If there’s a real climate problem God “can take care of it”

There are a number of reports that President Donald Trump is set to withdraw the US from the Paris climate agreement, but Trump continues to send mixed signals.

Politico: Trump expected to withdraw from Paris climate deal

President Donald Trump is planning to pull the United States out of the Paris climate change agreement, a White House official said Wednesday morning — only to have Trump himself revive the suspense less than an hour later.

The withdrawal would fulfill a Trump campaign promise but would be certain to infuriate America’s allies across the globe. It would threaten to destabilize the most comprehensive pact ever negotiated to blunt the most devastating effects of climate change.

Axios first reported the news that Trump would withdraw.

Administration officials sent mixed messages on Wednesday, with some saying they are confident the president will pull out and others urging caution. But officials on both sides of the issue have become increasingly convinced he plans to exit the deal, despite arguments from moderate advisers like Trump’s daughter Ivanka that withdrawing would damage U.S. relations abroad.

Reaction from the international community Wednesday was swift, mostly without mentioning Trump by name. “Climate change is undeniable,” the United Nations tweeted from its official account Wednesday morning, quoting from a speech by Secretary General António Guterres. “Climate action is unstoppable. Climate solutions provide opportunities that are unmatchable.”

A withdrawal would put the US at odds with most of the world.

Meanwhile GOP Congressman: God Will ‘Take Care Of’ Climate Change If It Exists

Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.) told a constituent last week that God can solve the problem of climate change if the global phenomenon truly exists.

The 66-year-old Republican, who is a climate change skeptic, made the remark at a town hall in Coldwater, Michigan, on Friday.

“I believe there’s climate change,” Walberg said, according to a video of the exchange obtained by HuffPost. “I believe there’s been climate change since the beginning of time. I believe there are cycles. Do I think man has some impact? Yeah, of course. Can man change the entire universe? No.”

“Why do I believe that?” he went on. “Well, as a Christian, I believe that there is a creator in God who is much bigger than us. And I’m confident that, if there’s a real problem, he can take care of it.”

 

61 Comments

  1. Patzcuaro

     /  June 1, 2017

    I wonder what the dinosaurs did to upset God enough to warrant extinction?

  2. Maggy Wassilieff

     /  June 1, 2017

    • MaureenW

       /  June 1, 2017

      Sounds about right.

      • Griff

         /  June 1, 2017

        Yes Maggy its a big conspiracy ……Someones in Tin foil hat territory.

        Meantime feel free to post a statement from a scientific body that agrees with you.
        If I post all the ones you are against it will fill this blog.
        That makes your views anti science #deleted#

        • PDB

           /  June 1, 2017

          Science based on around 100 years of data, much of it poorly collected & adjusted when the world is around 4.5 billion years old – think you need a bigger sample size Griff.

          • Cyril Figgis

             /  June 1, 2017

            If, as you say PDB, the sample size is too small to provide strong evidence climate sensitivity to carbon emissions then the reverse is also true – it is also too small to show that the climate is insensitive to carbon emissions. Personally, I’d want to see evidence of climate insensitivity before pumping billions of tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere. In any case, it’s the only sample of direct measurements we can possibly have, and it clearly shows both a warming trend and increasing atmospheric carbon concentrations. It’s not like the sample is too small because of sloppiness or laziness, it’s just all we have. Plus, paleo climatologists have become pretty adept at using proxies like pollen distribution, sediment deposits, ice cores and tree rings to get a fairly comprehensive idea of historical atmospheric carbon concentrations and climatic conditions, so the sample size isn’t so small anyway. It just isn’t made from direct measurements.

            • PDB

               /  June 1, 2017

              If the sample size is too small to draw conclusions either way why are we told then that ‘the science is settled’?

              Historical evidence also points to the fact that in the past the earth has been far hotter than current temperatures so did CO2 cause that as well? You mention ice core samples which some scientists have used to suggest CO2 rise follows temperature rise, not the other way around.

              The fact the earth is still doing its job after 4.5 billion years of activity suggests it is a rather robust & resilient beast.

            • Maggy Wassilieff

               /  June 1, 2017

              Yep, the paleoclimatologists are starting to show that the “hockey-stick” version was a load of nonsense.
              58 scientific papers published so far this year, showing that the present warming is not unusual, in the least.
              http://notrickszone.com/2017/05/29/80-graphs-from-58-new-2017-papers-invalidate-claims-of-unprecedented-global-scale-modern-warming/#sthash.RUopi92x.dpbs

            • Cyril Figgis

               /  June 1, 2017

              For your first point, I kind of agree with you here, I think the ‘science is settled’ catchphrase gives a poor impression as to how science works, but has become shorthand for “The evidence points to” which doesn’t play as well in the public arena.

              Yes CO2 has probably caused warm periods in the past, increased CO2 from volcanic activity associated with the breakup of Pangaea being an example. And yes CO2 concentrations have followed temperature increases from other causes in the past, where the CO2 has been released by the temperature increase. There have been many fluctuations in the past, some caused by CO2 initially, others not. But it’s noteworthy that the released CO2 then contributes to further temperature increase.

              If by earth being a resilient beast you mean the planet, yep sure, if you mean life itself, probably. If you mean the unique set of conditions and ecosystems that allow our civilization to flourish, and our wildlife to survive, not so much.

            • PDB

               /  June 1, 2017

              Cyril: “I think the ‘science is settled’ catchphrase gives a poor impression as to how science works”

              It’s confusing science and politics where science is evidence based and politics within democracies is consensus based.

              From my prospective the earth has been gradually warming having come out of the low of a mini-ice age and the main driver of this warming is natural causes.

            • Cyril Figgis

               /  June 1, 2017

              Maggie, 58 papers out of thousands isn’t much…

              http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

          • Cyril Figgis

             /  June 1, 2017

            Which natural cause? The temperature increase since the little ice has been rapid, it’s also warmer now than both the medieval warm period and holocene maximum which preceded the little ice age, and the temperature shows no sign of topping out.

            • PDB

               /  June 1, 2017

              I didn’t know you experienced the medieval warm period or Holocene maximum? Time machine?

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  June 1, 2017

              Do you prefer this gentle warming of about 1 deg/century or the overdue ice age?

            • Cyril Figgis

               /  June 2, 2017

              PDB – Ok I’ll come clean, I didn’t physically experience either the medieval warm period or holocene maximum. Sorry about that. Instead I looked at my textbooks and read some journal articles. I would be keen to hear of your experiences during the little ice age tho, and which natural cause is driving our temperature increase since then.

              Alan- I think this is a bit of a false dichotomy, the choice isn’t between punishing cold and this period of nice climate we exist in. I’d prefer, if I had the choice, for humans to have as little impact on the climate as possible. Nothing more. Also, your question kind of implies that we have altered the climate enough to delay an ice age doesn’t it?

            • PDB

               /  June 2, 2017

              Cyril: “I would be keen to hear of your experiences during the little ice age tho, and which natural cause is driving our temperature increase since then.”

              The obvious difference is that I clearly stated that as my opinion (hence why I said “From my prospective”) whilst you stated that current temperatures being experienced are hotter than both the medieval warm period & holocene maximum as fact.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  June 2, 2017

              @Cyril, we can’t know because there is insufficient evidence but it’s quite possible the mild warming is indeed offsetting the onset of the next ice age which would certainly naturally occur if left to non-human influences.

              And if you care anything about life on earth you should certainly wish to avert the catastrophic fatalities of another ice age. So, in contrast to you, I firmly hope humans are indeed able to moderate our climate in order to avoid that.

            • Cyril Figgis

               /  June 2, 2017

              In that case, what is your opinion based on? Also, which natural cause is behind recent temperature increases? In your opinion.

            • Cyril Figgis

               /  June 2, 2017

              Alan, suppose for arguments sake I accept your premise, that CO2 emissions are delaying an ice age. How and when do we turn the heating off to stop everything becoming uncomfortably warm?

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  June 2, 2017

              Dunno, what do you reckon:

            • PDB

               /  June 2, 2017

              Though I don’t subscribe to a lot of these (especially the later one’s) it is a good summary…..

              http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/146138/100-reasons-why-climate-change-is-natural

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  June 2, 2017

              Our last comments overlapped. I expect that our knowledge and technologies in 100 years time will be at least as further advanced as our present ones are compared with those of 1917. So I expect our ability to control our planet’s climate will be substantial by then.

            • Cyril Figgis

               /  June 2, 2017

              I’ll make this my last post on this thread….

              PDB – That article is a massive Gish Gallop, a series of weak or irrelevant or out of context arguments designed to overwhelm with shear quantity not quality of argument. That said, sure some natural processes will play a role. I’m saying the CO2 and methane we add to the atmosphere will also have an effect and ought not to be discounted.

              Alan – Well here’s hoping. There needs to be an acceptance of the problem and a willingness to adopt new technologies for your idea to be correct.

  3. David

     /  June 1, 2017

    If he pulls out there will be the usual outrage and I bet no more than 1 person in a million would be able to tell you what is in the Paris agreement. Its just a big yawn but a distraction from the daily fake news over Russia where we are in month 8 of the investigation and not a single piece of evidence of wrong doing.

    • “and not a single piece of evidence of wrong doing”

      How do you know what the FBI and the various committees investigating this have found out?

      There may be no evidence of wrong doing – but there could also be some evidence, possibly a lot of evidence, as yet undisclosed publicly.

      This is already out in a limited form…

      …which if true would be damning evidence.

      • PDB

         /  June 1, 2017

        Backed up by what? Comey’s own scrawled notes of an unofficial meeting? Being sacked doesn’t give Comey motive to either lie or exaggerate? Woudn’t Comey’s own character come under attack for not taking action at the time if true? If he didn’t take action as he was required to how trustworthy is Comey then?

      • David

         /  June 1, 2017

        well how does one explain the latest annonymous rubbish that Kushner tried to establish a back channel with Russia in December when the media via annonymous sources have team Trump cooperating with Russia for the last year and a half. Looks like in the end it must have been nothing to do with Russia as the back channel would have already have been up and running.

        • Gezza

           /  June 1, 2017

          They need to subpoena Trump’s tapes.

      • David

         /  June 1, 2017

        “…which if true would be damning evidence.”

        But we know it’s not true, he said so under oath.

        • David

           /  June 1, 2017

          Conveniently forgotten David, Comey gave evidence to the senate under oath that he was never pressured by anyone to drop the investigation and that it wasnt hindered in any way. Bit hard to walk back from that one.

          • Gezza

             /  June 1, 2017

            Pure covfefery. The only video clip I’ve seen of him saying something like that was in the clear context that no one in the Attorney General’s Office part of the Justice Department had ever put pressure on him to stop the investigation.

            • PDB

               /  June 1, 2017

              Though we have covered this before in an entire post it was clear to me that Comey went into a more generalized rant that suggested that if any official tried to stop an FBI investigation that wasn’t on and it had never ‘happened under his watch’.

              Under your version the problem for Comey still remains as why would an approach from the Attny Generals office be treated any differently by Comey to the president doing exactly the same thing (if true)? Is he saying the president doing the same thing is OK because he didn’t report it?

      • So Comey has potentially lied under oath ?

        • PDB

           /  June 1, 2017

          His generalization is in this statement: “But, I’m talking about a situation in where we’re told to stop for a political reason, that would be a very big deal. It’s not happened in my experience”.

          • PDB

             /  June 1, 2017

            For him to now say that this didn’t apply to Trump as well would be astounding.

        • Gezza

           /  June 1, 2017

          “So, if the Attorney General or Senior Justice Department officials oppose an investigation, can they halt that investigation?”

          “In theory, yes” … “it would be a hig deal etc

          “Has it ever happened?”

          “Not in my experience”
          ….

          “So, has the President asked you to halt an investigation?”

