No more going wobbly in climate fight, Trump supporters vow

[homersapien 11,382]

"For all his bombast, the former president’s agencies hesitated to rewrite federal climate reports or install loyalists atop key science agencies. Some of his allies expect that to change.

Former President Donald Trump pulled the U.S. out of the Paris climate agreement, staffed his environmental agencies with fossil fuel lobbyists and claimed — against all scientific evidence — that the Earth’s rising temperatures will “ start getting cooler.”

Expect a second Trump presidency to show less restraint.

Trump’s campaign utterances, and the policy proposals being drafted by hundreds of his supporters, point to the likelihood that his return to the White House would bring an all-out war on climate science and policies — eclipsing even his first-term efforts that brought U.S. climate action to a virtual standstill. Those could include steps that aides shrank back from taking last time, such as meddling in the findings of federal climate reports.

“The approach is to go back to all-out fossil fuel production and sit on the EPA,” said Steve Milloy, a former Trump transition team adviser who is well known for his industry-backed attacks on climate science."

Read the full piece at: https://www.politico.com/news/2024/01/12/trump-second-term-climate-science-2024-00132289

Edited January 17 by homersapien

[SaltyTiger 7,814]

Stop with all the worry Brother Homer. 
 

“Seventy-three percent of U.S. adults want the government to do more to address climate change, according to a CNN poll released last month. Most want the government to cut emissions in half by 2030, including 50 percent of Republicans and 95 percent of Democrats, the poll found.”

[homersapien 11,382]

1 hour ago, SaltyTiger said:

Stop with all the worry Brother Homer. 
 

“Seventy-three percent of U.S. adults want the government to do mo nre to address climate change, according to a CNN poll released last month. Most want the government to cut emissions in half by 2030, including 50 percent of Republicans and 95 percent of Democrats, the poll found.”

Obviously, Trump supporters represent a minority of the country.  We can only hope that is reflected in the outcome of the next election, but there's certainly no guarantee.

Edited January 17 by homersapien

[SaltyTiger 7,814]

21 hours ago, homersapien said:

Obviously, Trump supporters represent a minority of the country.  We can only hope that is reflected in the outcome of the next election, but there's certainly no guarantee.

No guarantees but folks are circling back. Not pulling my Maga hat out Brother Homer. Just a bit surprised at “Trump hoopla” again.

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-election-trump-voters/

None are full-blown “election deniers” backing Trump’s false claims that he, and not Biden, won the 2020 election. But they say the U.S. election system needs greater oversight.

All said they saw Trump as a strong leader and none considered him racist, despite past comments decrying Haiti and some African nations as “****hole” countries that were widely criticized and recent accusations that migrants were “poisoning the blood” of America, language used by Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler about Jewish people. The Trump campaign has dismissed criticism of the former president’s language as “nonsensical,” arguing that similar language was prevalent in books, news articles and on TV.

 

 

[Cardin Drake 1,829]

If you accept that man made climate change is something we should do something about (a big if), it would be nice to see us doing things that included a realistic cost-benefit analysis. Biden and the democrat's plan is incoherent, a war on drilling and our own fossil fuel industry, while begging OPEC to increase production. Like it or not, energy prices have an immense effect on inflation.  Biden is spending 1.2 trillion on green energy, money that is mostly wasted on a thousand solyndras and grifts for the politically connected and subsidies for the wealthy. What are we getting for that immense amount of money?  Imagine how many nuclear power plants you could build with that. 

[I_M4_AU 7,850]

5 hours ago, Cardin Drake said:

If you accept that man made climate change is something we should do something about (a big if), it would be nice to see us doing things that included a realistic cost-benefit analysis. Biden and the democrat's plan is incoherent, a war on drilling and our own fossil fuel industry, while begging OPEC to increase production. Like it or not, energy prices have an immense effect on inflation.  Biden is spending 1.2 trillion on green energy, money that is mostly wasted on a thousand solyndras and grifts for the politically connected and subsidies for the wealthy. What are we getting for that immense amount of money?  Imagine how many nuclear power plants you could build with that. 

Biden has forced compliance with EVs and it is hurting the individuals that bought into the hype.

