Is climate change the one issue we all agree Trump is wrong about ignoring...

Is climate change the one issue we all agree Trump is wrong about ignoring, or am I wrong about it being an important issue?

Other urls found in this thread:

ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html
reneweconomy.com.au/china-set-ban-new-coal-plant-development-31659/
afr.com/news/china-poised-to-ban-new-coalfired-power-stations-20160711-gq3izc
nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum
nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
weather.com/news/climate/news/warmest-year-on-record-earth-2016
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

There will be some deliberately contrarian people who pop in... but it's the one that really matters.

Let's say Trump is wrong on the economy! Regardless of how you feel about it, short term losses normalize over time. The president doesn't have complete control anyway.

Let's say he's wrong on migrants! Individuals move fast, and a president after him could reverse his work in less than a year.

The climate though? That's fucked up.

While you can fiddle about the models, the basic science behind it is rock solid. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and is able to increase the temperature of a system when the levels are increased (look at Venus).

How much? Plenty of science on that... but even if you ignore it, small increases are bad. Defrosting the tundra releases more, and you can have a run away effect.

The only way people can deny the general concept is by lying or ignoring everything that is experimentally proven.

It's a very important issue, probably the most important.

The majority of Americans think so too, so the majority disagree with Trump on this at least.

Who cares. The rate of extinction present right now already fucked us. It will catch up to us before global warming but you don't see any of the environmentalists crying about it in the media. It's all a big political game.

HRC and the congressional Democrats killed nuclear- the real green energy.

Trump supports nuclear energy.

If HCGCC is real, Trump is closer to solving it, whether he believes in it or not.

Do you only watch cable news or something? Everyone and their grandma knows about extinction rates, and actions are being taken against it.

Not the greatest actions (same reason as climate change, fixing it hurts the pocketbooks of those in power) but it's still a thing.

The big political game is the industrial funded misinformation that is out there. It happened with lead. It happened with smoking. It's been shown that it happened with CO2 emissions.

Internal documents show that each industry knew about potential problems, but they hired think tanks and scientists to refute claims so they could keep cashing in.

Clinton was flip flopping on that, but to be fair, that's half of what Trump does.

Nuclear is one piece of the puzzle. Even if we built a new reactor every few months it wouldn't be enough.

The default position from Trump (straight from Priebus) is climate change denial. In the end, that's going to shape his EPA and power generation decisions. Nuclear also has high start up costs, and is likely to stall out even in a repub controlled congress.

We're a bit fucked.

If it was a real threat we would have free banking or a gold standard and eliminate property taxes. This would drastically decrease overconsumption and urban sprawl. Since none of these are on the table it's obvious no one actually believes it's a serious issue.

The icecaps already melted in 2036 and the seas are now reaching a boil. The human race as well as most plant life is all but destroyed and we're beyond saving.
>just give up, silly humans.

I don't think you get it. Sure climate change may still be reversible but it's futile. The ecosystem is fucked beyond repair. What good is an atmosphere to a dead planet? There's nothing left to do.

A few generations from now everyone will be eating cloned beef wondering what species we killed to make everything collapse.

Yeah, but we can survive off cloned beef. We can survive with engineered crops.

We can survive modern extinction events with current tech. Most of it is from habitat loss anyway, not some unknown cause that is a threat to us (it benefits our general population levels and industry, at the cost of potential discoveries/materials/cures found in the natural world).

Climate change though? Too big to reverse if it happens (with current or near future tech... no indication we'd be able to restore an entire atmosphere for a long time). We can eat cloned beef all we want and keep living... but if we have runaway warming and the atmosphere goes bad, we could all die.

>using 19th century solutions to solve a problem that started in the 19th century

you mean climate hoax?

Humans, as we are now, have no effect on the climate. People have been saying for decades that we won't have any more ice caps in a few years, yet they keep having to push the date forward because, gee whiz, looks like the ice caps are getting thicker. And man, those polar bears and moose were supposed to go extinct right? Sure is funny how they're thriving. And how about the time global warming supporters got caught falsifying information to further their cause? The truth of the matter is that the climate has been changing for billions of years and will continue to do so while humans live here and long after we all die. We only became able to measure these sorts of things in the last century and only accurately recently. New studies say that we're actually heading towards a mini ice age similar to the one that froze the River Thames not too long ago and much like the ones that have happened again and again throughout human history because, wouldn't you know it, the climate changes. Chinks revving up their factories and vapid cunts showing off their new cars in America aren't going to have an affect on this. Anyone telling you otherwise is either too lazy to learn for themselves and believes what the media parrots, too retarded to understand the simplest information, or is actively trying to fool you to further their agenda.

>the climate changes
can't get much more cucked than this...did you're rabbi tell you that, shill?

every word you wrote is pure nonsense. every word you wrote is based on inaccurate models using manipulated data that have NEVER been right. so keep jerking yourself off, but don't jerk us off, retard.

>literally fearmongering
>watch out goy if you dont pay up the sun could incinerate you >:O

Who is the hoax supposed to be benefiting?

jews.

Clearly people think it wasn't the most important issue because it almost never came up and Trump, who doesn't care about it, won.

These redditors live in another world, it's fascinating.

>being this far into the climate denier bubble
>parroting easily debunked facts

Yeah some idiots made crazy time predictions, but no one who actually studies the stuff gives set timeframes. It's too complex.

However they do give temperature thresholds.

The truth is that there is a mechanism that is easily provable. The scale is larger than anything we can do in the lab, but humans have demonstrably altered our atmosphere. We also can prove that atmospheric content is the primary determinant of the surface temperature at our range in space (Venus could easily be at Earth temps if it wasn't so stifled with a thick atmosphere, even with the closer distance to the sun).

If it's all such a big hoax , why do we keep getting such awful trends... like the top five hottest years on record (assuming 2016 maintains itself) being within the last six years?

Okay, how?

It's not real. Every 5 years you can go back and look at all the the predictions (((scientists))) make and they will have completely moved the goalposts

>the planet is warming
>oh wait now it's just climate change
>the polar caps are still melting though
>oh wait arctic ice has increased by 50 percent since 2012

And on and on it goes. Other planets are warming similarly to the way earth is as well.

to make money, retard.

That info isn't based on models though, I specifically said that you can fiddle with the models all you like, you can't get away from the basic facts:

Carbon dioxide (along with methane, H2O, etc.) is a greenhouse gas. We have increased our levels of CO2.

Increasing temperatures release more CO2 and methane from stores.

The mechanism is there. Prove that wrong.

>Thinking that the global interests wouldn't make more money if they could ignore climate change
The shekels you could make ignoring the regulations goy

Did any important issues actually come up? The election was a shit show and a battle of personalities. No specifics were given on any major policies, by either side.

People kind of assume that it's a given that we are getting more renewables. They ignored it because they didn't think it was going to change.

Is this a troll? They can do that just fine without a hoax. What is the whole idea here?

>Arctic ice has increased 50 percent since 2012

By what metric?

Is it not possible to create a device that takes C02 out of the atmosphere and use it to make something else?

it's literally just a way to control people. If you tell someone the world is going to end unless you do as they say, they will do as you say.

>The majority of Americans think so too
only like 3% of americans think it's important at all

Trees?

CO2 is a pretty stable molecule though, it takes a lot of energy to do anything with it. It's because it is so stable that burning carbon based fuel releases so much energy (high energy state goes to low energy state).

You'd need energy to revert it mechanically, which (in our current energy climate) would come from carbon based fuels. We'd have to do it all with solar or wind or nuclear.

So how deep does it run? How many people are active participants and how many are part of the controlled? Are the cited >90% of "scientists" told to distribute misinformation?

Its BS
>climategate

70% of people (according to recent polls, grain of salt there) think it's a real thing.

It wasn't an important campaign issue, I misspoke earlier... but not because people don't think it is real. It's because people largely have accepted it.

pollution is bad. you are correct. but you're being lied to by everyone

Not trees, we cut them down faster than we plant them and we need wood.

Nuclear is the future anyway, China is currently on it's way by 2020 to have a stable nuclear energy source. Why can't we create an orbiting device that cleans up excess Co2? Realistically We wouldn't destroy the environment permanently in the next 20 years right?

You said that the majority of americans think "it's the most important issue" not think it's a real thing

>thinking we have that kind of tech

China is no where near being able to offset the new carbon it produces with nuclear (concrete, increased industry, increased automobiles, higher energy usage per capita)

the 90% of scientist thing is a load of shit you can easily google and find that out

>ignoring the part where I stated that I misspoke and then clarified my position

By definition, if you think it's real you think it's something that is destroying the planet. Either you want to change it, or you have given up.

The climate changes independently of humans.

unless you get a real carbon tax and force all countries to do the same it doesn't matter for shit, because you won't drive up the price curve for fossil carbon and people will still be running natural gas pipelines around the planet
some minor solar industry subsidy and emission agreements no one ever abides by will cut it
the republicans continuing to pretend it's a commie hoax is pretty dumb tho

Obviously China wouldn't lead that charge, but if they succeed in their nuclear program they will become Americas main source of energy. With that energy and it becoming such a dire problem, you don't think we could develop that tech?

the climate changes by definiton. But the question is what effect we have on it, how much effect and what it will cause. to say it's an important issue is implying "something bad will happen" and that we can change it

The extinction rates don't make any sense. I've heard anything from 5,000 species a day to 6,000,000 a year. It's a lack of consistency across the board.

I won't claim to know the exact polls, but there is not a single national (or international) body of scientists that disputes the findings that there is human based climate change.

The last one to dispute it (American Association of Petroleum Geologists... shocker that they held out) revised their position in 2007.

Since then, while there are small handfuls of scientists individual scientists (which means little, as there are who don't believe AIDS is caused by a virus, or other such nonsense) that dispute it... there are no scientific groups that do.

The poll asked about man made climate change.

I'm looking, seeing a number of different surveys and studies that don't go below 70%. Just how many liars are involved?

"will not cut it"

>the basic science behind it is rock solid

the EPA shouldn't even exist. their regulations are controlled by UN mandates in many cases
its best to leave environment issues up to states

>Your energy source is inferior to my energy source and is literally (LITERALLY!!!) going to kill the world! Why don't you invest into my energy source instead?
For a start. Then you have your environmental committees in every organisation who have power to affect operations and perpetuate the narrative.
Then you have taxes and fines for polluting (some are more justified than others, obviously).

Honestly, MUH ENVIRONMENT is diversity-tier propaganda.

I shouldn't expect more than reaction gifs on Sup Forums, but while the models are sketchy (as it's hard to predict things on a global scale with things like heat sinks and variation in seasons) the basic science (CO2 is a greenhouse gas, humans have increased CO2 content, greenhouse gases have significant impact on global temps) is backed up by both estabilished thermodynamic physical laws and experimental proof.

Prove me wrong

Nice intentionally misleading graph.

The icecaps are not shrinking. The rate at which they are growing is shrinking. The still gains millions of tons of ice a year.

>humans have demonstrably altered our atmosphere
[citation needed]

>We also can prove that atmospheric content is the primary determinant of the surface temperature at our range in space
You do realize that the earth's distance from the sun has never been a constant, right? Like, it doesn't just follow a perfect elliptical around the sun.
The earth weaves closer and further from the sun because of the gravitational pull of other planets.

>why do we keep getting such awful trends... like the top five hottest years on record
>implying that long summers and short winters are a bad thing

CO2 that's here has always been here
Energy cannot be created from nothing

If the rate of which it gains ice is depleting, won't it eventually stop? Then once it stops gaining ice, what'll happen?

The climate may indeed be changing.

Protip: the climate has always been changing.

Global warming is an exaggerated hoax perpetuated by scientists and government officials to keep the population scared and under control, while funneling billions of taxpayer dollars into their own bank accounts

Let's used some made up math shall we since I don't have the numbers infront of me.

If the ice cap is 500 tons of ice, and we aren't dead. We aren't going to die next year if the ice caps are 500 tons of ice or 502 tons of ice.

Wouldn't you find non-stop insane growths of ice even more horrifying than a nice equilibrium?

This

...yeah, and then they lose it within that same year.

There are massive amounts of ice gain each year, but it is lost in the warmer seasons. The losses are also not uniform by region, due to varying conditions and ocean currents.

However, the data released by GRACE/satelite data has estimated a loss of 69 ± 18 Gt/y from 2002 to 2010.

The area has at times increased, but this is due to a simple fact: the ice is getting thinner. If you look at surface area, you ignore the fact that when ice at the caps melts it hits the salt water, which is cold enough to freeze the purer water from the ice.

You can find localized, surface area data that supports you claim... but all volume studies show that it is shrinking. Not that "the growth rate is shrinking" but that the actual ice volume is decreasing.

Would it not be easier to gain control of resources than to establish a lie on this scale? And wouldn't maintaining this lie be egregiously expensive? If it fails, they must be worse off than when they started.

No, it is not lost.

Pay close attention to what I am saying.

Every year, the PERMANENT amount of ice in the ice caps is HIGHER than the previous year.

It does not "Lose the ice" or else every single time summer came around all of California would be flooded.

You're an idiot. CO2 is a gaseous compound at room temperature. It can absolutely be separated into carbon and oxygen or created from combining carbon and oxygen.

We are taking sources of pure carbon (eg. coal) and burning it to create CO2.

No. They'd simply sweep it under the rug and try again. Worst case scenario, they'd come up with a new excuse.

"Farts now cause more pollution in the US than all the factories in China! We need to eat healthier!"

I think the polar caps are pretty important to our planet's stability, so if the rate of which the caps gain ice is going down, that leads me to believe eventually it's going to get to a critical point. I don't think anybody thinks this is going to massively affect us in our lifetime, but if all the ice is gone over the next millennia then that's a big fucken problem for Earth, right?

Assuming you're right, how?

If you have a smartphone, drive a car and don`t live in at least three generation house or flat, then shut the fuck up about global warming.

>[citation needed]
Any glance at CO2 levels (ppm) easily proves that. Both in the recorded history and in ice core samples. Also, basic logic (we burned a ton of shit in the industrial revolution)

That's some grade 4 level logic. I can easily make CO2 in a closed system from hydrocarbons and oxygen when there was no CO2 before. That's on the level of pulling yourself on a cart by holding out a magnet in front of you.


>You do realize that the earth's distance from the sun has never been a constant, right? Like, it doesn't just follow a perfect elliptical around the sun.
The earth weaves closer and further from the sun because of the gravitational pull of other planets.

That's also idiotic, because during a regular year (where there is an elliptical orbit) it is not the distance from the sun that impacts our climate. Even with a variation of millions of miles.

It's the tilt of the earth that determines that. Not the distance from the sun. Proof? Earth is closest to the sun in January. Nice and toasty, right?

When do you think the ice caps should stop growing then? Should Earth become a giant ball of ice?

Remember, the rate at which the ice caps are growing is shrinking. They are not losing ice at all. So we aren't going to "Run out of ice."

The ice caps wouldn't melt 100% unless the Earth got too close to the sun and we'd all fucking die anyways.

Okay. Lets say you are right and manmade climate change is real.

What the fuck do you want us to do about it?

China and India are the largest producers of airborn pollution BY FAR. If North America and Europe COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY ceased ALL production of airborn pollutants, it would hardly put a dent in what they are producing.

We have NO AUTHORITY AT ALL to tell them what to do.

So what the fuck is your plan?

The reddest of pills are that evolution and climate change are both lies fabricated by cultural marxists to use science as a tool against nature and God. It's funny because true upper leve unbiased science proves God quite clearly.

>but if all the ice is gone over the next millennia then that's a big fucken problem for Earth, right?
Why though? The earth didn't always have ice caps. We'll just have to adapt or die. That's nature for you, which is the most genocidal force any life has ever experienced on this planet.

Explain the ice age then. Were we tilted into a fucking ninety degree angle to the sun?

We do, it's called the UN but you keep undermining that.

Also, India is 4th. USA is 2. Although they might've passed Russia by now due to Russia's collapsing economy.
ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html

China is also doing a HUGE amount to curb it's CO2 emissions.
reneweconomy.com.au/china-set-ban-new-coal-plant-development-31659/
afr.com/news/china-poised-to-ban-new-coalfired-power-stations-20160711-gq3izc

Probably the only think that fat fuck is right about

I understand what you said, it's just wrong by all sources outside of right wing blogs and single scientists with a ax to grind. Stated changes are a loss of 69 ± 18 Gt/y from 2002 to 2010.

The graph I posted is not misleading. It is Ice volume changes over time, from a verifiable source.

>Would it not be easier to gain control of resources than to establish a lie on this scale?

Nothing stops you from doing both, but having a part in the >green energy and such is a gift that keeps on giving, what with the government giving you support to pursue it. I think there was an interesting scenario involving Obama and some green energy supergiant back in 2010 or 2012. Even got some woman official killed over it.

> And wouldn't maintaining this lie be egregiously expensive?
Not really, now that it has gained enough momentum to be defended by the wider populace, it is self-sufficient.

>If it fails, they must be worse off than when they started.

That's assuming you've put your eggs in one basket, which you should almost never do.

>UN

>The reddest pill is a book written by shepards under the influence of hallucinogens 4000 years ago.

Ok.

nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum

Oh wowe all the ice has melted into more ice. We're all gunna dieee!!!

