A Tutorial For Trump Supporters On Climate Change

[12icer]

So...minimal substance in "rebuttals"...healthy doses of ridicule....

When you kids are ready to talk at the big folks table, let me know.
Have any of you so far taken a car headlamp reflector and put a piece of wood or cardboard on the bulb clip and pointed the reflector at the sun? No? You just want to ridicule solar radiation's immediate power to heat/burn? Or would you like to invest in a company that charges the same rate for power to customers that relies on FREE FUEL for hundreds of days a year, beating their competitors by that same number of days/tons/$coal or oil prices?

Were you aware that if you leave your TV on all day, it burns around 10lbs of coal? JUST your TV. 10 friggin' pounds. NASA says our carbon burning here on the surface is thinning the thermosphere; thinning our insulation from the extremes of space. You have steam preferences do you? Your steam to run turbines HAS to come from burning carbon and nowhere else, right?

Do the experiment. Get a car headlamp reflector, put on your welding glasses and try it out. It's neat. ANYONE can do it and see the potential the US has in her Southwest & Midwest regions. It's a goldmine and we're just sitting on ass letting the Chinese beat us at the technology & markets AGAIN...

I don't have to do that, I know how power is produced in every type of technology you can pop up with, The FACT is it is CHEAPER to use existing plants to generate power and PHASE them out if they become unusable, BUT the COAL technology is such that it has weathered MANY years of extreme use and is still viable PLUS THE PLANTS ARE ALREADY up and running as your stupid ilk closes each viable plant you greatly weaken the base of our grid and you are far to ignorant to know it. Your little plant the with the reflectors has a lot of problems you don't add to the list of the shit you pump. It is a better system than batteries and phase matching and inverters and all of the other shit involved in most of ultra polluting "GREEN ENERGY" solutions your group thieves have put forth as a damn solution. As I posted Google and the internet give you a very limited actual picture of the entire Grid solution. Reading your damn ignorant posts make it completely clear you are well beyond even trying to follow the Multi plane multi faceted science and tech problems involved in ANY of them much less being even remotely qualified to select a system that could withstand the problems that are possible and those that are probable with each change to the system and the viability of each of the technologies to replace another. In closing the argument against a bunch of ignorant self professed intellectual giants, I will post this Coal is a tried and true technology that is very stable, is very hard to make a weapon out of, hard to bring to an unusable point without a serious event. Wind power is easily destroyed and the required attending tech is easily disrupted to the point of completely nullifying an entire section of grid, The solar is fine as long as long as the required tech to collect sufficient thermal is kept viable. Hydro is stable but causes the decay of the entire ecosystem of the river it harnesses over a century or so, and th stagnation of the water in the system due to the lack of oxygenation by current generation when pools are held for long periods. Just keep thinking you know all about it because you very obviously read a little and know nothing but some liberal talking points and what the captions under some pictures say. BTW there are many more ways to generate power you probably know nothing at all about, and never will.

 

[Norman]

If Trump taps this energy resource, liberals who currently urinate on pictures of his face every morning would shift to hero-worship nearly over night. This might be one of those unforeseen rabbits Trump might pull out of the hat to really bump our economy and actually do what he promised in his campaign. Who cares if the steam is oily or green? It just so happens in this instance the green energy is the most profitable.

Some ignorant poster on a previous page doesn't understand the difference between linear solar thermal arrays & the big jokes that BigOil moles posing as "green engineers" tried to sell poor blundering Obama on..predicted to be inefficient.

So, here are big bright pictures to help you understand the difference.

First, the type that works, with the target mere feet away from parabolic (solar radiation concentrating) reflectors:

Here's the joke type, engineered by BigOil to fail. Note how far away the target is from the array of FLAT mirrors...lol...

Were they serious? vv Yes, of course this type of "solar thermal" energy is wholly inefficient. I wonder how hot my hand would be if I had a flat mirror 1/4 mile away shining at it? How dumb do they think we are?

Neither type is free. How much do you think a couple hundred acres of the kind you endorse would cost?

If the tax payer pays it's free. If I loot, then it's free.

This masterful piece of regressive logic never seems to fail.

 

[Jarlaxle]

One more time, Silly: Show me a solar plant-ONE SINGLE SOLAR PLANT-capable of making a profit without subsidies.