 

The infrastructure along with the cars themselves aren’t ready for winter in the north.  And what country is benefiting with all this?

 

In the short term China is cornering the market and we are, as usual, playing catch up.

[jj3jordan 2,053]

On 1/16/2024 at 8:10 PM, homersapien said:

"For all his bombast, the former president’s agencies hesitated to rewrite federal climate reports or install loyalists atop key science agencies. Some of his allies expect that to change.

Former President Donald Trump pulled the U.S. out of the Paris climate agreement, staffed his environmental agencies with fossil fuel lobbyists and claimed — against all scientific evidence — that the Earth’s rising temperatures will “ start getting cooler.”

Expect a second Trump presidency to show less restraint.

Trump’s campaign utterances, and the policy proposals being drafted by hundreds of his supporters, point to the likelihood that his return to the White House would bring an all-out war on climate science and policies — eclipsing even his first-term efforts that brought U.S. climate action to a virtual standstill. Those could include steps that aides shrank back from taking last time, such as meddling in the findings of federal climate reports.

“The approach is to go back to all-out fossil fuel production and sit on the EPA,” said Steve Milloy, a former Trump transition team adviser who is well known for his industry-backed attacks on climate science."

Read the full piece at: https://www.politico.com/news/2024/01/12/trump-second-term-climate-science-2024-00132289

Point of order homer. 
 

We were ignorant climate deniers long before Trump took up residence in your pea brain. 

[Cardin Drake 1,829]

"In the short term China is cornering the market and we are, as usual, playing catch up."

This is what drives me crazy. I'm all for EV's. As I've stated before, it's a road to freeing ourselves from OPEC. But the EPA and democrats are doing their best to keep us from getting the supply of minerals we need to be independent of China.  We need a serious plan by serious people.  You can't just mandate this kind of change.  We aren't quite there yet.  EV's could be cheaper and more reliable than ICE cars in the near future.   But right now they aren't, and will only fill a niche.

Edited January 18 by Cardin Drake

[I_M4_AU 7,850]

1 hour ago, Cardin Drake said:

"In the short term China is cornering the market and we are, as usual, playing catch up."

This is what drives me crazy. I'm all for EV's. As I've stated before, it's a road to freeing ourselves from OPEC. But the EPA and democrats are doing their best to keep us from getting the supply of minerals we need to be independent of China.  We need a serious plan by serious people.  You can't just mandate this kind of change.  We aren't quite there yet.  EV's could be cheaper and more reliable than ICE cars in the near future.   But right now they aren't, and will only fill a niche.

Correct; China doesn’t have and never will have an EPA.  Case closed.  China is the biggest polluter and is rewarded for their efforts.

[homersapien 11,382]

12 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

No guarantees but folks are circling back. Not pulling my Maga hat out Brother Homer. Just a bit surprised at “Trump hoopla” again.

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-election-trump-voters/

None are full-blown “election deniers” backing Trump’s false claims that he, and not Biden, won the 2020 election. But they say the U.S. election system needs greater oversight.

All said they saw Trump as a strong leader and none considered him racist, despite past comments decrying Haiti and some African nations as “****hole” countries that were widely criticized and recent accusations that migrants were “poisoning the blood” of America, language used by Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler about Jewish people. The Trump campaign has dismissed criticism of the former president’s language as “nonsensical,” arguing that similar language was prevalent in books, news articles and on TV.

 

 

I don't really understand your point.

[homersapien 11,382]

On 1/18/2024 at 10:27 AM, Cardin Drake said:

If you accept that man made climate change is something we should do something about (a big if), it would be nice to see us doing things that included a realistic cost-benefit analysis. Biden and the democrat's plan is incoherent, a war on drilling and our own fossil fuel industry, while begging OPEC to increase production. Like it or not, energy prices have an immense effect on inflation.  Biden is spending 1.2 trillion on green energy, money that is mostly wasted on a thousand solyndras and grifts for the politically connected and subsidies for the wealthy. What are we getting for that immense amount of money?  Imagine how many nuclear power plants you could build with that. 

