How to deal with trump supporters?

How do i convince a trump supporter climate science is real?

how do i convince a trump supporter having wall street and goldman sachs influencing the government is bad?

how do i convince a trump supporter escalating in afgahnistan is bad?

Other urls found in this thread:

slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/04/28/donald_trump_now_says_he_s_a_nationalist_and_a_globalist.html
dailywire.com/news/15850/trump-im-nationalist-and-globalist-wait-what-ben-shapiro
slate
archive.is/jMIBj
youtube.com/watch?v=6VUPIX7yEOM
youtube.com/demagogueryv=6VUPIX7yEOM
youtube.com/watch?v=y1MZ8U8C9c8
youtube.com/watch?v=E48QqcTOXeY
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Those digits will help convince people that climate change is real. Do you really need anymore proof than repeating numbers?

You wont because like all liberal ideas its a scam.

SHARIABLUE THREAD

STOP REPLYING

Get some evidence, son

you'd have to talk to him, but then he'd tell you about the globalists' plan to destroy our freedoms, corrupt our culture and eliminate the white race.

That'd mean you'd have hards truth much more important than "global warming" and you don't want that.

Dunno about climate science, but as for wall St and Goldman Sachs, just replace that with Jews/Yids/Kike's etc and we're already on board. Same difference.

Trump: "I'm a nationalist and a globalist. i'm both"

slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/04/28/donald_trump_now_says_he_s_a_nationalist_and_a_globalist.html
dailywire.com/news/15850/trump-im-nationalist-and-globalist-wait-what-ben-shapiro

I'm sorry to break your narrative.

>How do i convince a trump supporter climate science is real?
Stop getting caught lying about it. Ie: Global Warming.
Stop shrieking gayly about bullshit things like the Paris Climate Accord which, when you read the print, is simply about transferring Western wealth into non-white hands.

>how do i convince a trump supporter having wall street and goldman sachs influencing the government is bad?
Stop pretending Jews aren't responsible for both issues.

>how do i convince a trump supporter escalating in afgahnistan is bad?
By going back in time and convincing Obama to pull out rather than keeping us in there and shoveling the problem onto the next president.

Please archive

>slate com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/04/28/donald_trump_now_says_he_s_a_nationalist_and_a_globalist.html
archive.is/jMIBj

I forgot I was under water right now, just like our last decade of predicted super storms where no hurricane made landfall in forida since Wilma.
>Global cooling... I mean global warming... I mean climate change
>Real

If your sources are right, we're all fucked anyway. If your sources are right, bullshit like the Paris accords LITERALLY DOES NOTHING TO AFFECT CATASTROPHIC CLIMATE CHANGE and just gives pajeets and other subhumans first world money for not dumping toxic waste into their own drinking water.

Your side has been wrong about climate change since the fucking 70's, changing their prophesy after every prediction fails to come true. You're fucking doomsday cult tier retards.

I will be honest here.
It's sad to see a human being being this retarded.

I bet you think HAARP is used to control hurricanes and that pizzagate is real

>Nationalist domestically and a globalist for everyone else
That's called imperialism. I'm sorry to break your narrative.

It'll be easier to have a conversation about the changing climate than climate "science," because objectively speaking "climate science" is about as scientific as reading the entrails of a ritually sacrificed pig. The common ground is climate change, the difference in opinion is the degree to which humanity is responsible. Start with where ya'll agree and then work from there. Listen to what people say before you dismiss it.

Business has a right to have a say in government, like it or not, but most Trump supporters would probably agree that there can be "too much" of it, so again focus on common ground.

If we don't escalate in Afghanistan, like it or not, someone else will. That Lithium in their mountains is worth Trillions of dollars to the developing and so-called "Green" Energy Industry. Nevermind the fact that those Poppies are perhaps the most lucrative thing Afghanistan has. It's a clusterfuck and make no mistake about it, but it would probably at this point be better to colonize that land and to begin wiping out their native "culture."

That's not what he said, you are just changing the meaning of what he said so that you can sleep better at night

does it not seem sad to you that you have to come to a site that (seems, at the very least) mostly Trump supporters to ask them things like this? where is your critical thinking and 'education?' If you believe those things are real don't ask Sup Forums how you can convince people, start posting the facts and engage them in a lively debate. It will get you far more then being the hopeless limp dick faggot you are now. You might even learn things.

The entire point of the thread was making it heare, in a place that is full with Trump supporters, because they are the ones who need to be convinced.

and here, have a video explaining why man-made global warming is real.

youtube.com/watch?v=6VUPIX7yEOM

>America First
>We will no longer surrender America to the false song of globalism
>Most recent UN speech
How many suicides has your office had so far shareblue? Is it affecting your shilling efforts? Quality has definitely suffered.

that's just semantics. In any case Trump is just barely aware of the movement he represents.

How do I convince a Hillary Clinton supporter that if you care about the environment you would end immigration and quit feeding the third world???

Do you accuse anyone who shows you opposing views of being a part of "shareblue"? if you had better arguments you wouldn't have to use obvious fallacies to deal with arguments of the opposition.

Now, listen to this: both globalism and nationalism aren't inherently good or bad things. they are umbrella terms that describe a wide arrange of different policy positions.

There are good/bad nationalist policies, and there are good/bad globalist policies.

I will give you an example of a good globalist policy: the way the world handles the internet.

I'm not a clinton supporter, but your argument is fucking retarded.

>How do i convince a trump supporter climate science is real?
Produce empirical evidence. You might have thought that was sensible from Day One, but here we all are, all they years and $1.7Trillion a year later with nothing.

The other two questions are odd as everyone knows and agrees?

>escalating in afgahnistan is bad?
Never needed to be convinced of that.

>having wall street and goldman sachs influencing the government is bad?
You could take that all the way back to Woodrow Wilson, at least. Again: I don't need to be convinced of this.

>climate science is real?
Unlike most of you blueshirts, I can actually read climate models and differential equations. I have a strong physics and chemistry education. And nothing you can say will change the fact that you don't know enough to have your own opinion on climate change.

For christ's sake. Most of those greenpeace idiots can't even draw a line between pollution and climate. And within the climate, they can't draw a line between the natural cycles of the sun/earth, and that fraction of the change that is actually anthropogenic.

TL;DR: Anyone who doesn't know how many genders there are is too god damned stupid to teach anyone anything about objective reality. And as others have mentioned, it doesn't help that they've been trying to ram it down our throats for 30 fucking years and can't keep their own lies straight.

The fact Co2 is a greenhouse gas is a well known physical phenomenon.

The fact humans increased the amount of Co2 in the atmosphere is a well known fact.

That's all there is to global warming. its that simple. i don't know how anyone can be stupid enough to deny this

>How do i convince a trump supporter climate science is real?
plenty of room to debate...so actually debate with them.

>how do i convince a trump supporter having wall street and goldman sachs influencing the government is bad?
at this point it's impossible to convince anyone that the US government isn't bought and sold.
people are too brainwashed to realise it.
>how do i convince a trump supporter escalating in afgahnistan is bad?
no real escalation is occuring but america will have a presence there for the foreseable future.

the answer to your questions can best be summed up to.

>talk to people
>stop trying for post-post-post irony trolling
>most people are not politically aware in any way, you are already on the fringe.

Man-made global warming is a very simple physical phenomenon.

When you increase the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, the atmosphere becomes warmer. its that simple, there is nothing controversial about it except the fact that it harms the profits of the oil industry

Know what's a better greenhouse gas than CO2, CH4?
Water vapor.

Water vapor is >3X better IR absorber than CO2, and there's many millions of times more of it in the atmosphere.

Ban the ocean.

1. Water vapor also creates clouds which actually cool the atmosphere a bit, and it helps negating their greenhouse effect.

2. The problem isn't that there are greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, the problem is that we human release too much of them which ends up making our planet warmer

1. Water vapors also creates clouds which actually cool the atmosphere a bit, and it helps negating it's greenhouse effect.

2. The problem isn't that there are greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, the problem is that we human release too much of them which ends up making our planet warmer

well even if it was a big deal (which it's not) why are you starting with us when we are attacking China, they harm and pollute the earth more largely than any local person, yet you downplay their effects, you're just another dumb anti-White

You are (once again) conflating pollution with climate.

Simple rules doesn't mean simple to predict outcome. For example....

Get a hot cup of coffee and put a few drops of creme in it. The proteins in the creme should denature and coagulate and will eventually find their way to the edge of the mug and stick there by surface tension.

Now: Predict how much protein finds its way to the surface of the mug, versus dissolves into the coffee.

If you can't do that with any reliability, you have NO BUSINESS telling ANYONE how the climate of the whole god damned planet will behave because a cow farted today.

Go study some hard science before you pretend to have a worthwhile opinion in front of people that know better. You'll just embarrass yourself.

Fuck, OP... Even simpler than that. Heat the coffee to 80C, put it on the table and predict how long it will take to cool to 3C above room temperature.

Can you even do that?

I'm willing to bet that you cannot make a prediction that is valid to within 10% of reality, even for a system as simple and short-term as a cooling cup of coffee.
You would have to be able to do this, because this is one term in a differential equation that models global temperature.

Now.... knowing that you cannot do this, ask yourself:
"Whose opinion am I holding, and how did I get programmed with it?"

Because it cannot possibly be your opinion if you don't have the ability to form it yourself.

I'm not conflating pollution with climate, i'm merely demonstrating how simple it is to prove more Co2 in the atmosphere means a warmer planet.

