“So, in short, he may also, like you, completely fail to understand the Science behind Climate Change,…”
I understand the science, Jim. You’ve explained it to me many times. Whether I accept it or not is neither here nor there. I have been told more than once that “the science is done” so we’re stuck with it, however reliable or otherwise the findings may be.
So I’ve moved on and instead of discussing “the science” I prefer to look at the strategies adopted to combat the problem that science has identified. What I have yet to see is any evidence that (say) the UK shutting down its coal-fired power stations and converting others to burn wood instead will have any significant impact on the problem (whether real or perceived). This is particularly pertinent when considering just China. The Chinese, despite the proportion of their electricity generated by coal falling, are still beginning construction of coal-fired power stations at the rate of two each week. China currently has an installed capacity of over 900 Gw of coal fired electricity generation capability. It also has another 200-400 Gw under construction (the precise amount dependent on whose report you read). This compares with the UK’s installed capacity from all sources of just around 55Gw. So my concurrence with President Trump is less to do with the science and more to do with the futility of embarking on extremely expensive schemes which will do little (or more likely nothing) towards curbing global emissions.
Whilst this nonsense persists the UK consumer is being ripped off to pay for entirely unsuitable methods of generating electricity (including burning wood) and the risk to the resilience of the UK’s energy capacity to meet demand increases with every day that passes.