          NO … WAIT – He’s a lawyer – and they didn’t ask him that❗️

          Comey wins that one.

          • The clincher is this:

            “But, I’m talking about a situation in where we’re told to stop for a political reason, that would be a very big deal. It’s not happened in my experience”.

          • Gezza

             /  June 1, 2017

            Good try trav. Everyone gunning for Comey covfefes that one, but the context is still the AG or Senior Justice Department officials telling them to stop for a political reason. Nobody seems to have a longer clip of this testimony. That might help make the situation clearer, but Comey’s in the clear on this particular allegation for the reason stated. Now we have to wait for Comey’s notes & then Trump’s Oval Office recordings, or if he hasn’t got any – possibly The Russians’.

            • Well, why didn’t he report it at the time? It’s not remotely in impeachment territory to express that he’s peeved with this distraction in broad terms, which is what, I imagine, he’ll claim.

            • Gezza

               /  June 2, 2017

              I’ve given you an uptick for persistence trav. Look, it’s not that easy. You just casually dob in the POTUS for something like this you could end up dead – especially if there’s cheesecake around & James Mattis is there somewhere between you and the cheesecake – because Mattis once said you should always carry a knife in case there’s cheesecake or you need to stab someone in the throat. We need to see the notes.

            • PDB

               /  June 2, 2017

              Just imagine if Trump made some serious accusations against somebody of what was said in a one-on-one meeting and then as ‘proof’ he provided some personal notes he took of that meeting – would the MSM give that the time of day?

            • Gezza

               /  June 2, 2017

              Pretty sure he’s tweeted some quite rude things about folk when people thought it was a one on one conversation PDB! The MSM certainly give his tweets a lot of covfeferage❗️

          • PDB

             /  June 1, 2017

            So logically because Comey took no action over the presidents approach his answers if asked about the president in that testimony would have been thus;

            Q: “So, if the president opposes an investigation, can they halt that investigation?”

            Comey: In theory, yes, and it wouldn’t be a big deal.

            Q: “Has it happened?”

            Comey: “Yes, in my experience. It’s not a big deal for the president to stop the FBI doing something”.

            Comey: “I’m talking about a situation in where we’re told to stop for a political reason, that wouldn’t be a big deal. It’s happened in my experience”.

            I think I see an ethics & honesty problem for Comey……..

            • Gezza

               /  June 1, 2017

              More covferery, plus conjecture, without a shadow of a champagne popsicle to support such an answer to such questions would have occurred. Trump wasn’t believed until he provided the incontrovertible evidence that China invented global warming, so Now Comey needs to be given a chance to explain his actions or non-actions. These may show, for example, that Trump had absolutely no idea he couldn’t properly do this, so Comey may have had to draw him some diagrams & explain why he couldn’t do it, rather than immediately tell everyone their President is a doofus. Let’s wait for the notes.

            • Gezza

               /  June 1, 2017

              (* covfefery – soz, my spellchecker’s no good for this one, it’s too new a word. Hopefully an update will be made to the iPad dictionary soon.)

  4. Maggy Wassilieff

     /  June 1, 2017
    • High Flying Duck

       /  June 1, 2017

      And there wouldn’t be a shred of self interest in that stand given his entire business model is reliant on higher costs for fossil fuels making his product comparatively more affordable.

    • David

       /  June 1, 2017

      How many billions has this guy received in subsidies from the long suffering US taxpayers. If I was Trump I would federally mandate that Tesla gets no more cash..touche fair weathered friend.

    • Oh! No! …Anything but THAT!

    • That’s my take

      • Brown

         /  June 1, 2017

        I think Dilbert is great but also scary because my experience of the corporate world matches what is passed off as satire.

        • High Flying Duck

           /  June 2, 2017

          That’s why Dilbert works – it takes real life business and shifts the conversations an infinitesimal amount to make it look completely absurd.
          If you ever read the Dilbert Principle, the real life examples are generally far funnier than the comic…

  1. If there’s a real climate problem God “can take care of it” – NZ Conservative Coalition