 

[Silhouette]

I don't have to do that, I know how power is produced in every type of technology you can pop up with, The FACT is it is CHEAPER to use existing plants to generate power and PHASE them out if they become unusable, BUT the COAL technology is such that it has weathered MANY years of extreme use and is still viable PLUS THE PLANTS ARE ALREADY up and running as your stupid ilk closes each viable plant you greatly weaken the base of our grid and you are far to ignorant to know it.

Let's see...um...coal weathered many years of "extreme use"...you mean burning it to boil water to run a steam turbine?

Your little plant the with the reflectors has a lot of problems you don't add to the list of the shit you pump. It is a better system than batteries and phase matching and inverters and all of the other shit involved in most of ultra polluting "GREEN ENERGY" solutions your group thieves have put forth as a damn solution.

Solar thermal doesn't involve batteries. It uses concentrated sunlight to boil water to create steam to run the same turbine coal does. Only using free fuel. One has to set up both power plants; so why not one that creates steam but without using fuel?

As I posted Google and the internet give you a very limited actual picture of the entire Grid solution. Reading your damn ignorant posts make it completely clear you are well beyond even trying to follow the Multi plane multi faceted science and tech problems involved in ANY of them much less being even remotely qualified to select a system that could withstand the problems that are possible and those that are probable with each change to the system and the viability of each of the technologies to replace another.

"multi plane multi faceted science and tech problems involved in any of them"? You mean the rigorous science of applying fire to a kettle of water until it boils, and then using the momentum of that steam to turn fins on a spindle that then creates a flow of electrons between a magnet and windings of copper wire? Like retard auto mechanics in the 1970s knew how to harness from the motion of the engine turning a crankshaft? Oh golly. It's so COMPLICATED heating water to the boiling point with a source (any will do) of heat!

In closing the argument against a bunch of ignorant self professed intellectual giants, I will post this Coal is a tried and true technology that is very stable, is very hard to make a weapon out of, hard to bring to an unusable point without a serious event. Wind power is easily destroyed and the required attending tech is easily disrupted to the point of completely nullifying an entire section of grid, The solar is fine as long as long as the required tech to collect sufficient thermal is kept viable. Hydro is stable but causes the decay of the entire ecosystem of the river it harnesses over a century or so, and th stagnation of the water in the system due to the lack of oxygenation by current generation when pools are held for long periods. Just keep thinking you know all about it because you very obviously read a little and know nothing but some liberal talking points and what the captions under some pictures say. BTW there are many more ways to generate power you probably know nothing at all about, and never will.

The required tech to collect sufficient thermal is kept viable? You mean as long as we know how to press out a parabolic shape in sheet metal? Or as long as the sun shines? If the sun stops shining, we're going to have more problems than simply heating water to steam.

Congratulations. Your post is one of the most transparent and inane attempts to debunk using the sunlight concentrated to boil water that I've ever seen.

The "reserve champion" ribbon goes to Jar Jar:

One more time, Silly: Show me a solar plant-ONE SINGLE SOLAR PLANT-capable of making a profit without subsidies.

Well since solar thermal plants are brand new or in the process of being rapidly installed by China, Spain, France & Morocco, we have to wait to see the results of how these relatively cheap-to-install power plants do; producing power without using fuel. Though simple math might suggest that a power company that never has to purchase fuel, that was cheaper to build than any of its competitors, might be doing better than them in just a very short while.

 

[bripat9643]

I don't have to do that, I know how power is produced in every type of technology you can pop up with, The FACT is it is CHEAPER to use existing plants to generate power and PHASE them out if they become unusable, BUT the COAL technology is such that it has weathered MANY years of extreme use and is still viable PLUS THE PLANTS ARE ALREADY up and running as your stupid ilk closes each viable plant you greatly weaken the base of our grid and you are far to ignorant to know it.

Let's see...um...coal weathered many years of "extreme use"...you mean burning it to boil water to run a steam turbine?

Your little plant the with the reflectors has a lot of problems you don't add to the list of the shit you pump. It is a better system than batteries and phase matching and inverters and all of the other shit involved in most of ultra polluting "GREEN ENERGY" solutions your group thieves have put forth as a damn solution.

Solar thermal doesn't involve batteries. It uses concentrated sunlight to boil water to create steam to run the same turbine coal does. Only using free fuel. One has to set up both power plants; so why not one that creates steam but without using fuel?

As I posted Google and the internet give you a very limited actual picture of the entire Grid solution. Reading your damn ignorant posts make it completely clear you are well beyond even trying to follow the Multi plane multi faceted science and tech problems involved in ANY of them much less being even remotely qualified to select a system that could withstand the problems that are possible and those that are probable with each change to the system and the viability of each of the technologies to replace another.

"multi plane multi faceted science and tech problems involved in any of them"? You mean the rigorous science of applying fire to a kettle of water until it boils, and then using the momentum of that steam to turn fins on a spindle that then creates a flow of electrons between a magnet and windings of copper wire? Like retard auto mechanics in the 1970s knew how to harness from the motion of the engine turning a crankshaft? Oh golly. It's so COMPLICATED heating water to the boiling point with a source (any will do) of heat!

In closing the argument against a bunch of ignorant self professed intellectual giants, I will post this Coal is a tried and true technology that is very stable, is very hard to make a weapon out of, hard to bring to an unusable point without a serious event. Wind power is easily destroyed and the required attending tech is easily disrupted to the point of completely nullifying an entire section of grid, The solar is fine as long as long as the required tech to collect sufficient thermal is kept viable. Hydro is stable but causes the decay of the entire ecosystem of the river it harnesses over a century or so, and th stagnation of the water in the system due to the lack of oxygenation by current generation when pools are held for long periods. Just keep thinking you know all about it because you very obviously read a little and know nothing but some liberal talking points and what the captions under some pictures say. BTW there are many more ways to generate power you probably know nothing at all about, and never will.

The required tech to collect sufficient thermal is kept viable? You mean as long as we know how to press out a parabolic shape in sheet metal? Or as long as the sun shines? If the sun stops shining, we're going to have more problems than simply heating water to steam.

Congratulations. Your post is one of the most transparent and inane attempts to debunk using the sunlight concentrated to boil water that I've ever seen.

The sun stops shining every night, moron. So instead of one giant facility to create electricity, you want to build two to produce the same amount, and you think that's cheaper?

 

[Redfish]

If you had read the OP and other posts I made on page 1, you'd know that with a thinning thermosphere from man's carbon activities here on the surface,

As even Bri could point out, your science there isn't good. The atmosphere isn't "thinning", not at all.

However, it's still better than the denier 'science'. It's only half-wrong, while deniers get every bit of science and logic wrong.

Why? Because every denier, without exception, is a right-wing-fringe political cultist.

In contrast, real climate science crosses all political boundaries all across the world, because it's actual science. Climate science is non-political, while denialism is 100% politics.

there is no proven link between human made pollution and planetary climate. the climate of planet earth was changing hundreds of millions of years before man arrived and will be changing hundreds of millions of years after man no longer exists. the acts of man are not causing climate change.

Yes, man is polluting the air and water in some places and that needs to stop. You don't need a fake link between pollution and climate in order to attack pollution.

Stop the bullshit and deal with the real issue.
Then we might actually accomplish something.

 

[Silhouette]

Redfish; I'm going to side with the thousands of scientists...including the ones at NASA who tell us that human carbon combustion is thinning our thermosphere dangerously; creating the extremes in weather we've seen escalating. The time has come to completely ignore climate-change deniers and move forward right over the top of them; ignoring them as one would ignore a filthy child who struggles against getting a bath.

The sun stops shining every night, moron. So instead of one giant facility to create electricity, you want to build two to produce the same amount, and you think that's cheaper?

Leaving molten salt heat storage aside for now (which the Chinese are adding to their solar thermal fields to generate electricity at night after a sunny day); I'll take the stock in a company that generates free power 8 hours while the sun shines; while charging the same rate as those burning coal 24/7. In areas where that's 300 days a year (like most of the Southwest), my stock will be more valuable than yours.

Mr. Trump understands cheap materials to maximize profits. Why pay for coal during times when the sun boils water just as easily?

 

[Redfish]

Redfish; I'm going to side with the thousands of scientists...including the ones at NASA who tell us that human carbon combustion is thinning our thermosphere dangerously; creating the extremes in weather we've seen escalating. The time has come to completely ignore climate-change deniers and move forward right over the top of them; ignoring them as one would ignore a filthy child who struggles against getting a bath.

The sun stops shining every night, moron. So instead of one giant facility to create electricity, you want to build two to produce the same amount, and you think that's cheaper?

Leaving molten salt heat storage aside for now (which the Chinese are adding to their solar thermal fields to generate electricity at night after a sunny day); I'll take the stock in a company that generates free power 8 hours while the sun shines; while charging the same rate as those burning coal 24/7. In areas where that's 300 days a year (like most of the Southwest), my stock will be more valuable than yours.

