Trump is playing his role very well. This is what you call hegelian dialectic. The political world create two extremes one to the left that want to enforce extreme measures to combat climate change. While the other extreme make climate change totally irrelevant or that there are no bases for it. And now people is faced between the two extreme and none makes sense. So they created a third option that people will accept to create the actual outcome they wanted in the beginning.https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51213003
"In 2009, Mr Trump actually signed a full-page advert in the New York Times, along with dozens of other business leaders, expressing support for legislation combating climate change."
' "If we fail to act now, it is scientifically irrefutable that there will be catastrophic and irreversible consequences for humanity and our planet," the statement said. '
In 2016,
"Last fall, after Obama described climate change as a major threat to the United States and the world, Trump said that was “one of the dumbest statements I’ve ever heard in politics — in the history of politics as I know it.” "
https://grist.org/politics/donald-trump-climate-action-new-york-times/
In 2009, Trump described his position as scientifically irrefutable.
7 years later, that same position was one of the dumbest things he'd ever heard of.
To me, that seems very suspicious.
Yes, it's very possible that I misunderstood what you were saying, so thank you for addressing that.You took the "what does it matter" line wrong, what I was saying it didn't matter if there was, "significant change in the science regarding climate change" involved in changing his mind. His mind could have been changed by old data he hadn't seen yet, or again looking at old data with a new perspective, this was my only point, in the first comment you made it seem as if "significant change in the science regarding climate change" would be completely necessary to change ones mind. I disagree. The way you answered that part of my comment didn't make sense, and you ripped the "what does it matter." line out of context to answered it wrong. I was in no way saying none of this stuff matters as your response suggest. I think you misunderstood it.
You may be interested in this linkit's my understanding that they changed the signs in Glacier National Park...beautiful beautiful place...because they had said the glaciers would be gone by 2020
nope
still there![]()
Honestly it's complete speculation, and I have no clue why he changed his mind ultimately, but logically I think it has to do with what information you have. The more info you have the more informed your decision will be. But none of this was the point I was making though. Your comment was worded in a way that seemed to suggest that "significant change in the science regarding climate change", was a requirement for a change of mind. I disagree and my only point was that "significant change in the science regarding climate change" is not necessary for a mind change, old information you never heard then is brought to your attention could easily cause someone to change their minds. That's really it, I wasn't trying to say why he changed his mind, only that the promise you set up in the question suggesting "significant change in the science regarding climate change", was needed for a legitimate mind change was a scarecrow argument really. Simple sitting down with someone and hearing their point of view and why they believe what they believe can change minds too. Perspective. But honestly I think Trump was in the spotlight for so long and the idea of saving the planet sound good to the fleshly ear, but once he started learning other viewpoints and why people hold them. That's how he may have changed his mind. That's how I see it.Yes, it's very possible that I misunderstood what you were saying, so thank you for addressing that.
Let's see if we can come to a place where we do understand each other.
What do you think it's the most likely explanation for the change in Trump's words?
You may be interested in this link
https://www.usgs.gov/centers/norock...ce_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects
I didn't read all of it, but I think some glaciers have disappeared and others are getting smaller.
I hear what you're saying, and thank you for explaining.Honestly it's complete speculation, and I have no clue why he changed his mind ultimately, but logically I think it has to do with what information you have. The more info you have the more informed your decision will be. But none of this was the point I was making though. Your comment was worded in a way that seemed to suggest that "significant change in the science regarding climate change", was a requirement for a change of mind. I disagree and my only point was that "significant change in the science regarding climate change" is not necessary for a mind change, old information you never heard then is brought to your attention could easily cause someone to change their minds. That's really it, I wasn't trying to say why he changed his mind, only that the promise you set up in the question suggesting "significant change in the science regarding climate change", was needed for a legitimate mind change was a scarecrow argument really. Simple sitting down with someone and hearing their point of view and why they believe what they believe can change minds too. Perspective. But honestly I think Trump was in the spotlight for so long and the idea of saving the planet sound good to the fleshly ear, but once he started learning other viewpoints and why people hold them. That's how he may have changed his mind. That's how I see it.
More information is always good!Jakobshavn Glacier in Greenland is apparently growing...is the biggest in Greenland....
The Jakobshavn glacier around 2012 was retreating about 1.8 miles and thinning nearly 130 feet annually. But it started growing again at about the same rate in the past two years, according to a study in Monday’s Nature Geoscience. Study authors and outside scientists think this is temporary.
but who knows
however, it is a particularly cold and hard winter where winter occurs...like the park...and glaciers are formed when the snowfall of any given year does not all melt...here comes the glacierand the reverse happens when melt in the spring goes longer than the snow that fell that winter...glacier shrinks
the sun, is currently in a solar cooling period, so that might have an effect I would think. cycles are 11 years. but since scientists cannot really predict the activity of the sun with regards to how much activity occurs...sunspots etc...educated guess seems to be the conclusion ....but this is interesting....
Scientists rule out imminent sun induced cooling of climate
your link is from 2017. all that's left is that pure little lake after the glacier is gone. supposed to be 25 active glaciers in that park today...meaning growing...they had previously thought there would be none left at all by 2020....as I posted
however, all glaciers are supposed to have receded since 1966
however, it is a particularly cold and hard winter where winter occurs...like the park...and glaciers are formed when the snowfall of any given year does not all melt...here comes the glacierand the reverse happens when melt in the spring goes longer than the snow that fell that winter...glacier shrinks
there was a 'mini' ice age from about 1300 to 1870. some scientists state for we are in for another one and others say no...there will be a big warming instead
guess we'll see
prob more info than you bargained for![]()
More information is always good!
I didn't know about the glacier in Greenland getting bigger, but I have heard that most climate change models predict that certain parts of the world will actually get cooler.
Most people have heard that the arctic ice cap is shrinking, but a lot of people haven't heard that the ice in Antarctica is actually growing. (However, the north is losing ice three times faster than the South is gaining it.)
I've read that it's similar to how a river flowing downhill will make eddies where the water actually flows uphill. So an overall warming Earth would also produce cold spots.
But all of these different pieces of information can lead to different conclusions, I think we both agree.
And that's kind of what led me to make the OP. I thought it was interesting that a person, a person currently in the spotlight regarding climate change, would say in 2009 that it was "irrefutable" and then just seven years later say that it was the "dumbest thing".
Why say either of those things when there's so much information that can lead to differing conclusions?
So, pondering my last question above, I see now that there is possibly a third option.
Trump's statements are not technically opposed.
The second quote is
“one of the dumbest statements I’ve ever heard in politics — in the history of politics as I know it.”
So not the dumbest thing ever, just the dumbest thing in politics.
So maybe he has always been convinced that climate change is happening and will bring about catastrophe, but he also knows that humans aren't going to do what it would take to reverse the process, if that's even possible. So it's not expedient, politically, to keep bringing it up.
If that's the case, then I would salute Trump's political "savvy-ness".
If I had to bet. The more Trump became publicly open to conservative views he soon learned the hushed and shunned scientists who do not support the climate change alarmists.
Well to be the most pro life President in history, it is quite evident by his fruit of pro life policies, judges, executive commands, use of money, and open speeches all for ending planned Parenthood, Roe v Wade, and even called abortion murder. Also having a personal experience with a friends child who was seeking abortion but decided to keep the child, the child had a lasting impact on Trump's life that caused him to see the horrors of abortion.If I had to bet, he decided he wanted the glory of presidency, that the best path to that was through the GOP, so he started saying things that would pander to conservative voters.
Let he who has never changed his mind or repented of anything cast the first stone.You think that's pretty funny @7seasrekeyed ?
He used to support Hillary Clinton over Giuliani :
https://time.com/3962799/donald-trump-hillary-clinton/
He used to support abortion :
https://qz.com/1623437/trump-shifted-from-pro-choice-to-pro-life-as-he-planned-a-presidential-run/
He used to be a registered liberal Democrat supporting legalization of drugs and taxes on the rich:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ich-donald-trump-was-once-a-liberals-liberal/
Just my opinion of course, but it sure looks to me like he's played conservatives, and an awful lot of them have fallen for it hook line and sinker.
It's the same game the GOP has been playing to buy the Bible Belt vote ever since Falwell. Dangle a carrot, and play up the 'us v them' story - y'all love that stuff.
You think that's pretty funny @7seasrekeyed ?
He used to support Hillary Clinton over Giuliani :
https://time.com/3962799/donald-trump-hillary-clinton/
He used to support abortion :
https://qz.com/1623437/trump-shifted-from-pro-choice-to-pro-life-as-he-planned-a-presidential-run/
He used to be a registered liberal Democrat supporting legalization of drugs and taxes on the rich:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ich-donald-trump-was-once-a-liberals-liberal/
Just my opinion of course, but it sure looks to me like he's played conservatives, and an awful lot of them have fallen for it hook line and sinker.
It's the same game the GOP has been playing to buy the Bible Belt vote ever since Falwell. Dangle a carrot, and play up the 'us v them' story - y'all love that stuff.
You think that's pretty funny @7seasrekeyed ?
It's the same game the GOP has been playing to buy the Bible Belt vote ever since Falwell. Dangle a carrot, and play up the 'us v them' story - y'all love that stuff.
You think that's pretty funny @7seasrekeyed ?
He used to support Hillary Clinton over Giuliani :
https://time.com/3962799/donald-trump-hillary-clinton/
He used to support abortion :
https://qz.com/1623437/trump-shifted-from-pro-choice-to-pro-life-as-he-planned-a-presidential-run/
He used to be a registered liberal Democrat supporting legalization of drugs and taxes on the rich:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ich-donald-trump-was-once-a-liberals-liberal/
Just my opinion of course, but it sure looks to me like he's played conservatives, and an awful lot of them have fallen for it hook line and sinker.
It's the same game the GOP has been playing to buy the Bible Belt vote ever since Falwell. Dangle a carrot, and play up the 'us v them' story - y'all love that stuff.
. I think you are funny going out of your way as usual to support democrats by negatively posting about Trump