Friday, November 25, 2016

"I have an open mind on this"

This is how the president-elect of the United States, Donald Trump, talks about climate change.  This is not made up, this is not from Shakespeare's  Richard III, this is reality. 
Here the transcript from the New York Times:
FRIEDMAN: But it’s really important to me, and I think to a lot of our readers, to know where you’re going to go with this. I don’t think anyone objects to, you know, doing all forms of energy. But are you going to take America out of the world’s lead of confronting climate change?
TRUMP: I’m looking at it very closely, Tom. I’ll tell you what. I have an open mind to it. We’re going to look very carefully. It’s one issue that’s interesting because there are few things where there’s more division than climate change. You don’t tend to hear this, but there are people on the other side of that issue who are, think, don’t even …
SULZBERGER: We do hear it.
FRIEDMAN: I was on ‘Squawk Box’ with Joe Kernen this morning, so I got an earful of it.
TRUMP: Joe is one of them. But a lot of smart people disagree with you. I have a very open mind. And I’m going to study a lot of the things that happened on it and we’re going to look at it very carefully. But I have an open mind.

SULZBERGER: Well, since we’re living on an island, sir, I want to thank you for having an open mind. We saw what these storms are now doing, right? We’ve seen it personally. Straight up.
FRIEDMAN: But you have an open mind on this?
TRUMP: I do have an open mind. And we’ve had storms always, Arthur.
SULZBERGER: Not like this.
TRUMP: You know the hottest day ever was in 1890-something, 98. You know, you can make lots of cases for different views. I have a totally open mind.
My uncle was for 35 years a professor at M.I.T. He was a great engineer, scientist. He was a great guy. And he was … a long time ago, he had feelings — this was a long time ago — he had feelings on this subject. It’s a very complex subject. I’m not sure anybody is ever going to really know. I know we have, they say they have science on one side but then they also have those horrible emails that were sent between the scientists. Where was that, in Geneva or wherever five years ago? Terrible. Where they got caught, you know, so you see that and you say, what’s this all about. I absolutely have an open mind. I will tell you this: Clean air is vitally important. Clean water, crystal clean water is vitally important. Safety is vitally important.
And you know, you mentioned a lot of the courses. I have some great, great, very successful golf courses. I’ve received so many environmental awards for the way I’ve done, you know. I’ve done a tremendous amount of work where I’ve received tremendous numbers. Sometimes I’ll say I’m actually an environmentalist and people will smile in some cases and other people that know me understand that’s true. Open mind.
JAMES BENNET, editorial page editor: When you say an open mind, you mean you’re just not sure whether human activity causes climate change? Do you think human activity is or isn’t connected?
TRUMP: I think right now … well, I think there is some connectivity. There is some, something. It depends on how much. It also depends on how much it’s going to cost our companies. You have to understand, our companies are noncompetitive right now.
They’re really largely noncompetitive. About four weeks ago, I started adding a certain little sentence into a lot of my speeches, that we’ve lost 70,000 factories since W. Bush. 70,000. When I first looked at the number, I said: ‘That must be a typo. It can’t be 70, you can’t have 70,000, you wouldn’t think you have 70,000 factories here.’ And it wasn’t a typo, it’s right. We’ve lost 70,000 factories.
We’re not a competitive nation with other nations anymore. We have to make ourselves competitive. We’re not competitive for a lot of reasons.
That’s becoming more and more of the reason. Because a lot of these countries that we do business with, they make deals with our president, or whoever, and then they don’t adhere to the deals, you know that. And it’s much less expensive for their companies to produce products. So I’m going to be studying that very hard, and I think I have a very big voice in it. And I think my voice is listened to, especially by people that don’t believe in it. And we’ll let you know.
FRIEDMAN: I’d hate to see Royal Aberdeen underwater.
TRUMP: The North Sea, that could be, that’s a good one, right?

 In Stephen Greenblatt's interpretation of the Richard III, there are five reasons that made Trump Richard III possible:
  • First, there are those who trust that everything will continue in a normal way, that promises will be kept, alliances honored and core institutions respected
  • Second, there are those who cannot keep in focus that Richard is as bad as he seems to be.
  • Third, there are those who feel frightened or impotent in the face of bullying and the menace of violence.
  • Fourth, there are those who persuade themselves that they can take advantage of Richard’s rise to power. 
  • Fifth, and perhaps strangest of all, there are those who take vicarious pleasure in the release of pent-up aggression, in the black humor of it all, in the open speaking of the unspeakable.
But Trump is not Richard III, of course. And he is not yet in power. In any case, it is worth reading the New York Times transcript aloud. Enact it with your colleagues, students, family, wherever you are. It will help you to find out how it feels to be Donald Trump or a journalist who is addressed as "Tom" or "Arthur". And if this is a play or if this is reality.  And how the [laughter] sounds.


heidruns hønseri said...

Unbelieveable- unglaublich!

Kjære Menighed, Meine Damen du Herren...

hier wagt sich niemand was zu sagen / meckern

Wie kann das angehen, Hr von Storch?

Eine offene Gesinnung,..... Loch am koppf?

Die Überreste von Richard III wurden unter einem Pzarkplatz in Leicester mit einem Loch am Koppf gefunden.

Hans von Storch said...

Heidrun, ich finde, die Antworten sprechen für sich selbst. Das braucht keine Interpretation, Deutung oder so was.

Werner Krauss said...

From today's New York Times:

Trump Picks Scott Pruitt, Climate Change Denialist, to Lead E.P.A.

President-elect Donald J. Trump has selected Scott Pruitt, the Oklahoma attorney general and a close ally of the fossil fuel industry, to run the Environmental Protection Agency, signaling Mr. Trump’s determination to dismantle President Obama’s efforts to counter climate change — and much of the E.P.A. itself.

Mr. Pruitt, a Republican, has been a key architect of the legal battle against Mr. Obama’s climate change policies, actions that fit with the president-elect’s comments during the campaign. Mr. Trump has criticized the established science of human-caused global warming as a hoax, vowed to “cancel” the Paris accord committing nearly every nation to taking action to fight climate change, and attacked Mr. Obama’s signature global warming policy, the Clean Power Plan, as a “war on coal.”

Mr. Pruitt has been in lock step with those views.

“Scientists continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global warming and its connection to the actions of mankind,” he wrote in National Review earlier this year. “That debate should be encouraged — in classrooms, public forums, and the halls of Congress. It should not be silenced with threats of prosecution. Dissent is not a crime.”

Not funny.

Werner Krauss said...

I really do not know what to make out of this recent development. I guess it is not enough to lean back and say: the Trumpists are "postfactual" and simply talk nonsense, from a scientific perspective. Behind each ignorant skeptic there is a clever one who adopts elements of the uncertainty discourse, the critique of alarmism or of the current climate policy to make skepticism appear scientifically acceptable. If this is true, we are all involved in this misery, willingly or not. Maybe it is time to analyze the situation; reflecting the own arsenal of arguments is a good start, maybe.

One argument is blaming the alarmists for producing skepticism; an argument that was often used here on Klimazwiebel. I never bought into this; "alarmists" produce at best honest brokers or climate realists. In my observation (and by reading skeptical blogs), hardcore skeptics are driven by anti-establishment, anti political-correctness sentiments, deeply rooted in public culture and political history. (Climate politics are used to express these sentiments, they are not the product of climate politics).

The other explanation goes, generally speaking, back to Naomi Oresekes' "merchants of doubt"; the current situation seems to support this argument. There are economic and political interests; I mean, Mr. Pruitt and president-elect Trump seem to be very open about this, as far as I can see from here; there seems to be no reason anymore to reject this argument as "ideological", or "political agenda". They just say so: let us burn fossil fuels, it makes a good business.

Currently, it is these two arguments I have to offer as a start. help needed; there is a lot at stake.

Anonymous said...

Ist nicht beides richtig, Werner? Lobbyisten konnten nur deshalb so stark werden in den USA, weil der Boden bereitet war.

Trotz allem bin ich zuversichtlich. Betrachten Sie es doch mal von der anderen Seite: Kann eine Regierung Trump den Trend zur Dekarbonisierung überhaupt umkehren?

Ich habe da meine Zweifel. Viele Programme werden von Bundesstaaten aufgelegt, das republikanische Erdölland Texas hat den größten Anteil an der Windenergie. Erneuerbare Energien sind so konkurrenzfähig geworden, dass z.B. bei Photovoltaik auch vieles von alleine wächst. Ich vermute, die Mehrheit der Bürger will an Klimapolitik festhalten. Zum Druck von innen kommt der Druck der anderen Staaten der Welt. Die Kohlelobby kann nur mehr Kohle verkaufen, wenn die Frackinglobby an Einfluss verliert. Was ist, wenn in ein paar Jahren der Wirbelsturm Donald das Festland nicht knapp verfehlen wird?

Irgendwie wie bei der Entwicklung der globalen Temperaturen: Der langfristige Trend wird überlagert von Fluktuationen, vom Wetter. Trump ist wie schlechtes Wetter. Das dämpft eine Zeit lang den Trend, kann ihn aber nicht aufhalten. Und es geht vorüber.

Zu naiv gedacht?


Anonymous said...

ich finde, Trumps Aussagen sind das Ergebnis von mehr als 30 Jahren Propaganda. Irgendwann verfängt sich das eben. Hans von Storch und Stehr bspw haben das nicht erkannt. Stehr glaubt, es ist die Schuld von faschistischen Alarmisten. Dazu reißt er sogar Zitate aus dem Kontext, damit sie passen. Man, man, man.

Ich bin, nun ja, nicht der Hellste und immer wieder erstaunt wie gut Propaganda funktioniert. Selbst ich hab mal gedacht (Grundmann meinst bspw. ich wäre politisch motiviert... hm. Interessant.): vielleicht ist ja was dran an diesem "Skeptikerkram". Ich habe es überprüft, soweit ich es kann, und nö: war nix dran. Meist ist es ja eher einfaches Zeugs. Mal kann man es so und so sehen, mal waren es nur dreckiges Gewäsch und Lügen. Mal waren es Kleinigkeiten, die niemals dieses Geschrei unterfüttern können. Mal war es Unfug, mal waren es intressante Ideen, die sich dann doch nicht so halten konnten. Manches gibt es auch bei richtiger Forschung, aber nicht diese völlig Verschiebung der Realität, diese seltsame Wortwahl, diese völlige Ausblendung anderer Meinungen. Und das ist ein Zeichen von erfolgreicher Propaganda.