Trump Climate Denial Costing Votes

August 17, 2016

Trump says he gets his public policy stands from “watching the shows”.
You be the judge of what shows.


Washington Post:

Trump’s climate skepticism also isn’t winning him fans among young voters.

Reddit users tend to be skeptical of religion and big supporters of science — communities for atheism and science are among the site’s largest, with over 2 million and 12 million members, respectively. That showed in many of the answers.

“I was on the fence until he said global warming was a hoax,” WubbaLubbaDubStep said.

“When he and Clinton both got the nomination for their respective parties, I was actually leaning more toward Trump,” Scratch_That_Itch said. “However, his denial of climate change completely changed my mind. I’m not one to get caught up in the doom and gloom of many articles about the climate changing, but there is absolutely ZERO reason not to invest time, money, and energy into renewable/cleaner power sources.”

Bob Inglis and Mark Reynolds in the Detroit Free Press:

Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush said last month, “Ultimately, there’s going to be a person in a garage somewhere that’s going to come up with a disruptive technology that’s going to solve these problems, and I think markets need to be respected in this regard.”

Another GOP candidate, Carly Fiorina, offered a similar observation: “I think the answer to this problem is innovation, not regulation.”

It’s a nuanced position. In one breath they ackno

wledge there’s a problem that we must solve and attack the regulatory solution currently leaving the station. There’s just one problem: Suggesting that innovation without market reform will solve climate change is more wishful thinking than a serious policy proposal.

The truth is that we cannot afford to wait for “a person in a garage” to come up with a magic bullet. The technologies that can wean society off polluting fuels already exist. What we need is the economic incentive to bring those technologies to scale.

To be sure, there are technologies yet to be invented that will have a game-changing impact on our ability to undo the damage accrued from burning fossil fuels the past two centuries. But investors are more likely to fund the research and development for these new technologies if they are assured a market that values them and thus a reasonable return on their investment.

What would give them such assurance? A predictable, steadily rising fee on carbon pollution.

Bob Inglis is a former Republican congressman from South Carolina who now directs, a think tank promoting free-market energy and climate policies. Mark Reynolds is executive director of Citizens’ Climate Lobby

Media Matters:  (if anyone knows how to embed the videos from Media Matters, let me know. They won’t tell me how)

HARRIS FAULKNER (CO-HOST): There are some things that we’re talking about now that, if it were not for him, they wouldn’t be put in this campaign.


FAULKNER: You don’t think that we’d be talking this much about illegal immigration if it weren’t for Donald Trump?

GUTFELD: I think illegal immigration and terror and race and law and order has been the staple of Fox News for 10 years. All he did was watch Fox News.

FAULKNER: In campaign themselves. I mean, until recently had you heard President Obama say that fighting ISIS is his number one priority?

GUTFELD: So people are talking about it more because he boils it down to phrases that create novelty in the media.

5 Responses to “Trump Climate Denial Costing Votes”

  1. Tom Bates Says:

    Somebody over at the UN decided to make an issue of climate change to redistribute money from you to them and their cronies. The IPCC even says so today. It might have been the Chinese, they are benefiting from sending our jobs to them, they are communists and the leftists, communists at the UN are alive and well and running the IPCC among other things using your tax money to enrich themselves. Trump is most likely wrong but to claim that makes CO2 the enemy of mankind is simply false.

    • Isn’t it capitalists sending the jobs oversea?

    • Tommy-Poo,

      In an earlier comment thread, you made this claim — do you remember it?

      …and only shows warming after that when they plug 66 percent of the data with estimates which are higher than the actual temperatures they replace.

      I proved you wrong by showing you that the NASA warming trend can easily be replicated with raw data (no adjustments/estimates/etc.) Link here:

      When you continued to post to ClimateCrocks without retracting your completely false claim, I followed up here:

      You also ignored that second request to retract your claim.

      And a third.

      And a fourth.

      And a fifth.

      And a sixth.

      And a seventh.

      So I’m following up with yet another request (this one is at least the eighth).

      So when are you going to admit that you were wrong about NASA and how it processes temperature data?

      Every time you show up here, I am going to hit you with this.

      Every. Single. Time.

      And I won’t stop hammering you until you muster up enough integrity to admit that you were wrong about NASA.

      (Actually, I don’t really expect Bates to man up and fess up to anything; I’m simply using him as an example of how deniers are utterly and completely incapable of admitting error, even after they tell the most egregious whoppers).

  2. indy222 Says:

    Energy efficiency has been improving strongly…. for centuries. Getting more work out of less energy is what we do… and it’s brought us to today’s precipice of permanent catastrophe. So please, stop with this illusion that “someone in a garage is going to solve this”. Higher energy efficiency only increases the ability of Civilization to grow further and those efficiency savings are spent elsewhere, requiring more energy to be invested in the very act of that expansion and that spending. As long as we have CO2 being generated by a significant fraction of that expanding civilization’s expanding energy consumption, we’ll continue to see rising atmospheric CO2 and rising temperatures. And temperature is a ratchet – it does not go back down even when your emissions go back down. At best temperature stays constant, and even that requires zero GHG emissions. Greens are almost as guilty of this dangerous fantasy of “energy efficiency as our savior” as are the hated Republicans. Any study of history shows that civilization’s energy consumption rate is directly proportional to total accumulated Gross World Product. Economic Growth = CO2 emissions growth, until we’ve mostly or entirely eliminated fossil fuel use. We should not be cheering economic growth if we care about atmospheric CO2 levels.

  3. Glen Bennett Says:

    I drive a car with an internal combustion engine. I use 10 gallons of gasoline a week. Each gallon weighs about 5.6 pounds. So that’s 56 pounds of matter,(liquid or not it is composed of molecules and atoms.) The atoms are not annihilated within the cylinders of the motor. They are combined with atmospheric oxygen at a very high rate. Mine is one of millions of vehicles in use. And don’t forget airplanes and ships. We have been doing this for 100 years. 200 years if you include coal burning. You get the idea Tom Bates. Is this a Chinese plot?
    Pumping carbon into the commons we call our atmosphere, in the volumes we have been doing can not be without consequence. We continue to do so at our own peril. Since we know that carbon parts per million has risen consistently year over year we can conclude that trees etc. are not keeping up with the necessary carbon sequestration.
    I recommend we vote for Jill Stein for President.

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: