Forums

Elon, time to cut Donald Trump loose - reports are that he will withdraw from the Paris Climate Pact (Updated - Thank you Elon!)

Elon, time to cut Donald Trump loose - reports are that he will withdraw from the Paris Climate Pact (Updated - Thank you Elon!)

Elon,
While I can understand why you tried to be in DT's ear since he won the election, it seems that the beast will do what's best for the beast. News reports today say that he's just trying to figure out how to weasel his way out of the Climate Pact. This would be completely consistent with the trajectory of his presidency.

While you had rational reasons for trying to be a positive influence on an irrational being, I strongly ask that you reconsider being seen at his side from this point onwards.

You will do the country and the world more good by opposing his horrific policies head-on, rather than being seen as a sympathizer of his policies.

No major corporation in this country will directly oppose a sitting president for fear of retaliation and retribution, but of all the CEOs around, you are the only one that has a following of believers that hold you in high regard and assume that you will chose to do the right thing rather than the popular thing. I implore you, do the right thing. Cut him loose and be the voice that speaks up against this madness.

In the words of the comedian Russell Peters, 'be a man, do the right thing.' :)

-ps. If you ever hit up the Oregon Coast, let me buy you a beer for pushing the world in the right direction.

(Edited 5/31/2017 - Today EM tweeted that he might leave the "advisory council" if DT withdraws from the Paris Accord
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/31/elon-musk-threatens-to-leave-white-house-...)

J.T. | May 30, 2017

>>>but of all the CEOs around, you are the only one that has a following of believers that hold you in high regard and assume that you will chose to do the right thing rather than the popular thing.

It would seem to me that the "popular" thing for Elon to do would be to withdraw from any advisory councils or groups that advise the President.

So, perhaps the "right " thing to do would be to stay on, against "popular" opinion and do what he can to further his mission: the worldwide adoption of sustainable transportation.

SO | May 30, 2017

Often the popular decision is the wrong decision.

pagrimm1 | May 30, 2017

Of course, all of that is great news for humanity — call off the carbon taxes and doomsday bunkers! However, as global-warming theories continue to implode on the world stage, the latest developments will pose a major challenge for the UN and its member governments. Later this month, climate “dignitaries” will be meeting in New York to forge an international agreement in the face of no global warming for nearly two decades, record ice levels, and growing public skepticism about the alleged “science” underpinning “climate change” alarmism.

As The New American reported last month, virtually every falsifiable prediction made by climate theorists — both the global-cooling mongers of a few decades ago and the warming alarmists more recently — has proven to be spectacularly wrong. In many cases, the opposite of what they forecasted took place. But perhaps nowhere have the failed global-warming doom and gloom predictions been more pronounced than in the Antarctic, where sea-ice levels have continued smashing through previous records. For each of the last three years, ice cover has hit a new record high.

The most recent data show that the Antarctic is currently surrounded by more sea ice than at any other point since records began. In all, there are right now about 20 million square kilometers of frozen sea area surrounding the Antarctic continent. That is 170,000 square kilometers more than last year’s previous all-time record, and more than 1.2 million square kilometers above the 1981-to-2010 mean, according to researchers.

“This is an area covered by sea ice which we’ve never seen from space before,” meteorologist and sea ice scientist Jan Lieser with the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) told Australia’s ABC. “Thirty-five years ago the first satellites went up which were reliably telling us what area, two dimensional area, of sea ice was covered and we’ve never seen that before, that much area. That is roughly double the size of the Antarctic continent and about three times the size of Australia.”

Despite having predicted less ice — not more — as a result of alleged man-made global warming, some alarmists have comically tried to blame the record ice on “global warming.” Indeed, in a bizarre attempt to explain away the latest findings, Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems CRC boss Tony Worby tried to blame “the depletion of ozone” and the “warming atmosphere” for the phenomenal growth in sea ice — contradicting previous forecasts by warming alarmists, who warned that ice would decrease as temperatures rose along with CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.

The biggest problem with Worby’s claim, however, is the fact that the undisputed global temperature record shows there has been no warming for about 18 years and counting — contradicting every “climate model” cited by the UN to justify planetary alarmism, carbon taxes, energy rationing, massive wealth transfers, and more. Dozens of excuses have been concocted for what alarmists refer to as the “pause” in warming, as many as 50 by some estimates. The Obama administration’s preferred explanation, for which there is no observable evidence, is often ridiculed by critics as the “Theory of the Ocean Ate My Global Warming.”

However, scientists and experts not funded by governments to promote the alarmist narrative say the observable evidence simply shows the man-made CO2 theories and “climate models” pushed by the “climate” industry are incorrect. More than a few climate experts and scientists have even warned that a prolonged period of global cooling is approaching quickly. The consequences could potentially be devastating — especially if warming alarmists succeed in quashing energy and food production under the guise of stopping non-existent “warming.”

Also in response to the fast-expanding ice, some die-hard alarmists and warming propagandists styling themselves “journalists”have recently been hyping a relatively tiny part of the Antarctic ice sheet that may — centuries or even millennia from now — go into the sea. Numerous independent scientists and experts quickly debunked the fear-mongering, however, pointing out that it was almost certainly due to natural causes and was nothing to worry about.

In an ironic incident that sparked laughter around the world, a team of “climate scientists” who set out to show how Antarctic ice was supposedly melting ended up getting their ship trapped in record-setting ice — in the summer! Millions of taxpayer dollars and massive quantities of fossil fuels and CO2 emissions were required to rescue the stranded and embarrassed warming alarmists after their misguided adventure.

Another key tactic of the warmists to deflect attention from the expanding polar ice in the Southern Hemisphere has been to hype changes occurring in the Arctic instead. Unfortunately for the alarmists, however — critics often ridicule the movement as a “cult” for desperately clinging to its beliefs despite the evidence, not to mention the “Climategate” scandal — that will now be much harder to do with a straight face.

“After the very high melt rates of the 2007-2012 period, the trend reversed in 2013 and especially in 2014 when the melt fell below the long-term average,” explained German professor and environment expert Fritz Vahrenholt, adding that the heat content of the North Atlantic was also plummeting. “In other words: The 21st century climate catastrophe is not taking place.”

Decades ago, of course, Newsweek reported that Arctic ice was growing so quickly due to man-made “global cooling” that “scientists” were proposing to melt the polar ice cap using black soot. Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed. More recently, “climate” guru Al Gore had been regularly predicting that the entire polar ice cap would be gone by now. Instead, it is now far more extensive than when he made his now-discredited predictions.

Of course, UN bureaucrats, many of whom depend on sustainable alarmism for their livelihood, still have their heads in the sand about the implosion of their theory. On a call with reporters last week, for example, UN “climate team director” Selwin Hart, who serves under Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, claimed an upcoming global-warming summit in New York “will be a major turning point in the way the world is approaching climate change.” He may be right, though probably not in the way he intended. The conference, which will be skipped by key world leaders, is meant to put climate alarmism “back on top of the international agenda,” Hart added.

In the United States, meanwhile, as the evidence continues to contradict the alarmist predictions, polls consistently show that a solid majority of Americans reject the UN’s man-made global-warming theories. Like the UN, however, Obama continues to act as if the discredited theories were gospel, promising to save humanity from their carbon sins by lawlessly bypassing the U.S. Senate and the Constitution to foist a planetary “climate” regime on the American people. Lawmakers have vowed to prevent any such schemes, but it remains unclear how far the White House is willing to push the issue. After failing even with a Democrat-controlled Congress, the EPA is already working to impose Obama’s anti-CO2 schemes on America by executive decree.

With the evidence discrediting UN global-warming theories literally piling up on both ends of the Earth and everywhere in between, alarmists face an increasingly Herculean task in their bid to shackle humanity to a “climate” regime at next year’s UN summit in Paris. However, to protect the public — and especially the poor — from the devastation such a planetary scheme would entail, Americans must continue to expose the baseless alarmism underpinning what countless scientists now refer to as the “climate scam

SO | May 30, 2017

@pagrimm1 - if you don't know something, what would be the better side to error on? I prefer to error on the side of caution.

