Why is Trump anti-science? Is someone paying him to push this agenda or is he just stupid?

Why is Trump anti-science? Is someone paying him to push this agenda or is he just stupid?

Other urls found in this thread:

nap.edu/catalog/12782/advancing-the-science-of-climate-change
m.youtube.com/watch?v=3RevRZaZQpk
youtube.com/watch?v=x7Q8UvJ1wvk
climatecentral.org/news/oil-companies-carbon-price-19054
bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-01/big-oil-becomes-big-gas-as-climate-threat-spurs-tussle-with-coal
google.com/search?q=coercive monopoly&oq=coercive monopoly&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
youtube.com/watch?v=4aTf5gjvNvo
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

So you have no real argument, then?

you don't seem to have an argument

>Swedecuck

not surprised

We all know that "climate change" is a machination for the new world order. Fuck off.

>this is what drumpfkins actually believe

((scientists))

Are you people retarded? He asked a question. Chastising someone for not making an argument when they ask a question is a total non sequitur. You may as well smugly say, "So I guess this means you don't have a haiku?"

A more reasonable criticism of the OP is that he asked a loaded question.

you sound upset dude.

It seems like it went over your head that your picture is more of an analogue to corporate shilling for climate change denialism? Who do you think eventually published the fact that cigarettes were hazardous to your health, the tobacco industry? It was medical scientists, retard.

you sound like a dummy. are you a dummy? it seems like it!

you talk like a muslim dude wtf

Work the other way around aswell, Research grant are fucked up, you have to subscribe to a particular set of idea if you want access, and if you actually want them you need to really break away from the crowd with "crazy innovative" ideas

The result is that even tho we dont know much about climates change, the media will act as if there's a clear (((consensus))) while linking "new" research papers filled with "would, could, possibly"

Who benefits the most from pushing climate change? Big business. Regulations and carbon taxes stiffles competition eventually leading to monopolies.

Look at what these drumpets did to one of us during the election. The news about this incident didn't spread too well back then but it's never too late to bring wide-spread attention to it.

This is barely coherent hearsay. If you think the findings on human caused climate change are inadequate to conclude that there is human caused climate change, you need to point to the published findings and explain why they are inadequate, not just allude to some conspiracy among grant institutions.

> Regulations and carbon taxes stiffles competition eventually leading to monopolies.

'regulations' referred to in this incredibly general way, can't possibly be said to necessarily lead to monopolies. I've never seen research indicating that carbon taxes "stifle competition", citation needed. My intuition is that carbon taxes would not stifle competition since certain firms aren't EXEMPT from the law. It sounds like you are just repeating some nonsense statement you heard on mainstream media or something.

>This is barely coherent hearsay.
No, this is how it fucking work

>If you think the findings on human caused climate change are inadequate to conclude that there is human caused climate change
This is the knot of the problem.
The finding agree that human have an effect on climate change. Cool. There's a somewhat consensus on that.
Now the next question, the real important one : By how much ? What's the ratio between natural climate change and man-made ?

The EXTREME majority of all the research papers on the subject simply estimate that it's "atleast 1%". Aka human do ahve an effect, but we dont know much more.

Well, are you?

>pricing people out of a market doesn't lead to monopolies

If Kyoto were enacted by all nations, the total global cost this century would be around 270 trillion dollars, and would result in a lowering of projected temps by .015 degrees over doing nothing. Do you feel this is a sensible solution, Op?

> The EXTREME majority of all the research papers on the subject simply estimate that it's "atleast 1%". Aka human do ahve an effect, but we dont know much more.

BZZZZZT. Wrong! The consensus is that climate change is caused LARGELY BY HUMAN ACTIVITY. Source: The NRCs congressional report on climate change, "Advancing the Science of Climate Change"

nap.edu/catalog/12782/advancing-the-science-of-climate-change

This is a comprehensive literature review on the subject.

>posts propaganda and calls it proof

> I dont have evidence and was just repeating something I heard so I'm making an appeal to intuition based off of a poor understanding of neoliberal economic theory

What is inadequate or incorrect about my citation? Your characterization of my citation is "propaganda" amounts to your refusal to confront it directly. If you aren't going to read it, just admit that you have no interest in getting to the bottom of this matter.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=3RevRZaZQpk

...okay? This is totally irrelevant to what we were talking about

I'm not paying 45 dollars to read the same drivel I have read hundreds of pages of in the past, and I doubt you read it either. If it supports agw it is propaganda based on sensationalizing an alleged and unprovable assertion that man has caused the global avg temp to rise by one degree over the last 136 years.

Shutting down the coal industry leads to..? Cmon you're almost there.

He doesn't think it's worth it to neuter ourselves if India and China aren't going to play along anyway and is willing to pander to the Evangelical deniers if that's what it takes.

Its free, moron. You can't refuse to READ ABOUT THE MATTER BEING DISCUSSED and expect to be taken seriously. If you want to live in a fantasy world, stick your head under your blankies and quit wasting my time with your bullshit.

youtube.com/watch?v=x7Q8UvJ1wvk

>B-b-but...

Shut up

..a shut down coal industry? How about you just make your own fucking point, since you definitely truly have one and its actually really obvious

Global warming is a real thing considering the sun is going to expand and burn the entire solar system to a crisp.

Climate change in OUR lifetime though, probably not that big of a concern.

(((Science))) that tells me not to trust my own instincts regarding race and gender?

I have been reading about this farce for two decades dickhead. I likely know far more about it than you do, judging from the drivel you post as convincing evidence. AGW is a political movement based on a distorted presentation of data that has been constantly manipulated to strengthen the fraudulent assertion.

Trump is just a moron. Politics wins over science in his playbook.

Where is your real estate empire, genius? Oh, that's right, you don't have one because you are an impotent faggot who wishes he had Trump's balls.

the only people that will be able to afford a "carbon tax" will be the largest of energy producers.

"In Stunning Reversal, ‘Big Oil’ Asks for Carbon Price"
climatecentral.org/news/oil-companies-carbon-price-19054

Under the guise of "affordable and clean energy" only a few will set world prices and many are set to make trillions on the carbon future index

this is monopoly strategy 101 bro.

He implies Bill Clinton was anti science becasue he made budget cuts to science.

But Clinton made budget cuts everywhere.
He wanted to eliminate the deficit.

Bush wasn't more "pro science" he just loved to spend.
Be it on the military, on tax rebates to oil companies, or indeed on scientific institutions.

>Is someone paying him to push this agenda or is he just stupid?

Uh yeah

Leave the thread if you won't confront my arguments, and just want to appeal to your own authority on the matter. You can't expect to be taken seriously if you are just gonna make shit up and refuse to confront the arguments of others. You're just a baby playing pretend.

kek...thinking you can tell me what to do or not do. I haven't seen you make any argument in your own words, therefore I don't have anything to argue against. I don't think you understand the subject well enough to debate it.

Nothing in your citation supports the idea that:
> the only people that will be able to afford a "carbon tax" will be the largest of energy producers.

The reason given in the article for big oil's support of a carbon tax being set is because they view it as inevitable and want to be able to plan for the future in a concrete way.

> But in the big picture, the lack of a price on carbon creates an uncertain environment for companies that tend to plan decades into the future. The sooner a price is set, the quicker companies can adjust their plans for future profitability.

> In addition, there’s been growing pressure from shareholders that want more clarity on how oil companies plan to continue making money in a world where carbon emissions need to decline in order to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. The growing power of the divestment movement, which aims to get pension funds and endowments to remove fossil fuel companies from their portfolio, is also posing a growing issue for fossil fuel companies.

I guess you didn't read your own citation?

Its also unclear what this has to do with that obama coal video you posted, but I guess you are freely admitting that that was nonsense?

Putin and his oligarchs and the American fossil fuel cartel have too much to lose to renewables and eventually phasing fossil fuels out of the economy, that's why he's anti-science.

Trump owes everything to the fact that he was born rich. He is a lying piece of shit.

You must be a special kind of idiot. The other poster was making the point that Obama was intending to tax coal out of competition with green energy, thus helping to create a green monopoly for energy production.

>because they would come and say publicly they are planning on a creating a monopoly

Big Oil's Plan to Become Big Gas
>Coal from producers led by Glencore Plc and BHP Billiton Ltd. produces about 40 percent of the world’s electricity. Shell, Total, BP Plc and other oil companies said Monday in a joint statement that they’re banding together to promote gas as more climate friendly than coal.

>“The enemy is coal,” Pouyanne said Monday. He vowed to pull out of coal mining and said Total may also halt coal trading in Europe.

A key strategy for gas producers to push this agenda is asking governments to levy a price on carbon emissions from power plants. That creates an economic incentive to switch from coal, the top source of greenhouse gases, to cleaner options.

bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-01/big-oil-becomes-big-gas-as-climate-threat-spurs-tussle-with-coal

keep trying plebbit

You haven't seen me make an argument in my own words, because by your own admission you won't read the arguments of people who threaten your world view. I said in this post: > The consensus is that climate change is caused LARGELY BY HUMAN ACTIVITY.

And then cited evidence; a congressional report comissioned to be written by a non-profit NGO. A report whose author's consist of the leading scholars in the their respective fields, who represent the wide array of disciplines relevant to climate change research.

You're a fucking baby and a coward with nothing of value to contribute to the discussion, and probably society at large.

Being born rich doesn't mean you will become richer if you don't have the intelligence and character to do so. Look at you, a sad, jealous faggot shilling for commie gibs while he is President of the United States. Who is the fool?

A "green monopoly"? Are you fucking retarded? A monopoly isn't a monopoly among technologies or industrial sectors, a monopoly consists of FIRMS OR A SINGLE FIRM. Do you think there is a "car monopoly" because horse-and-buggy companies can't compete? What a remarkably dumb thing to say.

if the government made horse and buggies unfeasible by taxation, then you could say yes, cars would have a monopoly on transportation

"Consensus" is not science, especially when it is produced by people paid to produce it. The base assertion of agw is that man's activity has warmed the avg global temp of the earth by one degree since 1880.

>there is no reliably accurate global avg temp, only an unreliable average of regional temps
>we do not know within a one degree certainty what the avg global temp today is
>we sure as hell don't know what the avg global temp was in 1880 because we didn't have a system capable of measuring temps all over the globe
>the base assertion is ridiculous on the face of it and a documented fraud as evidenced by the continuous manipulation of the historical climate record

His Secretary of State is literally the CEO of Exxon

> because the only possible evidence you could offer supporting the idea that carbon taxes will lead to monopoly is an admission from the firms that they are hoping it will create a monopoly

How about a peer reviewed economics paper which demonstrates how the carbon tax will lead to a monopoly among the largest energy producers? You know, actual evidence?

Furthermore, you didn't even try to defend your source. So I guess you are admitting it doesn't support your argument?

Now you've posted another article, with no content that supports the idea that: > the only people that will be able to afford a "carbon tax" will be the largest of energy producers.

Instead the article makes the argument that coal companies plan to switch to gas to remain competitive, and since gas has a lower greenhouse gas signature than coal, these seems to indicate that the carbon tax program will be successful in both reducing carbon emissions while keeping the energy market competitive. You don't even read your own sources, quit wasting everyones time.

ex ceo of Exxon, a corporation which is majority owned by government institutions.

You can't prove that. There's no Big Oil influence in Trump's cabinet

Who coincidentally has ties to Putin and Russian oil companies.

You're making my point for me

> consensus is not science

Okay? This is a total non sequitur. I said there is a consensus AMONG scientists, not that all scientists do is find consensus. Nice reading comprehension.

> especially when it is produced by people paid to produce it

once again, you refuse to point to an actual problem with any existing climate research, and most especially with the research I went out of my way to bring to your attention as evidence of my argument. You then go on to say that people who publish findings in support of human caused climate change had their findings biased by a conflict of interest, while citing no evidence of that fact.

Then you make a bunch of vague criticisms, intended to create an impression of doubt about the findings of climate scientists. But you fail to point toward any publish findings which contain the flaws you mention, because you haven't actually researched the matter (and actively refuse to), you're just repeating things others have told you

no I am not, I am pointing out that you are a liar. If you have to lie to make your point, your point is weak. what you are attempting to do is to suggest that Trump is colluding with big oil to destroy the earth for short term profits, while neglecting to mention that the population of earth has increased seven times during the industrial age thanks to the benefits of using fossil fuels. you are a faggot, in other words.

>n economics and business ethics, a coercive monopoly is a business concern that is operating in an environment where competitors are being prevented from entering the field, such that the firm is able to raise prices, and make production decisions, without risk of competition arising to draw away their customers.

literally the definition from the dictionary. peer reviewed enough for ya?

Your argument is, literally, the CEO of non-existence.

I pointed exactly to the problem with climate research. It supports an absurd assertion with data manipulated to enhance the assertion. It doesn't matter though, because our glorious President Trump has withdrawn funding from all climate research, so these assholes will now have to find other things to study.

"The necessary precondition of a coercive monopoly is closed entry—the barring of all competing producers from a given field. This can be accomplished only by an act of government intervention, in the form of special regulations, subsidies, or franchises. Without government assistance, it is impossible for a would-be monopolist to set and maintain his prices and production policies independent of the rest of the economy. For if he attempted to set his prices and production at a level that would yield profits to new entrants significantly above those available in other fields, competitors would be sure to invade his industry."

Antitrust by Alan Greenspan
google.com/search?q=coercive monopoly&oq=coercive monopoly&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Sooo can you finally agree that regulations lead to monopolies or are you just going to be a passive aggressive shitlord?

Around 70% of papers estimate human have a very minimal effect and/or cannot mesure the impact.

What you posted is a combination of the 30% left. Good job. You just explained why pseudoscience is so prevalent amongst retards.

The only person in the thread who doesn't understand what a monopoly is was the guy who claimed that there would be a "green monopoly" beacuse of carbon taxes. Its not clear at all how the definition of a monopoly supports your much more ambitious and specific claims about a specific policy producing monopolies in a specific industrial sector.

He's buddies with Big Oil. Just look at the new secretary of state

>He asked a question

No he didn't. Calling someone anti science isn't a question. It's like me asking you "why are you a faggot?" that's not a question, it's just me calling you a faggot.

green energy is a specific sector that would not even exist if not for regulation, retard. and Obama's aim was certainly to create a green energy monopoly.

No you didn't point to the exact problem with climate research. Climate research is an incredibly diverse field, and the entire notion that there would be an "exact problem" which condemns and damns all of climate research is almost entirely meaningless. Furthermore, you never provided evidence that state of the art climate research is contingent on any of the flaws you allude to.

Imagine if I said, "the problem with climate change denial research is that all of the research contains math errors", this isn't an acceptable argument, its just hearsay.

What exactly is wrong with Green energy

it's expensive and inefficient. millions of people would die if "green" energy was only allowed.

This quote doesn't support your argument, its just another characterization of WHAT a monopoly is. What you have to do to is demonstrate how carbon taxes will lead to the conditions of monopoly.

Furthermore, Alan Greenspan is a well known neoliberal ideologue, and his ideas are rebuked by many economists, which is an extremely divisive field. I advise you to read him with extreme skepticism. For example, many economists would VIGOROUSLY DISAGREE with the statement that:

> [close entry]... can be accomplished only by an act of government intervention, in the form of special regulations, subsidies, or franchises

And the hundreds of thousands that have died from coal and oil suddenly dont register for you

Don't bother citing this, just make it up as you go!

>What you have to do to is demonstrate how carbon taxes will lead to the conditions of monopoly.

And we are back to the beginning:
youtube.com/watch?v=4aTf5gjvNvo

>hundreds of thousands that have died from coal
source?

"Why are you a faggot?" Is definitely a question dude. Are you okay?

To be more precise, its a loaded question, which is what I think many posters actually took issue with. I said as much in the post you quoted, but it seems like you have brain problems

climate research may be a diverse field, but the simple fact is that it all rests on an assertion so ridiculous only the most credulous of fools would believe it...that "scientists" know within a one degree certainty what the avg temp of the whole globe was 136 years ago. it is not more complicated than that. innumerable articles have been written about the manipulation of data used to support this fraud, many be people who formerly supported the idea. so fuck off commie, go turn over some trash cans and sucker punch some women.

> green energy is a specific sector that would not even exist if not for regulation

Citation needed. Actually, I suspect you are right about this, but you idiots have to learn how to think critically and do the work required to be correct about things.

> green energy monopoly

You don't know what a monopoly is. Refer back to my other post:

Alright I have to go take a shit and meet up with some friends, we'll have to continue this debate some other time.

I advise you all to actually read about the matter and read scientific papers about the topic instead of being content to trust the dialogue which occurs in mainstream and popular media, good luck!

I'll bother looking for a source when you post one
>But I posted a textbook cover
Good for you, now an actual source.

>but you idiots have to learn how to think critically

>believes the mainstream shit from al gore.

gday

Climate change is a boogie man. Sure, it is happening, but there have been even more severe climate changes even in human history like the Early Holocene impacts and the Little Ice Age. We may influence climate change, but it is nothing that hasn't happened before.

The left is a religion. Hitler is the devil and racism is the new "evil". If you aren't a good Marxist, you are going to hell...but not hell, it's destroy the planet with climate change. It's a way of enforcing behavior compliance and how people think. It's just a scare tactic. This planet will change it's climate drastically many times again and there is nothing we can do about it. We are not as powerful as we think.

all caps is cruise control for retards, user. i'm not going to argue over what a monopoly is and whether or not Obama and others wish to eliminate the use of fossil fuels, when they have so plainly stated to anyone who would listen that is their intent, and that they intend to do it through govt regulation. ridiculous to argue the existence of the sun.