Why are Trump supporters so vehemently opposed to the notion of global climate change?

Because all the predictions have been wrong. Correct predictions is what defines good science.

And because the "solution" is always to raise taxes.

Could you be more specific?

If you look at the average global temps for say the last 30 years, you will see an obvious increase in temps. So how has the prediction been wrong in a 30-year longitudinal sense?

Similarly, if you look at the rate of polar ice cap melting, again, the ice caps are shrinking. So can you explain how the predictions are wrong?

And what do you mean by raising taxes? Be specific.

Wow you're original.

Thread needs no real responses to your stupid question.

She blinded me with science!

MAGA

Yes

Because global climate change was made a big deal by a Democrat. If George Bush (rather than Al Gore) made it a hot topic then it would be a different story. Keep in mind climate change is many decades old but it wasn't a big deal until Al Gore.

If you don't believe me, take a look at Trump's policies. Many of them are direct copies from Obama and Republicans crucified Obama and praise Trump. Just like Democrats are crucifying Trump even though his policies are the same as Obama.

We live in a fun world.

theold geezer wrote:

Could you be more specific?

If you look at the average global temps for say the last 30 years, you will see an obvious increase in temps. So how has the prediction been wrong in a 30-year longitudinal sense?

Similarly, if you look at the rate of polar ice cap melting, again, the ice caps are shrinking. So can you explain how the predictions are wrong?

And what do you mean by raising taxes? Be specific.

No. Over the last 20 years the temps have remained pretty flat. That is even with Global Warming 'scientists' manipulating the data. The Earth's temp pretty much same as in 1998 and that fact has Global Warmists in panic mode.

I'm a Trump supporter and I am not "vehemently opposed to the notion of climate change". The problem is people like you who have no idea what they are talking about.

For starters,

1) Being a Trump supporter does not mean you are opposed to the notion of climate change.

2) In my experience, very few people reject the idea that the climate is changing. It has been changing for a long time. The issue is whether or not humans are significantly affecting it.

3) There is no overwhelming scientific evidence. The evidence is mostly statistical from what I've seen.

4) The number of researchers that support the notion of man-made climate change is irrelevant to whether or not it is true. Democracy is based on popular opinion. The truth is not. Something is either true or it isn't.

5) The notion of man-made climate change needs more actual scientific support instead of statistical and democratic support.

Not so fast buddy wrote:

Because global climate change was made a big deal by a Democrat. If George Bush (rather than Al Gore) made it a hot topic then it would be a different story. Keep in mind climate change is many decades old but it wasn't a big deal until Al Gore.

Climate change is now "global warming", but a few decades ago the threat was "global cooling" and an incoming iceage. This is part of the reason why many aren't just taking these researchers at their word. Show me some science.

You say that the temps have been pretty flat, but NASA's data contradicts you. See above.

Alternatively, please show me your statistics showing that global temps haven't been rising.

Why is global warming such a leftist religion?

Thanks. I appreciate the thoughtful depth of your response.

theold geezer wrote:

I'm genuinely curious. I see so many posts on Letsrun from Trumpsters /Republicans who believe that climate change is a hoax, despite the overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary. Now I get that the notion of global climate change implicates our lifestyles, & nobody wants to give up our fossil-fueled way of life. . . . but is there something else going on? I know I'll get a lot of snarky replies (after all, this is Letsrun), but I'd be very interested to read a well-reasoned, lucid, intelligent rationale as to why climate change is a myth. (One with citations to peer-reviewed scientific articles would be greatly appreciated.)

No one has come close to the biggest factor. The 2nd richest family in the country, that owns about as much wealth as the bottom 30%-40% went on a campaign to fund climate hoax local tv ads targeted at emotionally vurnerable people at a time when Obama was proposing regulations that would make the Koch brothers slightly less wealthy.

If you've ever seen that ridiculous "buy gold" commercial on foxnews, they used the same strategy. "I support two things, the military and buying gold". Wtf does the military have to do with buying gold? The Koch brothers bundled birther and emotional nonsense with their own personal financial interests. Now they're slowly backing off - not because they're looking out for others - but because climate change is recognized by too many for them too continue this scandal without bad PR, which is bad for their bottom line.

dwumpf wrote:

No one has come close to the biggest factor. The 2nd richest family in the country, that owns about as much wealth as the bottom 30%-40% went on a campaign to fund climate hoax local tv ads targeted at emotionally vurnerable people at a time when Obama was proposing regulations that would make the Koch brothers slightly less wealthy.

How do you know they were emotionally vulnerable? Source?

1. I'm not saying *all* Trump supporters are opposed to this scientific reality, but *many* of them are. I'm guessing a majority..

2. Of course the evidence is statistical. What would you suggest to replace years of data?

The scientific community overwhelmingly accepts anthropogenic global warming.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Given that fact, there are three possibilities:

1) The scientific community is made up of stupid people.

2) The scientific community is engaged in a global conspiracy.

3) The scientific community is made up of smart people who know how to do their jobs and are therefore very likely to be correct.

Those who think they know better than the scientists are picking #1. For example, you might hear someone say something to the effect of "Don't you know that some of the thermometers are in urban areas? It's hotter there."

Those who are paranoid are picking #2. For example, on talk radio I often hear, "The global warming crowd is out to destroy capitalism. It's all a hoax!"

Those who are well grounded in reality choose #3.

Ke7 wrote:

dwumpf wrote:

No one has come close to the biggest factor. The 2nd richest family in the country, that owns about as much wealth as the bottom 30%-40% went on a campaign to fund climate hoax local tv ads targeted at emotionally vurnerable people at a time when Obama was proposing regulations that would make the Koch brothers slightly less wealthy.

How do you know they were emotionally vulnerable? Source?

Maybe emotionally vulnerable isn't the right term, but certaintly vulnerable.

Newt Gingrich on Trump:

“This is not a guy who’s shallow or simple, but he is a guy who knows an immense amount about marketing, which is why he talks at a fourth-grade level. He talks at the lowest level of any candidate in either party, not because he’s stupid,” Gingrich said told the crowd of executive-level political staffers and corporate sponsors. “He does it because he knows if you talk at a fourth-grade level everybody can understand you.”

dwumpf wrote:

The 2nd richest family in the country, that owns about as much wealth as the bottom 30%-40% went on a campaign to fund climate hoax local tv ads targeted at emotionally vurnerable people at a time when Obama was proposing regulations that would make the Koch brothers slightly less wealthy.

This isn't quite right, Koch funding of climate disinformation campaigns in particular goes back to at least the Kyoto Protocol era (1997) and they've been funding right wing think tanks in general since the mid 1980s.

[quote]Fat hurts wrote:

The scientific community overwhelmingly accepts anthropogenic global warming.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_

Your stuff gotten old. When you rely on 'consensus' , 'overwhelming majority' and 'settled science' you are panicking because the scientific evidence is not supporting the Global Warming narrative. I thought you guys were foolish before but now beyond pathetic. Regards , Pollly p