Even if human related CO2 emissions don't affect the planet, wouldn't it be at least prudent to reduce the actual pollution? There is more than just CO2 being ommited from fossil fuels.

Also, if you are wrong, we are all screwed. If the climate concerned specialists are wrong, we end up with cleaner environment. Tough choice.

And don't give me the "too expensive" line as there is a much better future in renewables for jobs than there are fossil fuels.

SCCRENDO | May 30, 2017

@Pagrimm1. Your "facts" have been totallly discredited on another thread. Please provide scientific links and stop rambling.

finman100 | May 30, 2017

wow, way to show you are stupid on a public forum. that's great work ya got there. so tiring the ramblings of deniers...

Should_I | May 30, 2017

With the about face turns in "science" in my 30something lifetime skepticism of science is prudent.
Things like fish are cold blooded was taught as hard fact in the 80s now we know some tuna and sharks warm the blood around the brain and eyes. All that took to prove was to catch fish and jab a thermometer in their heads.
If things that easy to prove have been redefined so recently how can we trust analysis so complicated as global weather trends when cycles are so long and accurate data available only so recently. Belittling those who question validity makes you the small minded ignorant one.

I agree we should error on the side of caution, we should take better care of the planet, but the fervor to claim doom and gloom should remind us of the boy who cried wolf. In the 70s we were facing global cooling, then it was warming, now it is climate change all because they claimed to know more than they did.

BOTH sides make good points, truth lay somewhere in the middle.

SO | May 30, 2017

@should_i - I agree. Let's take the overly dramatic noise out of the argument and focus on the facts. Pollution is bad. Work to reduce it. Everyone should agree on that.

Captain_Zap | May 30, 2017

I do not see how cutting ties would be of any help at all.

222 | May 30, 2017

@JT
I knew that line might cause confusion. I meant "popular" in the minds of CEOs, not in the minds of the public.

@pagrimm1
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
-> you lost me at "The New American" ......... ROTFL
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-new-american/
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2013/bringin...

@Cap
The more people who speak up - the better chance we have to survive this madness

SamO | May 30, 2017

There's a lot of poor odds for survival beyond FKT. Those include the existential threat to life near most coasts as we know them.

rxlawdude | May 30, 2017

@Should_I (no, you really shouldn't): What is the temperature of a tuna's blood supply in the gut? In the tail?

You probably (based on your lack of any grasp of science) are unaware that physiological processes, even in coldblooded animals, produce heat as a byproduct of metabolism.

Your example is disingenuous, but illustrative of the lengths deniers go to to "discredit" stuff they don't believe (or don't want to believe).

222 | May 30, 2017

@rxlawdude
Save your breath dude.
I dont try to explain science to people who think that doubting science is a sign of intelligence.

Scientific facts are a general consensus of experts based on the cumulative data available based on good scientific methodology. I would rather listen to Neil DeGrasse Tyson over dump people anytime.

Stupid people just dont get that.
Also, let's not forget that some of the anti climate change proponents are religious zealots that believe that god gave man the earth to use at his discretion.

Thank goodness that some religious leaders in this country are coming around to support climate change efforts. A little late if you asked me.

http://www.newsweek.com/2016/03/18/creation-care-evangelical-christianit...
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/05/inquiring-minds-katharine...
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0096340215599789?journalCode...

RedShift | May 30, 2017

@222

"I dont try to explain science to people who think that doubting science is a sign of intelligence."

+1

Silver2K | May 30, 2017

Unfortunately there are many individuals that will not purchase a Tesla because Elon is part of the advisory council.

I'm not a fan of him being a part of the council, but his presence protects the electric car future owners. Since Trump is such a vindictive person, i would expect him to end the rebates if elon dropped out. This action would not hurt the higher end buyers, but would hurt elon's dream of getting to the next level in manufacturing.

222 | May 30, 2017

@Silver
"..but his presence protects the electric car future owners"

Really? You think so? I dont.
I think the beast does what is best for the financial interests of the beast and his family. Nothing EM says will help.

I think it's all a farce and the sooner EM removes himself from the "advisory" (laughable name) council the better.

SCCRENDO | May 30, 2017

@Should_i. Sharks are heterothermic which is in between. But how does that contradict science. As our knowledge evolves so does the science which is the strength of science as compared to the ignorant denial of facts that you guys sprout. If your strongest argument against science is that it evolves, science is in great shape.
http://www.sharkwatchsa.com/en/blog/category/482/post/987/shark-fact-29-...

From wikipedia.

"Thermoregulation

Almost all fish are cold-blooded (ectothermic). [14] However, tuna and mackerel sharks are warm-blooded: they can regulate their body temperature. Warm-blooded fish possess organs near their muscles called retia mirabilia that consist of a series of minute parallel veins and arteries that supply and drain the muscles. As the warmer blood in the veins returns to the gills for fresh oxygen it comes into close contact with cold, newly oxygenated blood in the arteries. The system acts as a counter-current heat exchanger and the heat from the blood in the veins is given up to the colder arterial blood rather than being lost at the gills. The net effect is less heat loss through the gills. Fish from warmer water elevate their temperature a few degrees whereas those from cold water may raise it as much as 20 °C (36 °F) warmer than the surrounding sea.

The tuna's ability to maintain body temperature has several definite advantages over other sea life. It need not limit its range according to water temperature, nor is it dominated by climatic changes. The additional heat supplied to the muscles is also advantageous because of the resulting extra power and speed. Bluefin tuna have been clocked in excess of 30 miles per hour (48 km/h) during 10 to 20 second sprints, enabling it to hunt squid, herring, mackerel, etc., that slower predators cannot capture."

222 | May 30, 2017

"Will the Paris Agreement Be Stronger Without the United States?
Trump could water down the treaty, making it harder for other countries to tackle climate change."

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/05/is-the-paris-accord-...

Should_I | May 30, 2017

I understand that, rxlawdude doesn't though.
In the '80s we were taught fish were definitively cold blooded, not that some are somewhere in between, and this is something EASILY studied.
Most of you are so rabid in your defense of you opinion you can't comprehend what I wrote just attack, you think everything the other side says is a lie and everything supporting your opinion is unquestionable. That is not the case, people on BOTH sides are right and wrong, they BOTH manipulate data to support the side paying them.

I am all for reducing pollution, but I am not in favor of crying wolf for decades claiming immediate chaos that never happens because it stops the average person from seeing we need to work on this now.

The mainstream current groups pushing climate change action are in it for the money, like algore flying around on his jet to conferences. It is all about the paycheck.

We don't need to send world leaders on journeys via jet to talk about how they will make their countrymen use less energy. Let's just actually use less energy. Besides the world is better served by us helping third world countries be cleaner, things like shipping all our coal to China to be burned withOUT proper environmental controls hurts the planet we all live on vs. burning that coal close to source with scrubbers in place. Now don't get me wrong coal needs to be phased out, but shutting down use here so that it gets, shipped halfway around the world by burning diesel fuel to then burn it haphazardly in China is NOT a net gain for our shared environment. I say that as someone with a relative who's livelihood depends in large part on the rail shipments of that coal across the country to port.......

Burn the coal here to support the infrastructure growth to make solar and batteries.

222 | May 30, 2017

@Should_I
Actually no. The truth is NOT somewhere in the middle.

Scientific consensus is always the closest we have to being correct (despite occasional outlying data points).

I would love to see scientists become rabid. Maybe we really do need teeth to fight back the hoards of stupid people. We're too nice to call stupidity what it is.

We live in an age of academic mediocrity - where just because someone can Goggle something, they assume they're an expert in it. How pathetic.

I DO trust the 98% of climate change scientists that are yelling that we're heading rapidly down a path of no return.

rxlawdude | May 30, 2017

@Should_I: I reiterate: you shouldn't. You do realize that science constantly evolves theories as newer technologies and discoveries come to the fore, no?

carlgo2 | May 30, 2017

"Many people not buying Teslas" because of his being on the board? BS. This kind of PC crap is why Trump won. Musk is in close, doing what he can, not holding his breath or whining. Respect that. What might Trump do if he thinks Musk disrespects him? Hmmm, count the ways....

Musk knows the score. Stop being pouty and Pure.

Just stay with campaigns against pollution. People tend to agree about that. Forget the science lectures. In case anyone has been asleep, railing on about science and factoids is not productive in the US. Tailor the message to the populace, like the Republicans do. That is why they win, over and over.

SUN 2 DRV | May 30, 2017

"In the '80s we were taught fish were definitively cold blooded"

Some people look for simple rules and live by some black and white dogma...

Life is NEVER that simple, life is not only grey scale it's Technicolor and Kodachrome. :-)

Conservatives like to say they're principled, unfortunately that too often translates to simple and closed minded. They live by some old stale set of rules rather than reacting to the real world as it is today.

So who CARES what your teacher said about fish back in the '80s. If you were in grade school then, teachers would give you simple messages that applied generally but not necessarily in every case... As you grow so should your thinking and understanding.

"My teacher said fish were cold blooded and because that doesn't apply to all scenarios now I don't trust science." Really?????

222 | May 30, 2017

People .... if you dont believe in climate change and you're reading biased rubbish like the new american, maybe you should broaden your mind. Here's the most basic and elementary introduction to intelligent thought that I can gift you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VUPIX7yEOM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Klgp_qDiRhQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plReQcO6sz0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytaf30wuLbQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hlniA7-Xzg

SCCRENDO | May 30, 2017

@Should_i. You are using hyperbole. As stated above by myself and others, science is as close to the truth as we can get. With new credible information it evolves. When you learned that fish were cold blooded it was the best information we had. The evolving science did not dispute that fish were cold blooded. It still showed that fish were cold blooded but the expanded knowledge showed exceptions.

Now. For those of us who understand climate science, unlike yourself, the science is solid and unless we act bad things will happen. The rapidity is still subject to debate. Yes it is possible that some discovery will overturn this hypothesis but the probability is extremely low. And that science missed some cold blooded mackerel, sharks and tuna does not trash scientific method nor does it overturn the climate change hypothesis.

RedShift | May 30, 2017

This is the kind of simplistic (for lack of a better word) that's gotten so many to believe AGW isn't real.

'Some fish produce heat, and that should have been easy to study, so the scientists goofed, and so they are goofing up again with AGW, "algore" is in it just for the money, and those who believe AGW are rabid fanatics'

Well then, CASE CLOSED.

We need stronger science and math education in this country.

johndoeeyed | May 30, 2017

@222
I believe you should remove the quote to ''be a man, do the right thing".
Elon believes he is doing the right thing. Various people, including myself, believe that he is better to publicly remove himself from any Trump association (because he publicly associated himself with Trump and publicly supported Tillerson). That is nothing to do with 'being a man'. It is about deciding what is the best thing to do.

The current administration has rolled back and cancelled many environmental regulations, including those which combat Climate Change. If it also abandons the Paris agreement, then it is obvious that Elon cannot achieve anything of worth by being at the table with Trump and his administration. However, he can influence public opinion, and therefore votes, by actively opposing Trump.

222 | May 30, 2017

@john
it's a quote from a comedian ..... it's humor added to a serious topic.....

johndoeeyed | May 30, 2017

@222
I know that, but it is not an appropriate quote to use due to the 'be a man' part.

222 | May 30, 2017

(eye roll)

johndoeeyed | May 30, 2017

@222
Be a man, do the right thing.
PS:
That may have just been humour

RedShift | May 30, 2017

No, God! No, how can you even call that humor! I am offended you think that was humorous!

See, an octopus may seem quite clever - it is supposed to disguise itself in many 'avatars' if you will. However, ask it to crack a joke, and it will reveal its 'true colors'!

RedShift | May 30, 2017

Well, that was so surprising! Just like an octopus. Ask them to surprise you, and they always play the same trick, over and over and over.. no originality. No imagination. And no humor.

Tropopause | May 30, 2017

I think I inked myself.

MitchP85D | May 30, 2017

I think Elon should try to get Trump to test drive a P100D. That'll get Trump's attention!

johndoeeyed | May 31, 2017

@MitchP85D
It will make zero difference to his position on Climate Change, just as having a Tesla has made zero difference to your denial.

MitchP85D | May 31, 2017

All of you think this is so intense, and serious! I'm just sitting back, enjoying life! The earth is NOT overheating!

RedShift | May 31, 2017

Ignorance IS bliss, for the class dunce... until the grades come out!

SO | May 31, 2017

This is why we need to take the global warming/climate change out of the argument.

Too many people hear "climate change" and immediately shut down the argument. (Right or wrong...ok wrong, but that's just what happens.). We need to focus on "reducing pollution", reduce dependence on global commodities like oil and "creating jobs" which the renewable energy industry is great for. Almost everyone should be able to agree on that. Change the discussion to win the goal. This is a means to an end people.

PhillyGal | May 31, 2017

@SO_S90D - Excellent post! I wish it were that simple but of course, those that profit greatly from pollution-heavy industries pay big bucks to change the public's perception of regulations reducing pollution to "needless regulations that cut jobs."

SamO | May 31, 2017

Nope. We need to focus on fun. And beautiful. And voting with your dollars.

Tesla, Tesla and Tesla. Check, check and check.

We have much more power over our future when there are products like Model 3, solar roof and power-wall/pack.

Go give a few rides and tell everyone about the $35,000 car that almost anyone can afford.

NKYTA | May 31, 2017

Elon has tweeted, will withdraw from councils if Trump withdraws from Paris Accords.

carlgo2 | May 31, 2017

It is now, with Tesla opening the door, not necessary to rely on governments and that is a good thing. Governments are unreliable and often subject to manipulation from unfriendly forces. They change with the wind every few years. Their regulations, even if meant well, are sometimes limiting. There are resentments that can be a problem.

The best we can hope for is to be left alone, neither relying on public support or being hampered by dark forces. EVs can make it on their own if the manufacturers make good and affordable vehicles and provide for easy charging and nothing artificial gets in the way.

SCCRENDO | May 31, 2017

I have always felt that Elon has more chance of having an influence on Trump as an insider. However I have given up all hope on this man child president. I believe it is at time for anyone with principles to not support his idiotic agenda. I hope he gets too embroiled in his Russian issues to cause any more harm and I hope impeachment comes sooner rather than later.

rxlawdude | May 31, 2017

"The best we can hope for is to be left alone, neither relying on public support or being hampered by dark forces."
Ah, the Libertarian philosophy. Till his property is impacted by the neighbor down the road who is "left alone."

Mark Z | May 31, 2017

PBS reported on what would occur back on November 10, 2016:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/president-elect-donald-trumps-plan-f...

"...cancel billions in payments to U.N. climate change programs and use the money to fix America's water and environmental infrastructure."

No surprises. The entire list of measures and actions PBS reported on shouldn't surprise anyone.

science-isbetter | May 31, 2017

@Should_I: If you are ever on a high ledge, I recommend that you don't step off even though Newton was wrong. Indeed, you are right, the science could be wrong as was Newton.

If you get a strep infection, i recommend that you DO take an antibiotic even though the science MIGHT be wrong.

Periodic physical exams? I think it's a good idea, although you may be right that there's a chance that medical science is wrong.

I think the average life span of humans has increased from about 35 years to well over 70. But, the science may have been wrong.

222 | May 31, 2017

Elon,
not sure if you were reading posts on the forums, but if you were - Thank You for making a public stand.

This not only wins brownie points with your Tesla enthusiasts/first adopters, but also helps the rest of the public in ways they might not appreciate at this time.

I count this as a small win ....

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/31/elon-musk-threatens-to-leave-white-house-...
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2017/05/31/elon-musk-paris-climate-...
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/05/elon-musk-threatens-to-ditch-trum...

Pages