Trumps recent speech at Davos

Joined
Apr 20, 2011
Messages
5,773
Country flag
Sad to say that Trump is still a global warming denier at his recent Tuesday speech as Davos, Trump saying that we should ignore the “prophets of doom” when it comes to climate catastrophe – these “doom prophets” are in fact scientists. Of course D. Trump is still one of the last world leader a climate denier-the petulant, narcissistic child at Davos is 77 year old Trump, not the 17 year old Greta Thunberg;

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/donald-trump-greta-thunberg-davos-global-warming-a4340011.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/37936740/what-climate-change-deniers-like-donald-trump-believe

 
Last edited:
Just what, exactly, is meant by “global warming?”

What portion of it is completely natural? And, not human caused?

Any?

And, what prescriptions, exactly, are recommended?

For instance, are we to deny fossil fuels to the 6 billion people of the developing world?

Are the billion or so people of the developed world supposed to cut their fossil fuel consumption by half? Or a quarter? Or three quarter?

Do the black and brown and yellow people get to burn oil instead of dung or wood? Do they get electric lights? Would they be denied air conditioning and fossil heat?

Are the political elites still going to fly in private jets? Will all air travel be abolished? All combustion engines?

How many power plants, burning what? Will be required to recharge hundreds of millions of electric cars?
 
Last edited:
The US and Europe have been doing there part to clean up our act as much as current tech and cost as we can but untill countries such as china and India get on board than it is a wast of time. stop blaming us ( US And Europe) if you believe man is the major cause if climate change and raise hell with the major polluters .
 
Just what, exactly, is meant by “global warming?”

What portion of it is completely natural? And, not human caused?

Any?

And, what prescriptions, exactly, are recommended?

For instance, are we to deny fossil fuels to the 6 billion people of the developing world?

Are the billion or so people of the developed world supposed to cut their fossil fuel consumption by half? Or a quarter? Or three quarter?

Do the black and brown and yellow people get to burn oil instead of dung or wood? Do they get electric lights? Would they be denied air conditioning and fossil heat?

Are the political elites still going to fly in private jets? Will all air travel be abolished? All combustion engines?

How many power plants, burning what? Will be required to recharge hundreds of millions of electric cars?


None are so blind as those who refuse to see.
 
Right wingers approach to climate change is akin to punching a hole in the bottom of a sinking boat to let the water out. Forgive them Lord, for they know not what they do.
 
Do I believe in climate change? Hell yes, the climate has been changing for a billion years, why should it stop now?

Is man contributing to climate change with his activities? Of course, anytime you burn fuel (fossil or otherwise, including nuclear), heat is released to the environment. Then there is deforestation, turning pastures into shopping malls, laying down millions ( tens or hundred millions perhaps?) of acres of black top roads, roof tops, etc, all of which changes the planet's albido.

Is man's activities driving the climate change? Doubtful, man's activities are a pittance compared to the forces of nature that have been at work since the dawn of time, forces such as the solar output, the eccentricity of the earth's orbit caused by the periodic alignment of the planets, the wobble of the earth's axis, volcanic eruptions, and more.

Doesn't the greenhouse model prove CO2 is warming the atmosphere? In short, NO! The atmosphere is not modeled by a glass box with a lid on it. More and more scientists are calling the glass box model into question. The model has serious conflicts with other physical laws, notably the First Law of Thermodynamics.

Why the climate change alarm? Follow the money and motivation of the globalists. The globalists want you to be favorable to a one world government, which they want you to believe is the only way climate change can be controlled, and they want you to be happy to cough up more taxes which they promise you will solve or control the problem. They will throw a pittance of any such money they can extract from you to solving the problem, most of which will support a bureaucracy, and only a pittance of the pittance actually do any good.

So you have man's activity a pittance of the climate change force, and a pittance of the pittance of money used to control it, leaving a pittance x pittance x pittance as the final result. In the calculus, a pittance x pittance is sufficient to be considered zero.

Slick
 
Just what, exactly, is meant by “global warming?”

What portion of it is completely natural? And, not human caused?

Any?

And, what prescriptions, exactly, are recommended?

For instance, are we to deny fossil fuels to the 6 billion people of the developing world?

Are the billion or so people of the developed world supposed to cut their fossil fuel consumption by half? Or a quarter? Or three quarter?

Do the black and brown and yellow people get to burn oil instead of dung or wood? Do they get electric lights? Would they be denied air conditioning and fossil heat?

Are the political elites still going to fly in private jets? Will all air travel be abolished? All combustion engines?

How many power plants, burning what? Will be required to recharge hundreds of millions of electric cars?


Great questions. Some of them even have the beginnings of answers. Had the warnings been heeded 30-40 years ago we might have had solutions.

The US and Europe have been doing there part to clean up our act as much as current tech and cost as we can but untill countries such as china and India get on board than it is a wast of time. stop blaming us ( US And Europe) if you believe man is the major cause if climate change and raise hell with the major polluters .

We (USA/Europe) have been burning fossil fuels at a tremendous rate for the past 100 years.
At what point are we not responsible for the damage we have done?

Developed countries are at a point (thanks to all that fuel burning) where we can transition to renewable energy sources with greater ease than any developing nations.

Europe is already leading the way, so is the USA to some extent. It's happening already.

Republicans are resistant because embracing universal truth often costs them their jobs.
 
Electric vehicles are not the answer either. The metals required for batteries require a lot of energy to extract from the ground - this will increase exponentially if we are all forced to use electric vehicles. The infrastructure for charging will ruin town and city centres - each parking place require a charge point? There are not enough power stations to generate the additional electricity if we all turn to EV and how would the electricity be generated - alternative supplies (wind, waves, solar) cannot generate enough to meet demand. At best only 60% of a battery is able to be recycled- the majority are 40%.
Many question still remain - the climate change is real but we need to redouble our invention to find solutions (multiple) not just electricity.
 
Do I believe in climate change? Hell yes, the climate has been changing for a billion years, why should it stop now?

Is man contributing to climate change with his activities? Of course, anytime you burn fuel (fossil or otherwise, including nuclear), heat is released to the environment. Then there is deforestation, turning pastures into shopping malls, laying down millions ( tens or hundred millions perhaps?) of acres of black top roads, roof tops, etc, all of which changes the planet's albido.

Is man's activities driving the climate change? Doubtful, man's activities are a pittance compared to the forces of nature that have been at work since the dawn of time, forces such as the solar output, the eccentricity of the earth's orbit caused by the periodic alignment of the planets, the wobble of the earth's axis, volcanic eruptions, and more.

Doesn't the greenhouse model prove CO2 is warming the atmosphere? In short, NO! The atmosphere is not modeled by a glass box with a lid on it. More and more scientists are calling the glass box model into question. The model has serious conflicts with other physical laws, notably the First Law of Thermodynamics.

Why the climate change alarm? Follow the money and motivation of the globalists. The globalists want you to be favorable to a one world government, which they want you to believe is the only way climate change can be controlled, and they want you to be happy to cough up more taxes which they promise you will solve or control the problem. They will throw a pittance of any such money they can extract from you to solving the problem, most of which will support a bureaucracy, and only a pittance of the pittance actually do any good.

So you have man's activity a pittance of the climate change force, and a pittance of the pittance of money used to control it, leaving a pittance x pittance x pittance as the final result. In the calculus, a pittance x pittance is sufficient to be considered zero.

Slick[/QUOTE

.
Follow the money and motivation of the climate change deniers
 
Electric vehicles are not the answer either. The metals required for batteries require a lot of energy to extract from the ground - this will increase exponentially if we are all forced to use electric vehicles. The infrastructure for charging will ruin town and city centres - each parking place require a charge point? There are not enough power stations to generate the additional electricity if we all turn to EV and how would the electricity be generated - alternative supplies (wind, waves, solar) cannot generate enough to meet demand. At best only 60% of a battery is able to be recycled- the majority are 40%.
Many question still remain - the climate change is real but we need to redouble our invention to find solutions (multiple) not just electricity.
I read only recently that the UKs power grid could not cope if 5% of current car owners switched to electric.
Yes, you read that right FIVE PERCENT...!
 
Please answer the questions I asked above.

If you were actually interested in an informed, scientific, fact based analysis of the questions you have posed above, you wouldn't be asking them here.

Its much easier to sit on the sidelines and criticize isn't it?

I hear a lot of "we can't!" Instead of "we can try" here.
 
Electric vehicles are not the answer either. The metals required for batteries require a lot of energy to extract from the ground - this will increase exponentially if we are all forced to use electric vehicles. The infrastructure for charging will ruin town and city centres - each parking place require a charge point? There are not enough power stations to generate the additional electricity if we all turn to EV and how would the electricity be generated - alternative supplies (wind, waves, solar) cannot generate enough to meet demand. At best only 60% of a battery is able to be recycled- the majority are 40%.
Many question still remain - the climate change is real but we need to redouble our invention to find solutions (multiple) not just electricity.


Your diatribe notwithstanding, electric vehicles are the future. You only have to look at the resources the major auto manufactures are pouring into R&D for EVs to see that.

Your argument against EVs is very similar to the arguments years ago against the electric light replacing the kerosene lamp.

You are proof positive Luddites still exist.
 
Last edited:
Jim,
Electric vehicles are PART of the solution but not the only solution. The electricity required for just 50% of the current petrol and diesel stock to be replaced is massive and the infrastructure is nowhere near enough. Add to that the increase in rail travel (powered by electricity) required to supplement vehicles with a shorter range and I stand by my comment that multiple solutions are required - some other form of an ICE may need developing - one that uses a cleaner fuel.
 
Jim,
Electric vehicles are PART of the solution but not the only solution. The electricity required for just 50% of the current petrol and diesel stock to be replaced is massive and the infrastructure is nowhere near enough. Add to that the increase in rail travel (powered by electricity) required to supplement vehicles with a shorter range and I stand by my comment that multiple solutions are required - some other form of an ICE may need developing - one that uses a cleaner fuel.

Internal combustion engines will always exist. By 2050 I predict there will be more ICEs in museums than on the road. A similar ratio of homes being lighted by electricity as opposed to kerosene lighting.
 
You are proof positive Luddites still exist.
Now that is a bit rude, even though it made me smile!
I firmly believe in progress and would purchase an electrical vehicle if the performance matched current vehicles. However, we have a long way to go before EV become the answer on a large scale. The environmental impact of building the necessary power stations may not be acceptable to those currently advocating that we all change to EV sooner. I am just concerned that a focus on electricity as the primary solution may divert attention and research away from finding other acceptable (clean) solutions
 
Now that is a bit rude, even though it made me smile!
I firmly believe in progress and would purchase an electrical vehicle if the performance matched current vehicles. However, we have a long way to go before EV become the answer on a large scale. The environmental impact of building the necessary power stations may not be acceptable to those currently advocating that we all change to EV sooner. I am just concerned that a focus on electricity as the primary solution may divert attention and research away from finding other acceptable (clean) solutions


I doubt the future will be kind to big centralized power plants. More than likely power generation will be done by millions of small solar and wind units.

I had a Ford C-Max Energi. The one with 20 mile range on battery power. I would have used a solar panel to charge it at home. Only problem was my little partner used it to commute to work during the day. Solar panels do not work well at night.
 
Last edited:
Personally I think that EV are the future. BUT not in there current form.

We have the EV equivalent of the floppy disc currently, or perhaps a 1960s room sized computer. We need the EV equivalent of the super chip (or whatever) before they are the real future.

I also believe, as does Toyota, that hybrids offer a better solution to pure EVs. But in my mind a hybrid won’t have ANY hard drive, clutch, transmission, etc. It will simply power a generator, which powers the wheels (just like diesel trains). It can then be a very small engine designed to work in a very narrow power band, very efficiently.

The power generation argument re EVs can not be overlooked. If the U.K. went to 100% EV we would need 20 new power stations. Now, what is the carbon footprint of building 20 new power stations? Moreover, on our little island, where would they go!?

Its also worth noting that not all car companies believe EV are the future, Toyota believes in hybrids and hydrogen.

Whichever way it goes, things are sure gonna change !
 
I’m pretty sure human activity is more than a small contributor to the progressive climate change the world has been experiencing and tracking for several decades now .... however I do love my internal combustion engines completely and I own run and maintain 10 such devices , I heat our home with electricity and propane , and I really enjoy taking my ICE powered vehicles out for long rides and super smooth twisting ashphalt .. even while knowing I may be contributing to the end of the world as we know it ..... sorry to say I think I may be a spoiled brat ! ..... I worked hard all my life so I could do just what I’m doing now for enjoyement ..... I sure hope I can continue to eat my cake ....
 
Back
Top