1. It's not a big "if" with the scientific community. 

2. Biden has "drilled" more oil than ever. https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/19/business/us-production-oil-reserves-crude/index.html 

3. "Cost/benefit" is anyone's guess.  But it's obvious the "cost" is increasing, probably in a non-linear way. 

4. Massive investing in "green" energy is an obvious political response. "Solyndra" and/or "subsidies for the wealthy" are moot. While worthy of investigation/examination/correction, they have no relevance regarding what the overall strategy needs to be. And suggesting we are wasting 1.3 trillion on such missteps is a specious argument.

5. No argument on the nuclear power plants.  We are beyond the point to address the problem without their being a substantial part of the solution.

 

 

Edited January 19 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,382]

4 hours ago, Cardin Drake said:

"In the short term China is cornering the market and we are, as usual, playing catch up."

This is what drives me crazy. I'm all for EV's. As I've stated before, it's a road to freeing ourselves from OPEC. But the EPA and democrats are doing their best to keep us from getting the supply of minerals we need to be independent of China.  We need a serious plan by serious people.  You can't just mandate this kind of change.  We aren't quite there yet.  EV's could be cheaper and more reliable than ICE cars in the near future.   But right now they aren't, and will only fill a niche.

You should email them and explain this.

[SaltyTiger 7,814]

11 hours ago, homersapien said:

I don't really understand your point.

Just confirming “only hope”. The people in the interview do not appear to be “MAGA crazies”.

[homersapien 11,382]

4 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

Just confirming “only hope”. The people in the interview do not appear to be “MAGA crazies”.

Yeah, well it wouldn't be too difficult to find 5 Trump supporters who would insist the election was stolen - typically because they don't understand/accept the difference between the absentee voter habits which were skewed heavily toward Democrats in 2020 which delayed the count of Biden votes.

To your point, my hope resides on less on Trump's support shrinking than it does on anti-Trump turnout, which outnumbers Trump voters.  In other words, repeating 2020.

[SaltyTiger 7,814]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Yeah, well it wouldn't be too difficult to find 5 Trump supporters who would insist the election was stolen - typically because they don't understand/accept the difference between the absentee voter habits which were skewed heavily toward Democrats in 2020 which delayed the count of Biden votes.

To your point, my hope resides on less on Trump's support shrinking than it does on anti-Trump turnout, which outnumbers Trump voters.  In other words, repeating 2020.

The 5 supporters in the article do not “insist” that the election was stolen. What did I miss?

[homersapien 11,382]

12 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

The 5 supporters in the article do not “insist” that the election was stolen. What did I miss?

You missed the obvious fact it would be just as easy to find a lot more than 5 Trump supporters who sincerely believe the election was stolen.  Ever watch the youtube clips of MAGA supporters at a Trump rally?

Ever seen the poll numbers of MAGAs on this question?

https://www.washington.edu/news/2021/02/05/new-nationwide-survey-shows-maga-supporters-beliefs-about-the-pandemic-the-election-and-the-insurrection/

"Nearly all (98%) of respondents said they believe Trump’s election fraud claims and distrust the actual results of the presidential election;"

Edited January 19 by homersapien

[SaltyTiger 7,814]

6 minutes ago, homersapien said:

just as easy to find a lot more than 5 Trump supporters who sincerely believe the election was stolen. 

Not arguing that and I do not care about Trump rallies on YouTube. I watch fishing, boat ramp fails, and sports replays.

[homersapien 11,382]

9 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

Not arguing that and I do not care about Trump rallies on YouTube. I watch fishing, boat ramp fails, and sports replays.

I mostly watch Auburn sports blogs and history shows. 

I occasionally watch the maga interviews - they're my "boat ramp fails".

Edited January 19 by homersapien

[SaltyTiger 7,814]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

I mostly watch Auburn sports blogs and history shows. 

I occasionally watch the maga interviews - they're my "boat ramp fails".

YouTube is great. Sure you have discovered the “how to” concerning any task you wish to perform can be seen on YouTube. Have yet to see anyone in the videos that can fillet a fish, carve a Thanksgiving turkey, or cook a steak any better than me.

Imagine some of the interviews are hilarious. Know some folks that went to a rally in Panama City just to look and say they had been.

Edited January 19 by SaltyTiger