Trump Trashes Climate Science While Building Sea Wall Against it

May 24, 2016

Similar to Shell and Exxon, as the LA Times reported, and I posted here in February.

None dare call it conspiracy. Till now.

Oil giant Exxon planned their facilities with climate change and sea level rise in mind, even as they were funding efforts to cast doubt on the science of climate change.
Congress-people asking if Shell Oil did the same thing.


Los Angeles Times:

A Southern California congressman and two other representatives are calling for an investigation of Shell Oil over whether it deceived the public on climate change at the same time it was preparing its business operations for rising sea levels.

In a Feb. 17 letter to U.S. Atty. Gen. Loretta Lynch, the three members of Congress said growing evidence suggests there may have been “a conspiracy between Shell, Exxon Mobil and potentially other companies in the fossil fuel industry.”

U.S. Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Torrance) sent the letter along with Rep. Peter Welch of Vermont and Rep. Matt Cartwright of Pennsylvania, both Democrats.

Their letter cites an investigation published by the Los Angeles Times that reported that in 1989 Shell Oil announced it was redesigning a long-term, $3-billion natural gas platform in the North Sea to deal with rising sea levels from global warming. Despite this and other incidents, the congressmen noted, “Shell apparently decided to fund climate deniers.”

California Atty. Gen. Kamala D. Harris  (as well as New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman) is investigating whether Exxon Mobil repeatedly lied to the public and its shareholders about the risk to its business from climate change — and whether such actions could amount to securities fraud and violations of environmental laws. New York’s attorney general also is investigating the oil company as a result of the published reports.

“As members of the Oversight Committee, we now ask that Shell also be investigated for intentionally hiding the truth about climate change and embarking on a massive campaign of denial and disinformation,” the letter states.

Shell spokesman Curtis Smith responded to the letter by saying that “Shell’s public position on climate change and the challenge CO2 poses is well known and can be documented for over a decade through publications such as the Shell Annual Report and the Shell Sustainability Report. Recognizing the climate challenge and the role energy has in enabling a decent quality of life, we continue to pursue and advance constructive dialogue on this topic as the challenge is one for all of society.”


The Trump International Hotel in Ireland applied for a permit to build a seawall on its golf course to prevent erosion. Politico reports the permit application included an environmental-impact statement that explicitly said the wall would need to be built to combat “global warming and its effects.” The golf course is located at Trump International Golf Links & Hotel Ireland, in County Clare.



25 Responses to “Trump Trashes Climate Science While Building Sea Wall Against it”

  1. Gary Evans Says:

    Trump is part of the problem, just as much as the fossil fuel corporations are.

    System change, not climate change.

  2. otter17 Says:

    Were you having a nice day, Russell? Have a better one.

    Oh, and notice how the articles state that Shell decided to fund climate denial sources, with no mention anywhere of a bribe or asking the climate denial folks to change their views based on a pay for performance, etc. So, your strawman argument is more or less the basis for your “work” on the subject and is a waste of time. Then again, one of the primary points of climate denial is to waste time, I suppose. You at least got that shill cred going for you, though that becomes a hindrance for you after public awareness eventually matches up with scientific understanding of the subject.

    “The best shills are those that actually believe in their own shilling.”

  3. bobinchiclana Says:

    A “post-truth” politician!

  4. Trumpery upon Trumpery

  5. andrewfez Says:

    Maybe he just likes building walls?

  6. mboli Says:

    Who was it who said” “Shouting ‘No Fire!’ in a burning theater.”

  7. Tom Bates Says:

    The climate change caused by man wackos infest Britain so adding a meaningless line to the request helps get it built. Good thinking on somebodies part. The French have measured ocean sea levels since 1805. The ocean rise trend is 4 inches in 100 years. The problem is ocean erosion not climate change.

    • Peter Mizla Says:

      CO2 causes climate change over time- man is simply enhancing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels- fossil fuels over time will be introduced into the atmosphere naturally as in the case of ice ages and inter glacial- C02 in every inter glacial over the last 800,000 years has never risen above 280ppm- thats a rise of 100ppm from and ice age- this takes thousands of years to take place. C02 now stands at 409ppm a rise of near;y 90ppm since 1958.

      Tom Bates my feeling is that you have no idea what you are talking about.

      • Tom Bates Says:

        Here is an actual amount of forcing due to CO2 rising.
        Since CO2 forcing is a reducing function it will be a long long long time to actually warm the world.

        You might note that the last glacier period melted without a rise in CO2 so something else is doing the heating, Thousands of cubic miles of ice disappeared in a few hundred years. Your might note that from the Greenland ice core study of temperatures, most of the last 4000 years has been warmer than the present except for the little ice age.

        Maybe you should ask yourself why we had the medieval warm period and the little ice age when CO2 was not changing, something else is doing the warming and cooling.

        What you are doing is assuming that CO2 is the sole and major cause of climate change which is a scientific error. If you look at the RSS, UAH, STAR and RATPAC data, the climate is not actually changing at present and has not for decades.