It really is simple physics

How much of the atmosphere is compromised of Co2? You understand that Co2 is an important building block of life and giving governments regulatory control over it is a bad idea? Because I'm gonna tell you right now it's not about saving the planet.

The problem isn't that there is Co2 in the atmosphere, the problem is when there is too much Co2 in there.

youtube.com/demagogueryv=6VUPIX7yEOM

>It really is simple physics

A) Simple physics that you don't understand.

B) Simple physics does not imply simple problem. It only implies simple rules.

C) How about that coffee cup? Show me how you would use these "simple physics" to predict the temperature of a cup of coffee. Walk me through your reasoning process.

But I once saw a tabloid headline a decade ago that said it would be worse than it actually is today.

Debate THAT.

The fact there are variables that make it hard to predict by how much the climate will exactly warm, doesn't mean that the general trend of a warming climate is not predictable.

This is the real reason you are doubtful of climate science: because of your political and cultural philosophy, not because of science.

youtube.com/watch?v=y1MZ8U8C9c8

By going back to plebbit.

what's the difference between Sup Forums and reddit? the images?

Dutroux affair and the franklin scandal pretty much prove elite pedophilia and human compromise is key to the elites.

>The fact there are pedophiles in history means that everyone in the establishment are pedophiles XD checkmate!

Mate, i hate the political establishment, but i also hate dumb conspiracies. get your shit right

Also, more CO2 (not "Co2" which is two atoms of cobalt), will slightly acidify the moisture in the air (carbonate it). That acidifyied water/CO2 complex will fall out of the air sooner than the rest of the water. And that reaction rate (like all reaction rates) increases with both temperature and concentration. So there is a natural limit to the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere (that we are nowhere close to).

You should really be worried about the ocean turning acidic before the temperature. Wiki: "The Great Dying"

But the question remains:
Whose opinion are you holding, and how did you come to acquire it?

Confuses CO2 with cobalt.
Can't predict coffee temperature.

>This is the real reason you are doubtful of climate science: because of your political and cultural philosophy, not because of science.

Psychological projection.
You are ignorant of some fundamental scientific knowledge. THIS is why you can't convince people of your position in a scientific argument.

>I forgot I was under water right now
Not in the predictions, only in shitty films by politicians and Time magazine headlines

>just like our last decade of predicted super storms
Climate models don't predict individual storms

>Global cooling... I mean global warming... I mean climate change
Global cooling, global warming and climate change all mean different things, it isn't anyone else's fault that you don't grasp the difference between 'automobile' and 'truck'

>If your sources are right, we're all fucked anyway.
Nope, research indicates there is still time to change the outcome, but only if emissions are on a constant decline by 2030

>If your sources are right, bullshit like the Paris accords LITERALLY DOES NOTHING TO AFFECT CATASTROPHIC CLIMATE CHANGE
Wrong, if everyone met such an emissions target we would be much better off

>Your side has been wrong about climate change since the fucking 70's,
Global warming from CO2 overcoming global cooling from aerosol pollution has been a concern since at least the 50's, and the idea that CO2 will warm the atmosphere is much older

>changing their prophesy after every prediction fails to come true
You realize Time magazine headlines don't accurately represent the scientific literature, or the debates scientists have, right?

>the difference in opinion is the degree to which humanity is responsible
The carbon cycle flux was about in equilibrium until humans started burning fossil fuel, fossil fuel burning creates a specific isotope of CO2 not produced by most natural carbon sources, the concentration of that isotope is increasing in time with our increase in industry, so either humans are responsible for 100% of the additional carbon in the atmosphere and therefore the warming too (as the temperature is increasing even despite a stable and slightly declining sun luminosity) or some magic creature is adding CO2 to the atmosphere in droves and making it look like we're doing it

dennis hastert
wikileaks
youre a fagg

You kill yourself. You are polluting the environment with your bullshit.

Water vapor's concentration in the air is limited by the temperature of the air itself, CO2 will warm the air a small amount, which leads to the air being able to hold more water vapor, which then increases the temperature a small amount, which then warms the oceans, which can cause the ocean to begin expelling carbon rather than absorbing it and also increases the rate at which water evaporates, which adds more CO2 to the atmosphere, which raises temperatures, which allows more water vapor to be in the air, do you understand?

>some magic creature is adding CO2 to the atmosphere in droves and making it look like we're doing it
what was the highest concentration of CO2 in the earths 4 billion year history

The big difference is.... here I usually don't have listen to you parrot the same bullshit the guy before you was parroting the same bullshit the entire media parrots, the same bullshit we've all been listening to for 30+ years

all of that sounds good for agriculture

You shove this in their face and realize you yourself are wrong. Like most libtards.

>hard to predict
Hard to predict 5 days out. Impossible to predict 100 years out.
Espescially when you don't know how many factors contribute to the temperature.

Did you think to look at the history of the Martian temperature readings our probes have been collecting for the past several decades?
No.... you didn't think to look at that.

How about the fact that there are natural nuclear reactors in the earth's care that also heat us up? Nope... you didn't think about that either.

Nor the losss of atmosphere due to solar wind over a 100 year period. Nor the average effect of the 11-year solar cycle at replinishing the lost atmosphere.

All you can think to think about is albedo from cloud cover and IR absorption of a mediocre greenhouse gas. You don't even know the things you don't know.

Fuck off or learn something. Don't keep arguing as if my blows didn't land. You look foolish.

We understand but the only solution is to wait for renewable energy to become economically viable.

Trumptards will never learn.

youtube.com/watch?v=E48QqcTOXeY

>It's 2030 now and always has been!
>Ignore the last 40 years of predictions saying that we'd be completely fucked in 10 years... Every ten years
>Those 3 terms are different things! Sure we claimed each was happening, but climate change is definitely happening now even though global warming didn't...

To start, you should ask How you convinced yourself of such claims.

>How do i convince a trump supporter climate science is real?
link flat-eartherism with climate skepticism. Both are conspiracies promulgated by NASA so it's actually fairly logical. You may only convince him of flat eartherism, but at least no one will listen to him.
Or, point out that the only reason to pull such a scam is as part of a massive ritual to stave off the ice age that we're due for and that he should be lending his faith to the effort if he doesn't want another ice age.

>how do i convince a trump supporter having wall street and goldman sachs influencing the government is bad?
Point out that Trump said this repeatedly

>how do i convince a trump supporter escalating in Afgahnistan is bad?
Ask why it's better than escalating in Syria, or why he wants to open a second front before dealing with Best Korea.

>a specific isotope of CO2
That makes no sense. There is no "isotope" of a molecule. Isotope is a nuclear property. You might have meant "allotrope" or "isomer", but that also wouldn't be correct because CO2 is so simple that it doesn't admit those possibilities. CO2 is CO2, and should have the same isotope balance of C and O as the input, and will not change based on how it is produced.

For the first one just show sources.

For the second you'll need to do some serious mental gymnastics, seeing as neoliberals don't actually utilize economic theory.

For the third you'd have to consider a few thousand soldiers a noteworthy escalation.

lol those people are morons who hate facts how the fuck can you argue with that

>people who ask for evidence are people who hate facts

>How do i convince a trump supporter climate science is real?
You lurk more
>how do i convince a trump supporter having wall street and goldman sachs influencing the government is bad?
Preaching to the choir
>how do i convince a trump supporter escalating in afgahnistan is bad?
You really don't have to but let us see what this administration can do. Not holding my breath

>Water vapor's concentration in the air is limited by the temperature of the air itself
Yes. The air is the solvent.

>CO2 will warm the air a small amount
No. Solar radiation might do that. But the CO2 is the temperature it is when it was produced. The surface area of a reaction carried out in a fluid (NOT a liquid, which is a fluid) is infinite. So the CO2 will almost immediately reach the temperature of the air.

>air being able to hold more water vapor
No. Because of Le Chatlier's principle, the acidified air falls out of solution. Removing both one CO2, and one water molecule.

>ocean to begin expelling carbon
Also, no. If the ocean warms up, it will increase it's capacity for basically any given solute. And that means CO2. Haven't you ever frozen a bottle of soda water?

>do you understand?
Do you?

How do I convince you that the government manipulates climate data for control?

How do I convince you that the true corrupt government is the government you are shilling for?

How do I convince you that we are going to defeat ISIS thoroughly and leave Afghanistan?

I voted for Obama twice, didn't vote for Trump. I am a huge Trump supporter now however.

MAGA. Wake up soon!

NOBODY trusts Liberals anymore, and you have noone to blame but yourselves. Enjoy!

Step one: Kill yourself.

1: I doubt that he believes climate science isn't real. What he doubts is the veracity of its conclusions.

2: By asking him when in the history of anything it has been a good idea to leave the foxes in charge of guarding the hen house.

3: By asking him when in the history of anything anyone invading and/or occupying Afghanistan has resulting in anything that could be construed as a positive result for the occupier.

Appearantly by numerous leftie (((sources))), you can not trust science that was studied and conducted by white men. Which would include climate change...

Good luck!

You guys are on the short end of a debate in which the threshold of required knowledge is very high. I know more than you do. I am actually a scientist, Trump supporter, and I *know* on direct evidential grounds that your side has been faking data, making bullshit claims, and trying to tax everyone based on lies and over-simplifications.

Change your fucking minds. Because of this thread, you can't be ignorant on accident anymore. You can only be stupid on purpose.