Mr. Trump understands cheap materials to maximize profits. Why pay for coal during times when the sun boils water just as easily?

you are free to "side" with whoever you want. I don't really care who you side with. The fact is that there is no proven link between CO2 and climate. There is also no proof that the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere is any different today than it was 100 million years ago.

CO2 makes up .039% of our atmosphere. Do you understand that is less than half of one percent? From ice core and tree ring data as well as carbon dating, it has been shown that CO2 in the air was the same in the distant past as it is today.

If your goal is to stop humans from polluting, GREAT. Focus on that, you don't need to create a fake link to climate in order to want humans to stop polluting the air and water.

AGW is nothing but a hoax to tax and control human activity. Wake up, they are lying to you.

 

[Redfish]

We should be looking at all forms of energy generation. No one disagrees with that. But until alternatives become financially viable, they wont go anywhere.

 

[depotoo]

If it is true, then why are you not demanding the space stations' removal? After all, it sits in the thermosphere. You know it can't be helping.

Redfish; I'm going to side with the thousands of scientists...including the ones at NASA who tell us that human carbon combustion is thinning our thermosphere dangerously; creating the extremes in weather we've seen escalating. The time has come to completely ignore climate-change deniers and move forward right over the top of them; ignoring them as one would ignore a filthy child who struggles against getting a bath.

The sun stops shining every night, moron. So instead of one giant facility to create electricity, you want to build two to produce the same amount, and you think that's cheaper?

Leaving molten salt heat storage aside for now (which the Chinese are adding to their solar thermal fields to generate electricity at night after a sunny day); I'll take the stock in a company that generates free power 8 hours while the sun shines; while charging the same rate as those burning coal 24/7. In areas where that's 300 days a year (like most of the Southwest), my stock will be more valuable than yours.

Mr. Trump understands cheap materials to maximize profits. Why pay for coal during times when the sun boils water just as easily?

 

[Silhouette]

We should be looking at all forms of energy generation. No one disagrees with that. But until alternatives become financially viable, they wont go anywhere.

What isn't financially viable about a row of parabolic sheet metal pointing at a tube filled with oil that flash-heats water to steam which then runs the same types of turbines that expensive coal or oil fuel do? With FREE sunshine.

Here, look how "hard, expensive and difficult" setting up a solar thermal boiler is:



Now here's a coal plant going in. Which one do you think costs more? And over time as well? And the untold an incalculable costs of damaging our thermosphere by needing 10lbs of coal to keep one TV running all day?



Trump is a man who can do the math especially on cutting costs to improve profits. When a power company can boil water to run the same steam turbine...only not have to buy fuel for up to 8 hours a day (or more) 300 days a year, Trump will know which company to invest in and which not to.

The Chinese are beating our pants off at this free-fuel turbine source. Other countries are following close behind her. Will we be the 21st Century's equivalent of "energy Amish"? Or will we get with the times and become the leaders in this inevitable replacement to boil water?

 

[Silhouette]

I imagine as this technology takes off, engineers will figure out how to increase the volume of water flow past larger & larger heat exchangers. And, how to increase the efficiency & capacity of the oil-filled tube above the reflectors to increase energy output. New materials allowing for even greater heat transference will aide in making these plants equal to any other source of power. Also, the molten salt and other ways of storing heat at night will make these plants able to wean further away from carbon. If you install them near geothermal reserves, sky's the limit.

The Southwest & Midwest really are gold mines. Just not with oil. Sunlight & geothermal are our new "oil"..

Here's the vast goldmine we're sitting on but not tapping just yet:

 

[depotoo]

Really? Seems it has puffed back up, with the end of the solar minimum-
A Puzzling Collapse of Earth's Upper Atmosphere | Science Mission Directorate

"But the numbers don't quite add up," says Emmert. "Even when we take CO2 into account using our best understanding of how it operates as a coolant, we cannot fully explain the thermosphere's collapse."

According to Emmert and colleagues, low solar EUV accounts for about 30% of the collapse. Extra CO2 accounts for at least another 10%. That leaves as much as 60% unaccounted for.

In their GRL paper, the authors acknowledge that the situation is complicated. There's more to it than just solar EUV and terrestrial CO2. For instance, trends in global climate could alter the composition of the thermosphere, changing its thermal properties and the way it responds to external stimuli. The overall sensitivity of the thermosphere to solar radiation could actually be increasing.

"The density anomalies," they wrote, "may signify that an as-yet-unidentified climatological tipping point involving energy balance and chemistry feedbacks has been reached."

Or not.

Important clues may be found in the way the thermosphere rebounds. Solar minimum is now coming to an end, EUV radiation is on the rise, and the thermosphere is puffing up again. Exactly how the recovery proceeds could unravel the contributions of solar vs. terrestrial sources.

"We will continue to monitor the situation," says Emmert.

Redfish; I'm going to side with the thousands of scientists...including the ones at NASA who tell us that human carbon combustion is thinning our thermosphere dangerously; creating the extremes in weather we've seen escalating. The time has come to completely ignore climate-change deniers and move forward right over the top of them; ignoring them as one would ignore a filthy child who struggles against getting a bath.

The sun stops shining every night, moron. So instead of one giant facility to create electricity, you want to build two to produce the same amount, and you think that's cheaper?

Leaving molten salt heat storage aside for now (which the Chinese are adding to their solar thermal fields to generate electricity at night after a sunny day); I'll take the stock in a company that generates free power 8 hours while the sun shines; while charging the same rate as those burning coal 24/7. In areas where that's 300 days a year (like most of the Southwest), my stock will be more valuable than yours.

Mr. Trump understands cheap materials to maximize profits. Why pay for coal during times when the sun boils water just as easily?

 

[Silhouette]

Well we shouldn't do anything like reduce carbon emissions here on the surface. We should wait and see if the known damage it has caused the atmosphere will bring us to an inescapable tipping point in the future! Why change? Let's just keep ignoring free solar radiation to boil water and instead keep the old horse n buggy carbon plants boiling water 24/7.

Carbon "may" be hurting the atmosphere?

 

[depotoo]

Lol. You ignore what you want.
Has anyone studied what our use of the troposphere for research could be doing? No? I wonder why not. And you never mentioned the troposphere is plumping back up, either, now did you. Nor the fact it seems to ebb and flow with the solar minimum or maximum. Just we are destroying the troposphere- or rather through insinuation.
And can you explain what the trillions in climate study has accomplished so far? Has it stopped anything, yet? Or could it be, we don't have the ability to stop climate change. It is much greater than mankind, as it has historically been and done cyclically since the beginning, and we should be studying how to adapt rather than buy and sell carbon credits.

Well we shouldn't do anything like reduce carbon emissions here on the surface. We should wait and see if the known damage it has caused the atmosphere will bring us to an inescapable tipping point in the future! Why change? Let's just keep ignoring free solar radiation to boil water and instead keep the old horse n buggy carbon plants boiling water 24/7.

Carbon "may" be hurting the atmosphere?

View attachment 104280

 

[Silhouette]

I thought we were talking about the thermosphere? Yes, we were. And how boiling water is all any power plant using a turbine does. And the sunshine boils water nicely. So while there's free fuel, the bottom line says "increase profits by using free fuel as much as we can". I know it saddens & disappoints many that we can do this without damaging our atmosphere but it is a grief that with time and increased profits, should surely pass..

But the smudge! The smoke! The smog!! We need our smudge, smoke & smog!!

No, no we don't. Steam turbines just don't give a rats where that steam comes from... And, since CHI-NAH, Morocco, Spain, France & the ME are all getting a jump on this new/old technology; we'd best not be the last "Amish" energy producers of the 21st Century.

 

[Jarlaxle]

One more time: gas power plants DON'T BOIL WATER!

 

[Silhouette]

One more time: gas power plants DON'T BOIL WATER!

Yes but we weren't talking about gas power plants. We were talking about coal plants.

But if you want, let's discuss the same essential technological goal: spinning the fins of a turbine; which is all the steam does. The 'steam' from a gas or oil power plant is the highly combusted gases turning the fins. Potato, pot-A-to.

The combustion (gas) turbines being installed in many of today's natural-gas-fueled power plants are complex machines, but they basically involve three main sections: How Gas Turbine Power Plants Work | Department of Energy

Oh, my yes! VERY complex machines! NOT. They just push gases by a turbine's fins. All it is, is a giant car engine doing the work of container of boiling water...

• The compressor, which draws air into the engine, pressurizes it, and feeds it to the combustion chamber at speeds of hundreds of miles per hour.
• The combustion system, typically made up of a ring of fuel injectors that inject a steady stream of fuel into combustion chambers where it mixes with the air. The mixture is burned at temperatures of more than 2000 degrees F. The combustion produces a high temperature, high pressure gas stream that enters and expands through the turbine section.
• The turbine is an intricate array of alternate stationary and rotating aerofoil-section blades. As hot combustion gas expands through the turbine, it spins the rotating blades. The rotating blades perform a dual function: they drive the compressor to draw more pressurized air into the combustion section, and they spin a generator to produce electricity.

 

[healthmyths]

Donald Trump Will Be the Only World Leader to Deny Climate Change Is Real

As future president, Donald Trump has promised to dismantle President Barack Obama’s progress toward improving the environment. He has supported the Keystone XL pipeline and removing regulations on the gas and oil industries. He wants to reduce the influence of the Environmental Protection Agency, which he called a “disgrace,” and scrap the Clean Power Plan, which would compel power plants to reduce their carbon emission. He wants to “cancel” the Paris climate change deal. And he also once claimed that global warming is a hoax “created by and for the Chinese.” Donald Trump Will Be the Only World Leader to Deny Climate Change Is Real

Well Mr. Trump. You's got some learnin' to do. Average-student business-major Donald Trump; who doesn't take regular security briefings from experts even, cuz, you know, he's smarter than they are on everything...has suddenly deemed himself smarter than world scientific consensus. He might as well declare that green is now purple. What will be next in his world of make-believe?

Even the chemical industry disagrees with you; and dozens of other professional organizations, including NASA. Who is smarter Trumpees? Your guru Donald Trump? Or almost all world scientists?:

American Chemical Society
"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)4 http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Discuss

I have always intuitively wondered how reading a thermometer outside when it was -20° or +100° the person could distinguish between a temperature reading of "20° and 21°". I then just today found this great web page and fascinating debunking of global temperature readings. The Metrology of Thermometers

My main points are that in climatology many important factors that are accounted for in other areas of science and engineering are completely ignored by many scientists:

1. Human Errors in accuracy and resolution of historical data are ignored
2. Mechanical thermometer resolution is ignored
3. Electronic gauge calibration is ignored
4. Mechanical and Electronic temperature gauge accuracy is ignored
5. Hysteresis in modern data acquisition is ignored
6. Conversion from Degrees F to Degrees C introduces false resolution into data.

Finally we get to the infamous conversion of Degrees Fahrenheit to Degrees Centigrade. Until the 1960’s almost all global temperatures were measured in Fahrenheit. Nowadays all the proper scientists use Centigrade. So, all old data is routinely converted to Centigrade. take the original temperature, minus 32 times 5 divided by 9.
C= ((F-32) x 5)/9

example- original reading from 1950 data file is 60F. This data was eyeballed by the local weatherman and written into his tallybook. 50 years later a scientist takes this figure and converts it to centigrade:

60-32 =28
28×5=140
140/9= 15.55555556

This is usually (incorrectly) rounded to two decimal places =: 15.55c without any explanation as to why this level of resolution has been selected.

The correct mathematical method of handling this issue of resolution is to look at the original resolution of the recorded data. Typically old Fahrenheit data was recorded in increments of 2 degrees F, eg 60, 62, 64, 66, 68,70. very rarely on old data sheets do you see 61, 63 etc (although 65 is slightly more common)

Remember from 1880 to the late 60s all the world recording stations used this:

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Donald Trump Will Be the Only World Leader to Deny Climate Change Is Real

As future president, Donald Trump has promised to dismantle President Barack Obama’s progress toward improving the environment. He has supported the Keystone XL pipeline and removing regulations on the gas and oil industries. He wants to reduce the influence of the Environmental Protection Agency, which he called a “disgrace,” and scrap the Clean Power Plan, which would compel power plants to reduce their carbon emission. He wants to “cancel” the Paris climate change deal. And he also once claimed that global warming is a hoax “created by and for the Chinese.” Donald Trump Will Be the Only World Leader to Deny Climate Change Is Real

Well Mr. Trump. You's got some learnin' to do. Average-student business-major Donald Trump; who doesn't take regular security briefings from experts even, cuz, you know, he's smarter than they are on everything...has suddenly deemed himself smarter than world scientific consensus. He might as well declare that green is now purple. What will be next in his world of make-believe?

Even the chemical industry disagrees with you; and dozens of other professional organizations, including NASA. Who is smarter Trumpees? Your guru Donald Trump? Or almost all world scientists?:

American Chemical Society
"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)4 http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Discuss

I don't care. I don't give two shits about the globull climate agenda.