        • otter17 Says:

          Until you convince the scientific method, we don’t care about your personal opinions or study concerning the issue. We just don’t, and no rational person should make their decisions that way, especially concerning some of the misleading statements within your comment.

    • otter17 Says:

      So… the title of your research? Author? Also, has this research been vetted through several rounds of the scientific method process?

      Until then, rational people will make decisions based on the output of the scientific method research.

    • Lionel Smith Says:

      The climate change caused by man wackos infest Britain so adding a meaningless line to the request helps get it built.

      What gibberish. Besides, where were the French measuring ocean sea levels? Seems they were having too much trouble with the Royal Navy to be able to make meaningful measurements across the globe.

  8. Peter Mizla Says:

    Tom Bates- your data does not jibe with the IPCC, NASA or the NOAA-
    The last time C02 levels where this high- likely over 10 million years ago sea levels where at least 15 meters higher then today.

  9. For a religious/moral/ethical perspective in a very well written article, pity it is on ABC in Australia, that was once fairly balanced and hard hitting, now in the control of Murdochs News Ltd and a Libertarian Think Tank (IPA) who effectively control the Australian LNP Government. So people dont bother with it anymore, the right whingers who used to complain of bias, don’t go there, they have their News Ltd bubbles, rational thinkers no longer waste their time.

    Resetting the Political Moral Compass on Climate Change

    To quote an exerpt

    >>A young Aboriginal man from the Northern Territory captured this well recently when he told a meeting of Indigenous people:

    “We’ve got a calendar that never been changed in 60,000 years. You can predict everything off this calendar. It tells you when the dugongs are fat, when the turtle are fat, when to go look for magpie geese. It was all perfectly done so that we could survive off our land. But now we have to freestyle it.”<<

  10. Karl Wirth Says:

    Unfortunately, while entertaining, the smug and snarky name calling displayed by the potty-mounted person seated on the right side of the first video above may do more harm than good.

    In voting to ‘make America great again’ Trump supporters are also voting against ‘common core ed, watered down liberal college degrees artificially inflated with huge college loans, and millennials raised bereft of parental direction – and they like to point to people like her as a fine example. “Oh, and if she’s the type of person who is brainwashed by that (global warming) crap, all the more reason we need Trump. Her parents should be ashamed”

    Though the quoted person I showed the video to is a bit extreme, I do believe smugness and name calling is more decisive than not…

    • otter17 Says:

      Yes, politically speaking, people seem to conform to a conglomeration of views rather than an issue-by-issue analysis.

      A case in point, my father blurted out during a conversation on global warming, “well, they would have us accept killing babies, too!”. This comes after I meticulously detailed to him that the risks are clear, every scientific organization is recommending action, and that a memo within the Republican party seems to indicate that internally many may know that the “science is closing against [them]”. The abortion comment was just out-of-the-blue within a purely AGW conversation.

      Rather than rationally assess that on this particular issue, this political party is by and large factually incorrect, he presumably treated it as part of the big conglomeration of views and resisted it. AGW gets rolled into the big ball of wax with social issues, economics, taxes, etc, and any deviation from the conglomerate viewpoint that may threaten the voting direction for the other issues is viewed highly suspiciously. It would take a mountain of psychological and discussion effort to sway someone like this. The battle is more difficult politically speaking than concerning any technology breakthroughs.

      • pendantry Says:

        You, sir, have the nail on the head well and truly hit.

      • Lionel Smith Says:

        “well, they would have us accept killing babies, too!”

        I have come across this rather allot on social media. Such is the irrational belief of many who at the same time push out Christian slogans and advocate for the NRA’s push against tightening gun regulations. Don’t ‘murder’ an embryo best wait until it can be gunned down in a school or mall.

        They have little understanding of the various stages of embryo development such as define the pre-foetal stage, or of the medical issues that some women face or the varied difficulties that can be presented in the case of rape. Another recent meme is outrage that cross gender individuals, unfortunate enough as they are, should be allowed to chose the facilities best suited to their needs. One seemingly is not allowed to see the world other than in stark black and white, just keep those Christian epithets rolling thinking deeply about those latter is not necessary.

      • otter17 Says:

        Yes, and on the AGW front, it seems that religion is occasionally invoked to provide an easy answer there, too. Variations on “god wouldn’t allow the climate to change” have been used by congressmen (featured in some of the Climate Denial Crock of the Week videos), as well as my father.

        I couldn’t say for sure how I became who I am considering that I am the genetic product of my parents, but it seemed a lot of time undergoing self-taught critical thinking, scientific method, and trying to prove myself wrong occasionally has done the trick. Neil Degrasse Tyson has stated in a recent interview that the scientific method, were it taught in more detail rather than giving a backseat to banking factoids into student’s head repositories, would have substantially reduced current generations’ climate denial. I can’t say to what degree, but I would have to agree with him that it would certainly have helped.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: