Apple Reiterates Commitment to Obama Era Climate Pledge

[Msail30bay]

Unless that commitment is in China of course.

Cause it takes two Wong to make a White................. Wawa!!

 

[H2SO4]

Cause it takes two Wong to make a White................. Wawa!!

Nicely done.

 

[LizKat]

I'm shocked that attitude towards climate change is even considered "political". We know climate change is happening. We know oil is finite and will run out in the next 200 years or so. America could be generations ahead of the curve if it seriously invested in renewable energy.

Surly even Trump would like this - America would look clean and modern. There's the potential for job creation. There's the potential to make a ton of money by selling the oil America would no longer need, and later on the technology so the rest of the world can transition to renewable energy.

I don't understand the current decision, unless Trump really is thinking super short term.

Not sure Congress cares to understand Trump on this issue either.

The ranks of the bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus do continue to grow. In January there were 20 members; as March drew to a close, there were 30, and John Faso (R-NY-19,Kinderhook) announced today that he has signed on. The co-chairs have decided to keep the caucus at equal representation by Democrats and Republicans, so there will likely soon be 32 members... or more...

The mission of the caucus per co-chair Curbelo's House website is "to educate members on economically-viable options to reduce climate risk and to explore bipartisan policy options that address the impacts, causes, and challenges of our changing climate."

Probably someone would point this gig out to President Trump if he staffed up his Science and Tech office... Meanwhile, aside from Rep. Faso, the other members of the Climate Solutions Caucus currently include:

Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-FL-26)
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL-27)
Rep. Ryan Costello (R-PA-06)
Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL-21)
Rep. Alan Lowenthal (D-CA-47)
Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-PA-13)
Rep. Patrick Meehan (R-PA-07)
Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-NY-01)
Rep. Mark Amodei (R-NV-02)
Rep. John Delaney (D-MD-06)
Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA-06)
Rep. Scott Peters (D-CA-52)
Rep. Mia Love (R-UT-04)
Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA-08)
Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY-21)
Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR-01)
Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT-00)
Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT-04)
Rep. Brian Mast (R-FL-18)
Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA-08)
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA-49)
Rep. Juan Vargas (D-CA-51)
Rep. Rodney Davis (R-IL-13)
Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-CA-09)
Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-NY-03)
Rep. Peter King (R-NY-02)
Rep. Daniel Lipinski (D-IL-03)
Rep. Tom Reed (R-NY-23)
Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA-18)

​

​

​

 

[ardent73]

I'm a climate scientist. If you don't believe what me and my colleagues have been warning about for 20+ years, that's fine. But if policy makers or the president don't want to believe it because it doesn't fit their agenda, we do have a problem. Science is not political. It's just science. Facts.

Albert Einstein said that Science is whatever the person paying for it wants it to be, and that's why his great scientific discoveries came while he was working as a patent clerk.

 

[rsdotscot]

Hydraulic fracturing, a process more commonly referred to as fracking, is actually good for the environment

If you believe that I've got a bridge to sell you.
[doublepost=1491028548][/doublepost]

and that's why his great scientific discoveries came while he was working as a patent clerk.

What a pile of bloody nonsense. You're clearly in no position to comment on how Einstein's mind worked.

 

[hagar]

Sorry, but if you're a climate scientist, then I don't believe anything you say. Nothing against you personally, but the whole discipline of climate science has been poisoned by Michael Mann, the clowns at East Anglia, and the IPCC. You should be deathly worried about that because nobody believes anything they say anymore. A group of crackpots have ruined the entire field. The fraudulent research, the collusion on peer reviewed papers and grants, the dishonest Nobel Prizes, and the sham data they use have really discredited the entire field of climate science. Top it all off with idiots like Michael Mann suing people who disagree and challenge his views, and it's easy to see why the public is very skeptical of anything coming from climate scientists.

Again, nothing against you personally, but climate scientists are about as believable as used car salesmen.

I've posted it here before, but I'm willing repeat myself: check your sources. You just cherrypick whatever resonates with you. Remove the political noise and just look at the science. Do this: open a book, look at what the climate is, how it evolves over the history of the Earth and why, how the greenhouse effect works and what the industrial revolution has done to re-enforce it, etc. then you might understand the problem. Don't listen to US politics to understand what climate change is about. Don't use Google or Facebook because their algorithms reenforce your believes.

Look, if we applied the same standards to any profession in the world as we do for climate scientists, we would never go into a sky scraper because who can trust an engineer? Nobody would have HIV because getting an invisible deadly disease from having sex? What will they invent next?

There is no doubt in the scientific community there is global warming and humans play a role in it. It's some politicians that didn't have an answer for it, so they introduced uncertainty. And this happens to resonate with a lot of people. Because everybody deep down understands that playing with the thermostat of the planet is a very bad idea. But nobody knows how to fix it, so we look the other way.

Now, my personal believe (so no science here) is that we won't be able to turn around the tide in time. We will loose too much time to convince every nation until the dire effects of climate change are even more abundantly clear. That combined with the world population surging is a deadly cocktail. I feel strongly about the subject, obviously, and personally I think the Titanic has already hit the iceberg.

 

[AZ63]

You mean they won't release them on your schedule. Cook recently stated they have something in the works. If you want something rushed to market there are plenty of companies willing to accommodate you.
[doublepost=1490960125][/doublepost]

"Everything has to be political now," says the guy who uses an unflattering picture of Hillary as an avatar. Why do the only two options have to be "starting WW3 with Russia" or basically giving the Kremlin control of the United States? SMH. Also, Obama did what had to be done to save our banking system, automotive sector, and overall economy. Deregulation combined with recklessness and greed cost millions of people their life savings, and all we have to show for it is a clown setting us up for another fall and a bunch of people who walked away with golden parachutes. But hey, I'm sure coal will come roaring back.

You can't be serious.
Your comment about Apple's schedule is a hoot. We Apple fans would love if Apple HAD a schedule for computer releases. Apple has a schedule for iPhones and that is about it. When was the last Mac Pro released? How about the mini?
Tim has been proclaiming that they have great things in the pipeline for far too long. It is time to put up or shut up.
Yes, user could go else where and some Apple users most likely have moved on to other products. Most committed Apple users would just like Apple to update hardware more often then they do currently. Other computer companies can keep their products current. Apple could, they just choose not to. What does that say about how they value their customers.
As for your other comments on politics, well it is clear you remember the "story" you have been sold.

 

[MacCurry]

only 3 year and 9 months left for this Idiot. Lets hope the is a world left

You mean only 7 years and 9 months left for this idiot.

 

[Cole Slaw]

Apple/Tim's BS climate and environmental nonsense.
If they were that committed to the environment they would stop making throw away devices.
Plus Tim is a cheerleader for team China, the world's biggest polluter.
Just phoney rich lefties. Talking the talk, but not walking the walk.

 

[hagar]

I am actually very interested in asking you (a client scientist) some questions: I am not a client scientist, but I have read up on this subject quite a bit, and one aspect that seems missing is a real quantification of the possible negative effects and an estimate of our ability to mitigate these effects as compared to the costs involved with our mitigation efforts...

What I mean is:
1) I believe you that some of climate change is man-made, but I believe you will agree that some is natural, as the arctic ice cores show we have been in a temperature up-swing for a few thousand years.

Our climate changes all the time. Now, that's no excuse to disregard the topic because you don't want to live on planet entirely covered in ice (that did happen in Earth's history) or when the oceans are 20 meters higher (that also did happen). People seem to ignore the fact that our way of live won't be possible in these new worlds. So currently, the Earth is heating and we are contributing to this and accelerating this by adding huge amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (from 280ppm C02 to over 400ppm). When we model the current climate, we need to take into account these additional greenhouse gases. If not, our models do not correspond to what we're observing. So yes, our actions contribute to climate change.

2) We shouldn't necessarily care about climate change by itself but instead care about any negative effects of climate change.

Natural climate change is something we cannot avoid (although some will disagree with that and propose geo-engineering techniques). Our planet will get warmer by itself, it will get cooler again. And one day our planet will go back to the ice age. That's how it works. and if it does, all living organisms on the planet will need to adapt or die out.

So, why would one species willingly and knowingly contribute to this proces? The Earth is a pretty damn good place to live the way it is, so why risk boiling it? The proposed solutions are not some horrible toxic potion that will wipe out half of the planet. No, the solution is to burn less fossil fuels. Seems like a win-win you would think. Clean power would also a good idea if climate change didn't exist.

But yes, we urgently need both adaption and mitigation actions. If the planet will continue to heat up (and there are no signs it won't) island states will disappear as the ocean levels rise, the ice sheets will further melt, millions of climate refugees will be on the move, animal species will die out, coral reefs will disappear, mountain regions will become unstable, permafrost will melt, etc. Also some positive things: some regions will benefit, get better weather, better conditions to grow crops, ... but the netto balance will unfortunately be a negative one.

So should we care about the effects: yes. Because I strongly believe this is one of the biggest threats humanity is facing. Bigger than a Mexican wall.

3) We still don't seem to have a good prediction of the expected negative effects that climate change will bring about, and even more so, we are gravely missing a reasonable prediction of which of these negative effects can reasonably be mitigated and at what cost.

what I am getting at is; as far as I have heard (in my non-expert experience) we don't have any good guesses about how much we could reasonably mitigate climate change even if dumped significant resources into it.
Lets say, that we have a government fully behind fighting climate change, how much resources could we reasonably divert to this cause, and would that make much of a difference? The best answer from the scientific community seems to be "we don't know". It is hard to spend money on "we don't know"

Perhaps those resources are better spent, not on a vein attempt to stop what might be unstoppable, and instead spent in preparing for the inevitable outcome to minimize damage. (i.e. like any other disaster; we don't vainly try and stop an earthquake or hurricane, but instead prepare and protect people and property the best we can.)

I would love to hear your answer to this.

There's indeed so much we don't know and can't put numbers on. And it also depends on your time horizon. Do you look 20 years in the future or 200 years? How much will it cost to combat desertification in the US? How much will it cost to relocate Manhattan if the ocean levels rise? How much will it cost to take in 10 million climate refugees? How much will it cost to completely transform our agricultural methods so they can better adapt to extreme weather patterns? How much will it cost to make all our infrastructure hurricane proof? How much will it cost if the marine ecosystems don't function anymore?

And what about non-material things: How much does loss of biodiversity cost? Can you put a price on the extinction of the polar bear? No lives will be negatively impacted if we don't have polar bears anymore. But did we loose something? yes.

So I think the question is unfair: it's like having a match in your hand and are about to set fire to your entire house. And then asking somebody, what will cost more: blowing out the match or burning down the house.

The global agreement on the climate conferences is to keep the Earth's temperature from raising more than 2 degrees. This is determined as to be within the limits of what can still be considered a "safe zone". From that, we have determined how much we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

And that's just the start. But doing nothing will definitely be much more expensive than acting now.

 

[obamtl]

...but we will still make short lived, largely un-user upgradeable, glued-together products so that landfills can fill up at the same steady pace as the consumption of rare natural resources.

Ah, I love a good grandstand.

Umm, how many Apple devices end up in land fills?

 

[AxoNeuron]

Sorry, but if you're a climate scientist, then I don't believe anything you say. Nothing against you personally, but the whole discipline of climate science has been poisoned by Michael Mann, the clowns at East Anglia, and the IPCC. You should be deathly worried about that because nobody believes anything they say anymore. A group of crackpots have ruined the entire field. The fraudulent research, the collusion on peer reviewed papers and grants, the dishonest Nobel Prizes, and the sham data they use have really discredited the entire field of climate science. Top it all off with idiots like Michael Mann suing people who disagree and challenge his views, and it's easy to see why the public is very skeptical of anything coming from climate scientists.

Again, nothing against you personally, but climate scientists are about as believable as used car salesmen.

Wow.

Do you have any evidence that there was any 'fraudulent' research?

Furthermore, there was a South Korean scientists who faked data about stem cell research. Does this call the ENTIRE FIELD OF STEM CELL RESEARCH into question?!?! No!

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2005/dec/23/stemcells.genetics

It's absolutely idiotic to try and act like one or two events can somehow make every climate scientist in the planet unbelievable. Idiocy at its finest....

 

[JGRE]

Oil isn't going anywhere anytime soon. The hypocrisy of these companies is amazing. Without oil and petrochemicals, their business lines would cease to exist in no time. Oil is used in everything from the mining of raw materials, to manufacturing and processing of their products to shipping. And this whole thing about using renewables is just virtue signalling. Their efforts will have zero impact on global warming, or climate change, or whatever they call it these days. The climate has been changing since the dawn of time and it's ludicrous to think humans have any impact on it. CO2 is plant food, not pollution. I'm all for clean air, water and land, but this green religion called climate change is nothing but a sham.

The hypocrisy of these companies is amazing. What about the hypocrisy of that clown called Trump?

 

[Meister]

I'm shocked that attitude towards climate change is even considered "political". We know climate change is happening. We know oil is finite and will run out in the next 200 years or so. America could be generations ahead of the curve if it seriously invested in renewable energy.

Surly even Trump would like this - America would look clean and modern. There's the potential for job creation. There's the potential to make a ton of money by selling the oil America would no longer need, and later on the technology so the rest of the world can transition to renewable energy.

I don't understand the current decision, unless Trump really is thinking super short term.

The climate has always been changing and always will change.
There is no evidence that climate change has anything to do with human activities.
[doublepost=1491079209][/doublepost]

I'm a climate scientist. If you don't believe what me and my colleagues have been warning about for 20+ years, that's fine. But if policy makers or the president don't want to believe it because it doesn't fit their agenda, we do have a problem. Science is not political. It's just science. Facts.

The biggest argument for climate change deniers is that climate has been changing since the dawn of time. Guess how they know that? Yes, us climate scientists. But if those same scientists notice there's something wrong, suddenly they don't believe it. Hypocritical no?

How ignorant can you be to think we don't have an impact on our planet. We destroy complete ecosystems, wipe animal and plant species of the face of the earth, cut down forests at an alarming rate, pollute rivers and the air, ... we know that land use changes such as urbanisation and agriculture have a big impact on weather and rain patterns, even thousands kilometres away, ... But the climate? That's where you draw the line? That's the one magical thing on our fragile Earth we can't impact?

Well, the impact is there, and it's huge. The last decades we had a dampening effect of climate change because there are all these buffers, like trapping heath in the oceans, but these buffers are getting full. That combined with many powerful feedback loops, i.e. melting of ice, thawing of permafrost, to name a few, will re-enforce what we have been seeing this last years. And that is a rise in global temperature and more unstable, extreme weather.

Now, even if you still don't "believe" that (and I hate to use that word in the context of science), I assume you do realise that climate change (natural or man made) will have huge impacts on the planet and our lives? So even if the current White House administration doesn't want to address the causes, why is it also ignoring the consequences? Ignoring scientific facts and thus jeopardizing the future of our planet, is criminal. There's no other word for it.

How is the WH ignoring the consequences climate change?

 

[hagar]

The climate has always been changing and always will change.
There is no evidence that climate change has anything to do with human activities.

Yes, there is plenty of scientific evidence. There is NO doubt in the scientific community that the current climate change cannot be explained only by taken into account natural processes. There definitely is a human factor because of the immense amounts of greenhouse gases pumped in the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel. Everything else you heard on the topic is political noise, hear-say, or deliberately trying to twist facts to fit into a personal agenda. If you're doubting, open a book and read up on the subject.

[doublepost=1491079209][/doublepost]How is the WH ignoring the consequences climate change?

Ok, what policies did the current WH administration implement that deal with climate change adaption and mitigation? Name one. You can't because there aren't any. Because climate change is a topic too complex for our current president.

 

[Meister]

Ok, what policies did the current WH administration implement that deal with climate change adaption and mitigation? Name one. You can't because there aren't any. Because climate change is a topic too complex for our current president.

You are confusing cause and effect.

Mitigation would aim at the causes of climate change. The current administration disagrees on those.

And what policies did any WH administration ever implement that dealt with climate change adaption?
[doublepost=1491081049][/doublepost]

Yes, there is plenty of scientific evidence. There is NO doubt in the scientific community that the current climate change cannot be explained only by taken into account natural processes. There definitely is a human factor because of the immense amounts of greenhouse gases pumped in the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel. Everything else you heard on the topic is political noise, hear-say, or deliberately trying to twist facts to fit into a personal agenda. If you're doubting, open a book and read up on the subject.

I don't give a flying **** what climate scientists believe.
In the 70s they tried to tell us all that the glaciers are expanding and that we are entering a new ice age.
They've been making doomsday predictions for decades.
Talking about a kid crying wolf...

 

[yakapo]

I've posted it here before, but I'm willing repeat myself: check your sources. You just cherrypick whatever resonates with you. Remove the political noise and just look at the science. Do this: open a book, look at what the climate is, how it evolves over the history of the Earth and why, how the greenhouse effect works and what the industrial revolution has done to re-enforce it, etc. then you might understand the problem. Don't listen to US politics to understand what climate change is about. Don't use Google or Facebook because their algorithms reenforce your believes.

Look, if we applied the same standards to any profession in the world as we do for climate scientists, we would never go into a sky scraper because who can trust an engineer? Nobody would have HIV because getting an invisible deadly disease from having sex? What will they invent next?

There is no doubt in the scientific community there is global warming and humans play a role in it. It's some politicians that didn't have an answer for it, so they introduced uncertainty. And this happens to resonate with a lot of people. Because everybody deep down understands that playing with the thermostat of the planet is a very bad idea. But nobody knows how to fix it, so we look the other way.

Now, my personal believe (so no science here) is that we won't be able to turn around the tide in time. We will loose too much time to convince every nation until the dire effects of climate change are even more abundantly clear. That combined with the world population surging is a deadly cocktail. I feel strongly about the subject, obviously, and personally I think the Titanic has already hit the iceberg.

Hagar, how old do you think the earth is? How many years have you been studying climate change? Can you tell me what is in a book if I give a single letter?

 

[Meister]

Hagar, how old do you think the earth is? How many years have you been studying climate change? Can you tell me what is in a book if I give a single letter?

Nice analogy!

I don't know if you've been around in the 70s and 80s but everybody who has knows that climate scientists are terrible at predicting stuff.
They couldn't predict the weather for tonight if their life depended on it.

I'm so glad Donnie is defunding their ass.

It would be nice though if the weather would really get warmer but I seriously doubt that's going to happen.

In ten years the next generation will have the same discussion, the climate scientists will be predicting the end of days and I will be shaking my head in disbelief.

Different decade same ********.

 

[SteveJobzniak]

"Apple Reiterates Commitment to..." MACS?! RIGHT?! DESKTOP MACS!!???

STOP WITH THE POLITICS, APPLE!!!

 

[hagar]

Hagar, how old do you think the earth is? How many years have you been studying climate change? Can you tell me what is in a book if I give a single letter?

The Earth is 4.5 billion years old. We have climate studies that go back roughly 2 billion years. So we have a pretty good understanding of how the climate evolved up until today. What exactly is your point?

Oooh.. you were making a joke because we only have been measuring the weather for the last 150 years. Clever.

Ignorance, the virtue of today's society.
[doublepost=1491083141][/doublepost]

Nice analogy!

I don't know if you've been around in the 70s and 80s but everybody who has knows that climate scientists are terrible at predicting stuff.
They couldn't predict the weather for tonight if their life depended on it.

I'm so glad Donnie is defunding their ass.

It would be nice though if the weather would really get warmer but I seriously doubt that's going to happen.

In ten years the next generation will have the same discussion, the climate scientists will be predicting the end of days and I will be shaking my head in disbelief.

Different decade same ********.

You are confusing weather and climate.
You are confusing meteorologists and climate scientists.

Basically, you're blaming your car manufacturer Apple Maps guided you to the wrong destination.
[doublepost=1491083479][/doublepost]

You are confusing cause and effect.

Mitigation would aim at the causes of climate change. The current administration disagrees on those.

And what policies did any WH administration ever implement that dealt with climate change adaption?
[doublepost=1491081049][/doublepost]
I don't give a flying **** what climate scientists believe.
In the 70s they tried to tell us all that the glaciers are expanding and that we are entering a new ice age.
They've been making doomsday predictions for decades.
Talking about a kid crying wolf...

Nice, bringing 50 year old stuff into this. Desperate much? But if we must: climate cooling was indeed a hypothesis in the seventies predicting the cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere. It had little to no support in the scientific community. But the media and the people ran with it without fully understanding it, taking things out of context, ... for the sake of sensationalism.

I assume you also never go and see a doctor when your sick, don't trust electricity and wifi, and pray to the gods if you want it to rain? Because **** scientists. Trust your own smarts.
[doublepost=1491084049][/doublepost]

"Apple Reiterates Commitment to..." MACS?! RIGHT?! DESKTOP MACS!!???

STOP WITH THE POLITICS, APPLE!!!

A multinational has the obligation to think ahead and make sure it stays relevant in the future and is still able to operate. Global warming will have an impact on its production processes and customer markets, so glad to see they are thinking long term. Unlike the president.

 

[Dreamer2go]

Nice analogy!

I don't know if you've been around in the 70s and 80s but everybody who has knows that climate scientists are terrible at predicting stuff.
They couldn't predict the weather for tonight if their life depended on it.

I'm so glad Donnie is defunding their ass.

It would be nice though if the weather would really get warmer but I seriously doubt that's going to happen.

In ten years the next generation will have the same discussion, the climate scientists will be predicting the end of days and I will be shaking my head in disbelief.

Different decade same ********.

Prediction is part of their research paper. I give you that no one is a clairvoyant and can accurately predict on the future.
But the other part of their research are clear and cold hard facts, and this is what you guys are refuting.

And based on your previous post arguing with Hagar, I can tell you're probably just a middle age white male, unwilling to give up your fossil fuel addicted lifestyle. Your post just spews idiocy. Typical conservative.

 

[Altis]

... I can tell you're probably just a middle age white male, unwilling to give up your fossil fuel addicted lifestyle. Your post just spews idiocy. Typical conservative.

Not that I agree with Meister... but do you realize how racist, sexist, and ageist saying things like that are?

It adds nothing to the conversation at all. It's just being nasty, prejudiced, and hateful.

Stick to the facts of the argument.

 

[AZ63]

The hypocrisy of these companies is amazing. What about the hypocrisy of that clown called Trump?

Oh snap, you really addressed the author's points.

 

[Meister]

Prediction is part of their research paper. I give you that no one is a clairvoyant and can accurately predict on the future.
But the other part of their research are clear and cold hard facts, and this is what you guys are refuting.

You guys seem to not know how science works.

If a scientific theory is unable to predict future events then it is not a proven theory.

Until then it doesn't matter how many scientists agree with it.

Science isn't a religion or some sort of political system.
[doublepost=1491115462][/doublepost]

The Earth is 4.5 billion years old. We have climate studies that go back roughly 2 billion years. So we have a pretty good understanding of how the climate evolved up until today. What exactly is your point?

Oooh.. you were making a joke because we only have been measuring the weather for the last 150 years. Clever.

Ignorance, the virtue of today's society.
[doublepost=1491083141][/doublepost]

You are confusing weather and climate.
You are confusing meteorologists and climate scientists.

Basically, you're blaming your car manufacturer Apple Maps guided you to the wrong destination.
[doublepost=1491083479][/doublepost]

Nice, bringing 50 year old stuff into this. Desperate much? But if we must: climate cooling was indeed a hypothesis in the seventies predicting the cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere. It had little to no support in the scientific community. But the media and the people ran with it without fully understanding it, taking things out of context, ... for the sake of sensationalism.

I assume you also never go and see a doctor when your sick, don't trust electricity and wifi, and pray to the gods if you want it to rain? Because **** scientists. Trust your own smarts.
[doublepost=1491084049][/doublepost]

A multinational has the obligation to think ahead and make sure it stays relevant in the future and is still able to operate. Global warming will have an impact on its production processes and customer markets, so glad to see they are thinking long term. Unlike the president.

You haven't given any example of what any WH admin has ever done to address the effects of supposed global warming.

Weather and climate are the same thing except observed over a different time period.
Humans have not been around long enough to observe climate change cycles.
Any theories on the causes of climate changes are assumptions.

 

[hagar]

.
[doublepost=1491115462][/doublepost]You haven't given any example of what any WH admin has ever done to address the effects of supposed global warming.

Why do I need to give any more examples of politics ignoring one of the biggest threat that is facing us?
But at least the previous WH put historic mitigation legislation in place. The current WH is turning back the clock.
Give me one good reason why legislation to make cars more fuel efficient, had to go?

Weather and climate are the same thing except observed over a different time period.
Humans have not been around long enough to observe climate change cycles.
Any theories on the causes of climate changes are assumptions.

Thank you for enlightening me about my own profession. It really opens my eyes. Please send me PM with your real name and contact info so I can inform the Nobel Price committee.

Do you have any idea how pedantic you are? You're also a crime investigator because you watch CSI? And a brain surgeon because you like House MD?

Please, don't form an opinion if you don't understand the basic facts. Educate yourself or simply say "I don't know". There's no shame in not knowing. But what you do is repeating others like a parrot because it resonates with your gut feeling.