China Tells Trump Climate Change Isn't a Hoax it Invented (bloomberg.com) 302
China couldn't have invented global warming as a hoax to harm U.S. competitiveness because it was Donald Trump's Republican predecessors who started climate negotiations in the 1980s, China's Vice Foreign Minister Liu Zhenmin said, according to a Bloomberg report. From the article:U.S. Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush supported the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in initiating global warming talks even before China knew that negotiations to cut pollution were starting, Liu told reporters at United Nations talks on Wednesday in Marrakech, Morocco. Ministers and government officials from almost 200 countries gathered in Marrakech this week are awaiting a decision by President-elect Trump on whether he'll pull the U.S. out of the Paris Agreement to tackle climate change. The tycoon tweeted in 2012 that the concept of global warming "was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive." China's envoy rejected that view. "If you look at the history of climate change negotiations, actually it was initiated by the IPCC with the support of the Republicans during the Reagan and senior Bush administration during the late 1980s," Liu told reporters during an hour-long briefing.
..and it starts (Score:3, Interesting)
History will record the middle of the second decade of the 21st century as the end of the US hegemony. And you know what? It's fine. Rome fell, but people still live in Italy.
Re:..and it starts (Score:5, Insightful)
That skips over quite a bit of history where the people of the Italian peninsula went through a considerably nasty period as the Western Empire fell.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Agreed. Lots of nasty german tribes invaded from the north and caused big trouble. Ever wondered where the term "vandalism" comes from?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Ladies and Gentleman, I present to you the Alt-Right version of history.
Meant not to educate on history (because it isn't history) but to manipulate modern opinions on modern topics and help spread xenophobia.
Re:..and it starts (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
no it is not, because even that isn't accurate.
the concept of the "Fall of the Roman Empire" is a myth, a misconception created by a lack of knowledge of history.
the GP already addressed one point: that the Empire really just split into two parts, and the Eastern Empire survived for quite some time as a cohesive entity. but that division was also the start of this concept of "western" and "eastern" cultures. another part of this myth is that there was a "dark ages" following the fall of the empire. but ther
yes! (Score:2)
Climate change AND Trump!
Get your popcorn ready!
Re:yes! (Score:5, Funny)
Get your popcorn ready!
In a few years I expect to be able to toss the kernels on my driveway and watch them pop there.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't need to wait, put them in your pocket with a Galaxy Note 7.
Re: (Score:3)
Nuclear taco trucks on every street corner!
Re: (Score:2)
It's pronounced nook-you-lar..... nook-you-lar
Re: (Score:2)
Keep burning that coal!
Re:yes! (Score:5, Informative)
You'll feel that way until a series of drought condition summers lead to massive wild fires. Look at what happened up in Northern Alberta and Saskatchewan last summer. For chrissake, the fire is still burning [nationalpost.com]!
Re: (Score:2)
There are a whole bunch of fires and they burn incredibly dully. Climate change and winning the vote of an ill informed section of the electorate, who wish to be told what they want to hear, regardless of whether or not it is true, hence religion is also very popular to that electoral vote market segment. Tell them what they want to hear, no matter how ludicrous and they will vote for you, tell them what they do not want to hear, no matter how truthful and accurate and they will not vote for you. Be thankf
Re:yes! (Score:4, Funny)
Or we could sous vide a steak in our cars while we're at work.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Trump just needs to hold a press conference about SystemD now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Godwin point already?
That was fast.
Re: yes! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Using either SkepticalScience or Wattsupwiththat as a reference is generally inflammatory and counter-productive to your arguments. Claims that a Consensus is somehow relevant in scientific endeavors is nonsensical.
Re: (Score:3)
Using either SkepticalScience or Wattsupwiththat as a reference is generally inflammatory
What? The SkepticalScience.com [skepticalscience.com] link references 8 published papers all showing a strong consensus. If you don't like Skeptical Science then maybe read the published papers. The site is always well sourced.
Claims that a Consensus is somehow relevant in scientific endeavors is nonsensical.
The parent didn't claim that the consensus was relevant to the science. The consensus is informed by the science, not the other way around. The parent just pointed out that the science shows that man made global warming is real and that any crazy hand waving about a Chinese conspiracy is, well, crazy.
Re: yes! (Score:4, Informative)
Consensus doesn't mean a literature review
Needless to say, scientists disagree with you. If the science clearly and unambiguously shows something to be true, then there is considered to be a consensus around that fact.
Please read the papers means you are stuck on the idea of only listening to the people who wrote them.
As opposed to making things up whole cloth? Well yes. That's the whole point of science.
Re: (Score:3)
So, there is a consensus because the science is clear and unambiguous,
Yes.
and the science is clear and unambiguous because there is a consensus?
No,
Re: yes! (Score:5, Insightful)
The left has been so egotistical, with their "I'm right and fuck you if you don't agree" way of thinking
I guess you've never met a religious person.
Re: yes! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
If the election were based on total popular vote I would have campaigned in N.Y. Florida and California and won even bigger and more easily
"If the election were based on total popular vote I would have campaigned in N.Y. Florida and California and won even bigger and more easily" -- tweeted today by your friend [twitter.com], Donald J Trump.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Facts don't scare Trump (Score:5, Insightful)
He makes up his own reality.
Re: (Score:2)
Historical evidence is yet another Chinese scam! (Score:2, Funny)
This 'historical evidence' thing is another scam exported by China to the world. Indeed they have many sweatshop factories where children are worked to death to produce 'historical evidence' to export to the US.
Re: (Score:3)
Mr President, we cannot allow a "historical evidence" gap! - Gen. Buck
Logic? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why is China trying to use logic with Trump. The media would play back the exact words or video of Trump saying something ridiculous, and he'd say "I didn't say that."
But I appreciate China trying to be serious about it. Our new president certainly won't be.
Re:Logic? (Score:5, Funny)
It will be a great, Great wall, I tell you. I promise.
And we'll make the Mexico pay for it.
Everyone who has ever seen one of my great walls has just loved it. Believe me. I know my great walls. Classy beautiful stuff.
Great Wall (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If Trump really believes climate change isn't real, then why is he building [politico.com] walls around [washingtonpost.com] his golf courses [theguardian.com]? (to be correct, he wants it around Ireland [nationalpost.com]).
He should put his money where his mouth is and not do it. Hell, Ireland should say since it's not real, he doesn't need the wall. It's either real, and it's in his economic best interest to protect his properties, or it's not real as he claims, in which case he doesn't need the walls.
The Wall (Score:3)
Who said, "A vast unfinished concrete wall
Stands in the desert. Near it, on the sand
Half-sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown
And puckered lips, and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these unpaid for things,
Small hands that mocked them, and the sons that led;
And on the concrete wall, these words appear:
My name is President Trump, King of Flings,
Look upon my Wall, Mexicans, and despair!
Nothing beside re
Re: (Score:2)
Chinese are too straightforward for this type of thinking. It is beyond them that someone may ignore basic facts and claim 2+2=5, and a large swathe of population would cheer on and support that claim.
Re:Logic? (Score:5, Insightful)
Chinese are too straightforward for this type of thinking. It is beyond them that someone may ignore basic facts and claim 2+2=5, and a large swathe of population would cheer on and support that claim.
Right. It would never occur to them to claim the Tianenmen Square protest never happened, or that Tibet was never independent, or...
Re: (Score:2)
Read this [gwu.edu].
I don't see the relevance to my point.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed.
Are we sure that Trump and Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf [wikipedia.org] are not the same person? Has anyone seen them together?
It's alot easier to believe human climate change (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you think that the level of CO2 has any effect on the visual transparency of air?
I know the air in Bejing China is frequently smoggy, but that is do to photo-chemical reactions to hydrocarbons emitted by motor vehicle, not CO2.
Re: (Score:2)
One only has to... (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And once again, weather is not climate, and regional climate is not global climate. Global warming means overall average temperatures rise, not that every single location on the planet is going to get hotter, or heat equally.
But I suspect you know that, it's just all you can do in the face of insurmountable evidence is throw out moronic asides. It's really about making yourself feel better, isn't it?
so, China looked Trump in the eye and said... (Score:2)
"I'm not lying to you"?
How is that any more or less authorative than the original statements they've made? It proves nothing. If they aren't hoaxing, they'd say the same thing as they would if they are hoaxing.
Re: (Score:2)
What they did give were some verifiable facts. If Trump were to bother to have someone investigate whether or not Republican legislators from his own party were the first to bring it up or not, instead of relying on random internet rumors, he'd have an actual piece of evidence he could use to make a decision with.
The only people... (Score:2, Insightful)
...that think republicans think that climate change is a hoax started by China are Democrats. This is ridiculous.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
THen WHY DID TRUMP SAY IT bartles. Comon, why did he say it, and dont be a trumpite and make me go find the video, he said it DURING THIS ELECTION CYCLE. We BOTH KNOW HE DID.
Comon Bartles. HE CLAIMED IT SO I GET TO MOCK HIM FOR IT.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, one can argue Trump is a RINO, not a true Republican. To be honest, nobody knows what the fock he is yet; his stated plans are not only all over the map, but he draws his own of places nobody's ever seen.
Re: The only people... (Score:2)
Please, you can't be serious - a random tweet from four years ago (3 years before he entered politics, and nearly 5 years before he holds his first elected office), and you call it "Trump's social media campaign"? It's a sexagenarian with a twitter account, and finding evidence of him using the word 'hoax' when describing the "for profit" climate change industry is not him "repeating" his claim.
Re: (Score:2)
So Combating Climate change was a GOP 'thing' (Score:2)
So, unless my math is wrong, that puts the GOP on the right side of Climate Change fully ten years before Al Gore and the Democrats... I don't remember Al Gore giving the Reagan Administration for working on this ten years prior to his PPT deck, book, and movie "An Inconvienient Truth"...
Re:So Combating Climate change was a GOP 'thing' (Score:4, Interesting)
I think you are confused because as much as i loathe reagan, conservatives used to believe in environmental protections. In fact i remember there being a broad consensus about the science of it in the 80s and 90s.
Face it, the so called republican party in the USA simply does not stand for the same things it did 30 years ago. Things are leaning much more to the authoritarian, anti science and pro-ignorance right than probably even classical republicans are comfortable with.
Very few countries have as much of a problem recognizing climate change as real as much as the USA seems to. It's probably going to be a very fascinating historical study, if we survive it. Most other countries at this point are capable of acknowledging AGW but then disagree over what to do about it. This includes conservatives in those countries. Outright denial though seems to be a purely american thing from what i have observed.
Don't Worry (Score:2)
The coming Nuclear Winter will cancel out the Global Warming. Of course, you won't be around to appreciate it unless you live in an underground bunker.
Gyna (Score:4, Funny)
This story is based on a liberal myth. In fact, Trump never said that "Climate change was a hoax invented by China". He said it was a hoax invented by Gyna. He was referring to Melanomia's body part, which speaks to him and has been known to spread pseudo-science, albeit in a Russian accent.
It also told him that the solar system is heliocentric.
Don't try to present facts to Trump or the GOP (Score:4, Insightful)
Objective truth is meaningless. The only facts that matter are political facts- what people can be made to believe. If objective truth forces itself to be recognized, you merely have to explain it the right way to diminish its importance. Perception is all there is.
Re:fascinatingly crafted reply... (Score:5, Informative)
Paranoid much? No part of their statement says what you claim it is. None.
Re:fascinatingly crafted reply... (Score:5, Funny)
I agree 100% with Karl Cocknozzle. Thank you, Karl Cocknozzle, for being the voice of reason in this thread.
The year 2016 has found me saying a lot of things I never thought I'd say.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That's because we live in a post-truth world now.
“post-truth” has been named as Oxford Dictionary's word of the year.
Usage of the adjective, describes circumstances where emotions and personal beliefs are more influential than facts. When used in a sentence: Snowflakes who cannot accept the historic loss of thier presidental candidate have created a "post-truth" reality for themselves.
Re:fascinatingly crafted reply... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:fascinatingly crafted reply... (Score:5, Informative)
Facts are #totallaypassay. We're like in the post-truth era now.
Politician: Crime is up 47,000 percent!
Journalist: No, figures say it's down roughly 13 percent.
Politician: But people believe it's up 47,000 percent. That's what matters.
I forget who it was. Newt "Family values" Gingrich?
Re:fascinatingly crafted reply... (Score:5, Informative)
But, if you want to discuss the electoral college and the popular vote we can. There's nothing wrong with people in cities having a lot of votes if there are people there. It is in only because those people don't vote the way you like that you have the opinion you do. Moreover, the actual cause for an electoral college was primarily two things: First, to prevent populist demagogues by having another layer between the population and the electorate. Hamilton discussed this in Federalist 68 http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp [yale.edu]. In that context, having an electoral college that just votes the way the state popular vote directs it to is exactly counter to that goal. Second, the electoral college preserved the power of the slave states http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/12/13598316/donald-trump-electoral-college-slavery-akhil-reed-amar [vox.com]. It should be clear why the second reason is not acceptable.
And if you really want to look at the "popular vote" numbers, you have to take into account the number of votes the Dems should not have gotten due to fraud such as illegal immigrants voting. The D's cheated and STILL lost. Their policies are obviously so popular that they're now trying to implement them by force.
Thank you for giving an excellent further example of the complete disregard for facts that some on the right are demonstrating. There is essentially zero evidence of any substantial immigration voting. See for example here http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-noncitizen-voters-20161025-snap-story.html [latimes.com]. Facts matter. And if you want to play that game then it is worth noting that massive numbers of legitimate votes in swing states were disenfranchised due to voter ID restrictions, and even federal judges agree that many of those restrictions were designed to deliberately target minorities. Look for example at North Carolina http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/07/north-carolina-voting-rights-law/493649/ [theatlantic.com]. Again, facts matter. There's a good argument for not using the popular vote in this *specific election* because we have a system right now, and we don't know if it would have ended up this way if Hillary and Trump had focused on turning out the maximum number of voters rather than voters in swing states, but that's a distinct issue that's completely removed from the basic facts.
Re:fascinatingly crafted reply... (Score:5, Insightful)
Except China doesn't think AGW is a hoax, so this appears to be yet another climate denier simply inventing claims.
Re: (Score:2)
I am NOT a climate change denier. The data is incontrovertable, regardless of what morons say about hockeysticks.
I am pointing out that the verbiage used is suspicious.
Re:fascinatingly crafted reply... (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, but are you a climate change HOAX denier?
I posit that this is an area on which we can all agree!
Either you are a (climate change) (HOAX denier), or you are a (climate change HOAX) (denier). But we are now all (climate change HOAX denier)s! So let us bask in our reconciliation!
Re: (Score:2)
Please read my initial post, and process it with that clearly labyrinthine brain of yours.
You will see that my objection revolves around this:
1) China objects to being called the source of what trump calls a hoax.
2) Stays strangely silent to the fact that it is not even a hoax at all, and that climate change from human action is very measurably real.
I think that very clearly demonstrates that I deny that it is a hoax.
The only hoax that china has come out against, is that they started it. (which they didnt.)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course if you could get away with these emissions [globalcarbonproject.org] levels while your competitors are hamstringing themselves to reduce emissions, and quite successfully too, would you be quick to end the gravy train!
Or denier of climate change hoaxes (Score:2)
Personally, I deny, vehemently, that San Francisco will be underwater by 2020. There are many, many claims that are climate change hoaxes.
There is also legitimate reason to be concerned about a very slow increase in temperature.
Re: (Score:2)
But let's be realistic. No one has never changed the composition of the atmosphere before, raising the concentration of its most optically active constituent by 30%. Nobody knows exactly what will happen. But it's probably going to include things we don't like, some of which are o
Re: (Score:2)
The data is incontrovertable, regardless of what morons say about hockeysticks.
Yeah, what evidence? "The Earth hasn't warmed in 18 years" based on data from a satellite in a decaying orbit?
Re: (Score:2)
Are you being purposefully obtuse?
How about all the mountains of measurements collected by NOAA? Ice core samples collected in Antarctica?
AGW is very real, there is very solid data behind the claim. It is NOT a hoax.
Your replies indicate that you believe that I think that it is one, despite my rather pointed corrections to the contrary. Why do you feel it necessary to promulgate a falsehood?
Re: (Score:2)
That's called Affirming the consequent [wikipedia.org] fallacy;
in your line of reasoning"
If P, then Q, Q; Therefore, P.
If increased CO2 levels cause warming, it's warming, therefore anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the only cause of Warming.
Re: (Score:2)
No, this is called you misusing a logical fallacy, not to mention invoking one of your own by using it to construct a strawman.
Re: (Score:2)
And once again, the MightyMartian rule of pseudo-skepticism, "If I can raise an objection to a scientific theory, no matter how idiotic and fallacious the objection, I can claim the theory is disproven."
First of all, what does a decaying orbit have to do with anything, and why would you imagine there's just one satellite up there monitoring terrestrial temperatures?
Re: (Score:2)
First of all, what does a decaying orbit have to do with anything,
Because the distance to something affects the intensity of radiation measured by the satellite. If you walk toward a light, it looks brighter. Try it sometime and you'll see. That satellite was actually measuring the temperature of only one layer of the atmosphere. When scientists corrected for the decaying orbit, it seemed like there was no warming. Then, they realized they were overcorrecting for the orbital decay, adjusted the data to account for that, and suddenly it's a conspiracy where scientists are
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, yes. Assume that I do not know the correct spelling is "weird", and that I did not spell it that way on purpose. Yes. Lets do that. Let's also assume based on this assumption that he is an idiot too. That's very convenient.
I would personally conclude that a person who is so intellectually lazy has no business making criticisms of this nature. But that's just me.
Re: (Score:2)
CO2 emissions are a lot more than coal burning, but even if this is true, how is this an excuse for doing nothing?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
President Bush XLI
Is that like SLI? Can we get 2 or 3 Bushes in tandem for increased governing power?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Nice try (Score:5, Funny)
Nice try, China! I don't believe you!
Indeed. If climate changes is a Chinese hoax, then of course they would deny it. So by denying it, they are actually providing even further evidence that it is a hoax. Now we just need to figure out how they photoshopped NASA photos to show a million square miles of open ocean where there use to be arctic ice. The obvious explanation is that NASA is in on the hoax.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now we just need to figure out how they photoshopped NASA photos to show a million square miles of open ocean where there use to be arctic ice. The obvious explanation is that NASA is in on the hoax.
The obvious explanation is Stalin's photo lab.
Re:Nice try (Score:5, Informative)
-1 Troll
But seriously, what the hell ? China, like the US never wanted to do any effort about climate, they never cared that much about pollution and global warming. You could say it was invented by Europe, or Japan, but ... China ???
Anyway, it was not invented, it is a reported fact. There is no intent to find here.
Re: (Score:2)
Chinese citizens are among the most visibly affected by pollution in general, through smog, and they have sufficient communications and disposable income to organize a movement against it. That movement has coalesced and is pushing for reduced air pollution in general, with carbon dioxide as merely one of the problems. But because the movement formed while climate change was an article of discussion internationally, the Chinese movement has ingrained a fight against climate change into their philosophy.
Chin
it's a Chinese copy (Score:2)
the real Global Warming (tm) was invented here
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Facts, those darn facts again... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: File under.... (Score:2)
Right, he said in in 2012, then repeatedly pointed out it was a joke the three intervening years between that tweet and his announcement of running for President because he knew THAT TWEET would help him win the White House. Really?
Re:File under.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you'd best look at who is in charge of Congress now, and who Trump has surrounded himself with. It will be quite something if NOAA isn't defunded and Federal money to universities doing climate change research is clawed back. The one thing is certain is that whatever Trump is, he's at the center of a large body of people who hate science and believe scientists, particularly climatologists, are evil schemers out to destroy the America.
Re:Largest CO2 emitter on Earth (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but that would cost fossil fuel companies a lot of money, so they send out their useful idiots and shills to spread disinformation, even when said fossil fuel companies have known about AGW for decades [theguardian.com]
Re:Climate change,yep millions of years of change (Score:4, Interesting)
YOur issue is a non-issue. Human civilization began and has flourished in a fairly narrow band of climatological conditions. While, in the space of geological time, those conditions will change, the nice about geological time is that it is a LONG FUCKING TIME. What we're doing now is leading to major climactic changes in a very SHORT FUCKING TIME. It's one thing to adapt to changing climate on the order of centuries or millennia, it's another thing to try to adapt to major changes in the order of decades.
The focus should be on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and trying to do as much harm reduction as we can, not on pretending that the problem doesn't exist and going for easy targets so we can pretend that there is no problem. CO2 emissions caused by humans are leading to warming, so humans can fix the problem. Otherwise all your advocating is we fuck over our grandchildren because we're too stupid and evil and selfish to work towards the solution now.
And for what? So you can gas up your car cheaper or have cheaper electricity? Do you hate the future that much? Do your kids fill you with such loathing that you would just dispense with their welfare and pretend we can do nothing? What the fuck is wrong with you?
Re: (Score:2)
The theory behind giving developing nations more time is to allow them to use fossil fuels to get their economies to the point where they can transition to alternatives. For the most part the industrialized world is probably within a decade or two of a major transition, if it just pulls the finger out of its ass, starts pricing carbon for the damage it is doing (in other words, remove what effectively amounts to a massive subsidy to an unsustainable means of energy production). As it is, alternative energy