• Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump delivers a speech during the evening session on the fourth day of the Republican National Convention on July 21. (AAP)
Some of the GOP candidate's views according to his official Twitter account.
By
Sam Wong

Source:
New Scientist
8 Aug 2016 - 11:52 AM  UPDATED 8 Aug 2016 - 11:53 AM

US presidential candidate Donald Trump is well known for his outspoken views, to say the least. But what does he have to say when it comes to science?

We decided to take a look at some of the Republican nominee’s tweets on matters ranging from asbestos to Ebola. Read on to see how they stack up against the evidence. 

In fact, more than 25 reviews of the scientific literature have failed to find convincing evidence for harm caused by wind farms. 

Comment: Are wind farms really bad for your health?
Simon Oxenham asks whether spending millions of public research dollars on wind turbine syndrome research is worthwhile.

Energy-saving bulbs can indeed give off a small amount of UV radiation – but even up close, it’s no more than you would receive standing in direct sunlight. 

US medical experts spoke out against a travel ban during the Ebola outbreak, arguing that suspending direct flights would not only hamper relief efforts, but make controlling and monitoring the flow of people to and from the region even more difficult

Inadequate fireproofing was blamed in part for allowing the World Trade Centres to burn, leading to their eventual collapse – but asbestos was never used in the impact zone of either tower. 

Not only has the original study linking the MMR vaccine to autism been retracted, multiple follow up studies have failed to demonstrate any link between vaccines and autism. 

In fact, 2015 was the hottest year on record, and the latest report shows the broad extent of other records and near-records set last year, undoubtedly due to changes arising from human activity. 

These 5 visuals demonstrate how much our planet is really heating up
Instead of spending thousands of words, here are some visuals that poignantly show the current reality of global warming.

As for Hillary Clinton, her stance on science is just what you’d expect from a person of her education and experience: she is a strong supporter. 

Amazingly this statement was the most controversial in her speech on July 28 accepting the Democrat nomination. She followed it with: “I believe that climate change is real and that we can save our planet while creating millions of good-paying clean energy jobs.”

On climate change, Clinton says she will uphold the Paris climate conference pledge to cut carbon emissions by up to 30 per cent by 2025. She has also said she will promote renewable energy with a $60 billion Clean Energy Challenge. In the past Clinton has supported stem cell research.

We’ve looked for anything similar to Trump’s outbursts on Twitter, but her science credentials are looking pretty solid. 

Read these too
Australia’s newest senator is a seasoned climate denier
One Nation senator Malcolm Roberts is calling for an investigation into the CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology for their "corrupt" scientific evidence that indicates climate change is happening.
Comment: Trump would deliver fatal blow to fight against climate change
A Donald Trump presidency would disrupt the fight against climate change in a way that threatens to snuff out all hope, writes Matthew Nisbet.
The crazy climate technofix
Some posit geoengineering as a radical fix to climate change. Others say the risks are too high and its proponents mad. Welcome to the debate where science fiction meets climate science.

This article was originally published in New Scientist© All Rights reserved. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency.