUWT is actually interested in a debate, why does he block global warming proponents while allowing his regular knee-jerk insulters to continue unrestrained?

      If WUWT was a genuine discussion blog and not just a Conspiracy Theory website than panders to it's audience, he would allow a proper discussion.

    2. Harry: Yes. You must know of a certain richardscourtney over at WU ... well I caught this "discussion" between him and a Ron Williams (who is actually a fan of WU- so not a "warmunist").
      starts here ....

      He told the ars****le what's what (pun intended) re his attitude and why it is actually counter-productive.
      I chip in at .....

    3. "This blog is so dead it isn't even worth trolling."

      As that is what you just did, the stupidity you are displaying is jaw dropping.

    4. "Day three and still euphoric ... "

      Not much going on in your life?

    5. "Not much going on in your life?"

      Perhaps we should be kinder: if the poor man has been in a state of euphoria for three days he hasn't had any sleep for a dangerously long time.

    6. "Day three and still euphoric ... "

      What I was really commenting on, but I am struggling to get a handle on, is why these people are so OTT in their reactions. There have been ideas floated that there has been a subversive campaign going on for some years to subtly stoke up the emotions of these people so that their irrational and artificial outrage makes them blind to facts and reasoning so they are easily manipulated. The endorphin rush they get when they "win" is enormous for them. Hence three days (and more?) of euphoria.

      He thinks he is a free thinker. Perhaps he should examine the roots of his euphoria.

    7. Fred - just because Trump supporters think they're running the show now, they're not. Fortunately for us, we have all kinds of ways shut idiots up. Like tell the truth. Point to facts. Explain the evidence. You may be enjoying a bit of undeserved sunshine, but it's still going to rain again. When I read asinine comments like yours, I realize that idiotic unqualified opinions are simply meaningless. Facts matter, your conjecture and straw arguments and erroneous claims do not.

    8. Tony Banton.

      I am sure I have encountered richardscourtney before, I was familiar with the WUWT attack-poodles. They were always ready to pick a fight. They are either nuts or just doing intentionally to disrupt comments they could not handle.

  5. Any thoughts on the next country to exit? I'm thinking somewhere in Eastern Europe, maybe Poland. Or maybe Russia - they don't like to be left behind.

    China is an outside chance - that would be a hilarious slap in the face for everyone calling for a totalitarian dictatorship to be the next global climate leader.

    1. "Any thoughts on the next country to exit? I'm thinking somewhere in Eastern Europe, maybe Poland...."

      I don't know of any other country unfortunate enough to have a head of state as stupid as Trump.

      Your predictions are often farcical Eric. You made another one here not so long ago. Do you remember what it was? What are the odds you have erased that from your memory?

    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    3. All you're demonstrating Eric Worral is that you're non compos mentis. Russia is clever enough to stay in the fold and drag their heels as much as they can without facing penalty, and China is laughing all the way to the bank and to the captain's seat.

      Trump's exit from the Paris accord has assured the US it's downfall, and the enrichment of many other countries at the States' expense. Your glee will be shown by history to be ill-founded. And it won't take too many months for that history to land in your lap.

    4. Poland will have a hard time leaving, as it would put Poland at odds with the rest of the EU. And since Poland is a major recipient of EU benefits, it would put itself in economic trouble. Russia has already indicated it will remain part of the Paris agreement, even if only to have a seat at the table and be able to negotiate (hint to Trump: you cannot renegotiate if you leave the room and shut the door).

      China is unlikely to leave the agreement, as they have a prime opportunity to be a global leader. Imagine indeed the irony: a totalitarian oligarchy shows more global consideration than a democracy.

    5. Kim Jong Un has criticized Trump. Let me see 195 (?) countries, including one of the weirdest and most paranoid on earth vs Nicaraga who did not sign because they thought Paris was too mild and Syria which sees to be having on on-going civil war plus invasions of other powers.

      Indeed the USA is in good company.

    6. LOL. So Eric has done another Brave Sir Robin. Oh come on Eric, stop hiding behind the sofa, man up and tell the boys and girls how the last prediction you honoured HotWhopper with turned out.

    7. Eric, you coward, come out from wherever you are hiding. Tell everybody how your last prediction at HotWhopper turned out.

      If Eric doesn't man up I suggest we all refer to him from now on as Eric (Brave Sir Robin) Worrall.

  6. In my opinion, Paris was already a zombie ..Resurrected after the climate change fear industry was moratally wounded, first by Climategate that destroyed Copenhagen ,then by the global publicity for the "hiatus".
    It is obvious as well that the attempt to reanimate climate/weather fear did not succeed and most of the Paris signatories signed for access to the Green Climate Funds promised .
    Like it or not, Trump honored a campaign pledge .
    The EU is most upset because this represents a threat to their maintaining and increasing the carbon taxes they rely on to maintain their welfare states . If Paris falls apart ,the politicians that impose those hated taxes cannot claim they are "bound by Treaty" to impose them and will lose elections ..the German Greens have been slaughtered in 2 elections by rising anger over energiewende, which has resulted in 17% of pop in energy poverty.
    Though they try to put a brave face on ..there is Panic in Brussels from Trumps move ,make no mistake about it .
    He told them the "Emperor has no clothes ".

    1. The bit about Trump honouring a campaign pledge is correct. The rest demonstrates how climate change deniers live in an alternative world of their own imagining.

      The bit about "EU ... they rely on to maintain their welfare states" might even be satire. Its the sort of stuff DenialDepot was fond of writing.

    2. What hiatus?

      Climategate was a beatup by your denial "industry", anon. If anything the insight should have given you more confidence in the science. Not that there has been any doubt for decades, that we are causing global warming.

      This is another illustration showing deniers are an aberrant variety of the human species, unable to process information. And disinformers abound. You can tell the difference because disinformers reel off a string of pseudo-facts. Deniers just ramble on with waffle (as Anonymous did). Most deniers are right wing authoritarians who adore Donald Trump because they see him as the sort of scumbucket they like. One who'll save them from whatever is their greatest imaginary fear.

      In the face of evidence to the contrary, when so many are speaking out to strengthen, not reduce action, idiots in the deniosphere shut their eyes and ears. In the same way when they see the temperature going up and up and up, they talk about ice ages comething. Nuts.

    3. I do find it strange that deniers are more vociferous, not less, after Trump appeased them by telling the world and the planet to drop dead.

      I'd have thought they'd relax, or the ones in the USA at least. They should be off uncorking the bubbly, and counting the gold coins they've horded, and heading off to worship their golden calves in peace and quiet, or popping up to Alaska to shoot and kill a few hibernating bear cubs,or whatever turns them on when they aren't rejecting 200 years of science. Instead they seem more anxious, not less. Hyperbole plus at WUWT. Deniers seem more worried than ever, even spilling over to here at HW as well.

      Very odd behaviour.

    4. Weird. The German greens were punished for the energiewende? The last polls in Germany (from 2016) show a 80-90% support for the energiewende in Germany.
      Also, die Grüne had little to do with the energiewende. That was primarily the CDU. Before formally adopting it, there was some pre-work with the SPD, but it was formally started under a CDU/FDP government. That is, a Christian-Liberal coalition.

      How can you get such a simple well-known fact so wrong?

    5. Sou, I don't think that my behaviour is very odd. I came here to watch heads explode... surely you would expect no less from someone with opposing views.

      Look at the bright side... your page views should be increasing (even though it's for all the wrong reasons).

    6. >>Sou, I don't think that my behaviour is very odd.

      That comment illustrates of another oddity of deniers. (Normal people will get it, the aberrant humans won't.)

    7. Yes, I'm sure you see us as an odd bunch. We do all sorts of strange things like questioning the missing hot spot... we try to find where all those billions of dollars, spent on climate change, actually goes... we sit patiently waiting for the countless tipping points to produce something tangible... we search, in vain, for the climate refugees... we poke fun at the Church of Climatology and all those who follow its teachings.... and yes, we rejoice in Trump making good his election pledge.

      I'm sure we're odd to you... but you're odd to us. I'm not sure what constitutes 'normal' in your mind, but I'm glad I don't make the grade.

    8. skeptical said:
      "like questioning the missing hot spot..."

      What's bizarre about this is that to question whether it is missing, they have to believe the science that proposed the hot spot in the first place! To these people, it's more a game of gotcha than actually trying to push the science further.

      It's so easy to tell who is serious about science versus someone that has a political agenda.

    9. You're not sceptical, you're an outright ignorant denier.

      Start your education with the TTH - here, if you need to do it with little words:


    10. skeptikal recycles nonsense as usual. She or he doesn't "try to find answers" to anything. He (on the balance of probability skeptikal is an older white male) stops at the questions, like his puppetmasters want him to. Deniers are purveyors of FUD. (Yes, I'd say he's a scumbucket follower not a leader, and probably doesn't even know it.)

      When was the last (or first) time he read an IPCC report to see the vast amount of knowledge scientific research funds have generated? When was the last time he visited, read, and understood what was on the websites of the CSIRO, NASA, NOAA, the UK Met Office, and many more excellent sources of scientific information from around the world?

      He gets his talking point questions from climate conspiracy blogs. As @whut pointed out, he doesn't see the contradiction in the fact that he has to accept the same science in order to make sense of the "questions" he doesn't try to find answers to. I bet he doesn't even understand what his "hotspot" is? (Hint: it's not a spot and it's not hot) Just like deniers don't know that it was scientists who told him that CO2 is plant food, and that they should not show surprise that the planet it greening. That those same scientists know that plants can only mop up no more than a quarter of the extra CO2 we're putting into the air. Or that the plants and oceans combined are only absorbing about 1/2 of it. The rest is staying in the air and heating the earth so quickly that our descendants are going to suffer the horrid consequences, much worse than the floods, fires, droughts, famines, heat waves and civil strife we are trying to cope with now.

      Maybe he is too warped to be considered immoral. Maybe it's wrong to talk about morality with the 8% dismissives. Maybe we should just treat them as an aberration, oddities that cause harm to humanity and the world. Or maybe he is knowingly spreading FUD and is plain evil. I don't know.

    11. "like questioning the missing hotspot"

      Yes, that is bizarre whut. What is amusing is "skeptical" thinks he is questioning it but misses that he stops questioning as soon as he gets the answer he wants. Of course scientists are questioning the existence or lack of it all the time. Looking for a small signal in a noisy and sparse dataset is difficult and throws up many issues. And yet again scientists are just more cautious about results and continue questioning and theorising. Skeptics like skepticaĺ just screech to a halt as soon as they have jumped to the conclusion they wish for.

      They are just intellectually dishonest. With a lot of Dunning Krugerto help.

  7. Trump supporters believe (now) that they have license to berate, omit, deny, refuse, harass, cajole and crow about their opinions and beliefs, wrongly assuming that they have the country's support. They don't, not even close.

    Because the media is always in compliance with power, they've wrongly interpreted the signals that the country is shifting to the insane right. It's not.

    They're also attempting to stand in the momentary sunshine. Coming here and making innuendo and asinine arguments is their way of crawling out of the darkness they continue to inhabit. It won't work.

    Massive push-back is underway, globally. The Trump machine is severely flawed and his minions are beyond deluded, many are clinically insane. There is simply no way it will be tolerated by a world that knows it must move forward, not backwards.

    I certainly won't, and you won't either, nor will many, many millions of other people. Their idiocy is but a blip in time and it will not last. They'll go slinking backwards to their connedspiracies, fear-mongering and fantasy imaginations soon enough, tossing their arrows and barbs along the way.

    Never mind the fools. They always wind up in the dustbin of history.

  8. Here's a reality check for skeptikal and all those applauding Trump abdicating his role as a leader and trying to destroy our planet. His approval is plummeting from an already low number, and those who disapprove are soaring in numbers.

    Fake sceptics (and Trump fans) are most definitely a minority oddity in the USA.


    1. Oh, how soon we forget. Does anyone remember how well Trump was polling before the election? Here's what the polls had to say a year ago...


      Trump's numbers have never looked good in those opinion polls. He has much more support than those polls would have people believe.

      If your evil 'CO2' really is going to destroy the planet... then maybe you should be complaining to China, India, Germany, Japan and all the other countries which are still building new coal fired power stations. The reality is that you don't want to see the funds stop flowing to your eco-loony green friends... and that's exactly what Trump is doing.

    2. What a good little Trumpkin you are, skeptikal. Donald would be proud. I bet you think he had the "biggest eva" crowd at his inauguration, too.

      Your "polls are fake" comment is like denier claims that "science is fake" and "climate science is a hoax" and mainstream media is "fake news". Conspiracy nuttery.

      More evidence of Bob Altemeyer's findings about the self-delusion of right wing authoritarian followers.

    3. Sou, you're ignoring the part of my comment where I said that you should be complaining to those other countries which are still building new coal fired power stations, they are the countries which are trying to destroy our planet with plant food. You're also ignoring that Trump has never polled well in those opinion polls... but you defect that by quoting me as saying something which I never said. I never said that the 'polls are fake'. You should be ashamed of yourself.

    4. I don't know what point you are trying to make, skeptikal. Trump didn't win the popular vote. He lost that by millions. He won the electoral college, which is the only one that counts.

      Given you've now rejected my initial deduction that you thought the Gallup poll was fake or wrong, I'll now deduce you are saying "wait and see people will love Trump in the end".

      Time will tell. Signs at the moment are that even his own base is shrinking.

      Given Trumps erratic and bizarre behaviour, his failure on the domestic and world stage, his evident paranoia, his maniacal rants on Twitter, and his failure to deliver on almost all of his policies, most of which are highly unpopular in any case, I don't believe that will happen.

      He can still be re-elected by fair means or foul (eg gerrymandering) I guess. If he is, it will hasten the passing of US leadership to China, and strengthen the EU further.

    5. "He can still be re-elected by fair means or foul"

      Twinkle twinkle little tsar,
      Putin put you where you are.

      Not original I'm afraid, I saw it in a photo of a rally expressing disapproval of Trump. Not that, in a post truth world, such rallies could be taking place. They are all payed to protest you know. If they don't have a Russian accent you don't believe them these days.

    6. If we're going to bring the arts into it Millicent, it would be remiss to not give a big hat-tip to Operatico Politico, who have produced an absolutely superb piece:


      It's biting satire, executed with wonderful finesse, and so well sung that I've actually listened to it several times just for the artistic talent - excellent music*, fabulous vocals, and constructed in a way that beautifully exemplifies the power of an well-arranged operatic story, even for a lay person unfamiliar with the classical style.

      OP deserve the clicks.

      *If anyone knows which orchestra it is, I'd be curious...

    7. Skeptical
      Maybe you did not get the memo. And of course it is only 103 plants that China has cancelled.


    8. "you should be complaining to those other countries ..."

      That was exactly what Paris was about. Over many years all countries were able to put their complaints on the table and slowly forge an agreement that everyone one would work with. Anyone who thinks there is no concern about other countries is just showing their victimhood mentality.

      "I never said that ..."
      Cue the petty hair-splitting irrelevance that derails and debases the discussion. A handy technique for avoiding answering those irritating facts. Whatever the perception it was certainly said the polls were incorrect with an implication it was anti-Trump.

    9. "Sou, you're ignoring the part of my comment where I said that you should be complaining to those other countries which are ..."

      I forget, which country do we vote in and have some theoretical (and at this point it is almost entirely theoretical) democratic control of the government? Oh yeah... that'd be the USA. It sure as heck is not China or India. They have their OWN governments, and I don't think they'd be particularly pleased with your desire that we interfere with their government's decisions before even attempting to alter our own.

      Somebody has to start somewhere sometimme. We're here now.

  9. Just read Clive James bit a couple days late.
    Cant believe hes fallen for absolute bullshit.
    Sou has used the term scumbucket above and thats how i now think of Clive.
    Totally crap journalism.

  10. I think the Berliner Kurier was even more direct

  11. You do all realise that the Paris Agreement was non binding with no penalties.

    Each Government set it own aims as far as Carbon reductions while considering its own situation. If everybody did their bit no matter how small it was a step in the correct direction to avert future damage costing far greater than current current Carbon reduction.

    Trump is talking nonsense about withdrawing and renegotiating as there is no coercion apart from loss of face. Something he is very good at already.


  12. OT but OMG - Ozone Hole Denial!

    Can I copyright the phrase 'A new low'?

    1. Phil, you could possibly make money if you licenced the phrase. The low isn't new in this case though. It's been a thing at WUWT for quite some time.

  13. I had no idea. Thanks (I think).

    How about 'A deeper low'? ;-)

    1. Sounds good. Each time you see a new low, deniers go lower. They are in a bottomless (cess)pit.

  14. So basically, you're saying there's been no global warming since 2016.

    1. There's been no global warming since when?

    2. Just as long as you don't understand anything about climate, mathematics, or how the fossil fuel industry has created a denial industry to misinform people. But who would be that ignorant at this stage in the argument?

    3. "Just as long as you don't understand anything about climate, mathematics, or how the fossil fuel industry has created a denial industry to misinform people. But who would be that ignorant at this stage in the argument?"

      Millicent, I'll take a stab on behalf of The Spectrum and suggest an answer of somewhere between 40 to >50% of the voting population.

    4. Yeah, but they don't maintain their ignorance while discussing climate change on the web.


Instead of commenting as "Anonymous", please comment using "Name/URL" and your name, initials or pseudonym or whatever. You can leave the "URL" box blank. This isn't mandatory. You can also sign in using your Google ID, Wordpress ID etc as indicated. NOTE: Some Wordpress users are having trouble signing in. If that's you, try signing in using Name/URL. Details here.

Click here to read the HotWhopper comment policy.