Sorry I missed the bit to quote you.
>We have NO AUTHORITY AT ALL to tell them what to do.
The UN. But since you keep undermining the UN, then yeah thanks for eroding our authority. Good job responding

nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

AAAAA THE ICE IS ALL GUNNA MELT INTO MORE ICE SAVE US

If the UN weren't such fucking pansies about everything, maybe more countries would listen to them.

Alterations in solar output on some scales, alterations in atmospheric composition in other instances. The ice age you are thinking of was likely solar output.

Did you seriously not know that though? You're definitely arguing about stuff you have little clue if you don't know the natural cause of climate variation.

And before you go "why isn't that the cause of the current change then!"... we can measure solar output. Observed variation doesn't explain the trends we are seeing.

I'm unironically saying that climate change is a fucking non-issue. Even if we went completely green, every other country in the world will still be belching smoke out of their stack towers. It's a money grab for bigger government. That's all it's ever been. Fuck off

>there was a cold winter one time in 3014 therefore hundreds of years of temperature records pointing to a sustained rise are moot
>literal disclaimer pointing out that it's not a big deal on top of the article

Good job.

The UN has never, ever, gotten anything useful done ever.

The UN couldn't defeat a horde of starving Chinese and Nork conscripts but you think they can defeat global warming?

Get out of here Australia. If the UN is the last hope for the world than this world deserves to burn.

Hundreds of years means fucking nothing in the scale of Earth's timeline. You're aware we had an iceage in the 1600-1700's right? Did we melt all the ice in 1800's instantly due to the invention of the steam engine and the only reason we haven't melted the rest of it is due to complete coincidence? Or do you think that maybe the Earth changes on it's own and we have very little impact?

>nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum

>Editor’s note: Antarctica and the Arctic are two very different environments: the former is a continent surrounded by ocean, the latter is ocean enclosed by land. As a result, sea ice behaves very differently in the two regions. While the Antarctic sea ice yearly wintertime maximum extent hit record highs from 2012 to 2014 before returning to average levels in 2015, both the Arctic wintertime maximum and its summer minimum extent have been in a sharp decline for the past decades. Studies show that globally, the decreases in Arctic sea ice far exceed the increases in Antarctic sea ice.


You are a massive idiot. The source you gave directly states that the increases in the antarctic don't offset the losses overall, and the global trend is a loss of ice at the polar caps.

If I put out a small region of a house-fire but let the rest of the house burn down... can I point to that small region and say the house didn't burn down?

A "nice equilibrium", as you said before, would be ideal. My concern is that Earth seems to move between two states of extreme heat and extreme cold over hundreds and thousands of years. If the high production of CO2 coming out man over a very short period of time (in the grand scheme of things) tips things just a bit too far in the hot direction, it could spell chaos. Most of the things we have that produce CO2 are unnatural, so that's not an unfair judgement to make, yeah?

I understand that nature has her way of doing things and we might not fully understand all of it, but I reckon it's not too silly to say that mankind's had a considerable effect on her. Why would this be any different to what we've done to forests in the short time we've been mass cutting them down?

Again, sure, we as a species aren't going to be around forever. I'm thinking in the context of this planet's survival, massive amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere might shake things up more than it can handle.

>Not really, now that it has gained enough momentum to be defended by the wider populace, it is self-sufficient.
Anyone who has ever been involved in it would need to be paid. The second they stop paying them, the whole thing collapses.

Read the second fucking article you idiot. Losses outweighed by gains. Last year.

This years numbers will show the same shit.

>The UN has never, ever, gotten anything useful done ever.
What is the Korean War? But anyway, with that kind of undermining attitude, of course they're never going to get anything done.

Besides, you never addressed my core refutation of your point: that India is no where near being the number two emitter of carbon and that China is reducing it's load.

Nuclear is the only way forward

I guess we don't need lungs or a heart since all that CO2 doesn't ever get created from cellular respiration.

>segregating half of a countries population into the grips of a dictator that literally kills people trying to leave the country was an optimal decision and the Korean war is totally proof the UN did good.

>This year will be the same
Guess again
weather.com/news/climate/news/warmest-year-on-record-earth-2016

Solar output or volcanic eruptions explain that ice age. We have plenty of historic data on ice ages and melting periods.

It is because we have that data that we are confident that current trends don't match those previous causes of climate change (solar based and volcanic/natural atmospheric alterations).

The alternative what the whole peninsula falling to communism. But nice job ignoring your lie about India.