Justify this Sup Forums

Justify this Sup Forums

Other urls found in this thread:

skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

She has a degree in Humanities and Religion, and attended a doctoral program focusing on East Asian religion.

>prefect choice

>implying CO2 isn't good for humanity

Sure OP. You're a fag who doesn't understand the first thing about CO2. Try reading a book. "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Environmentalism and Global Warming" is a good quick read. Really think you should read this.

Earth is carbon starved right now

Increased Co2 IS GOOD.

Does anyone actually know what the effects will be?

why do you believe that support of a president has to be ALL or nothing? do you think that everyone who voted for Obama approved of 100% of his decisions?

Of course this lady is fucking retarded. Trump is setting environmentalism back 30 years. But is he still better than the alternative? Fucking yes!

And is more CO2 going to "destroy the planet"? No, that's pure retardation. The planet will be fine. Life will always adapt. The Earth had a far higher CO2 level before humans came around. The higher CO2 level will cause massive losses to human life and civilization, but who gives a fuck? All is temporary.

How do you know this is good? The last time we saw a marked decline in CO2 was over a MILLION years ago, according to your graph. In what ways will it be better for humanity?

>renewable energy is parasitic
Well, it is. They've been dumping public funds into it for how long and we really aren't any closer to having it reliably fill our energy needs. I think renewable sources can someday satisfy our needs, but not while energy companies are on the dole. Nothing ever got efficient because of government intervention.

That said, oil company subsidies need to go too.

So what OP? I'm not defending this retarded woman, but how is it any different than any of the retarded appointments that Trump has made in terms of environmental regulations?

I've known this was what would happen since before Trump was elected, this is just one other reason why I never supported him and would never support him, he has surrounded himself with "yes men" on scientific issues that he's already critically uninformed about, or willfully ignorant. This is a man that was meeting with William Happer, a known climate change denier and all around quack before he was sworn in. It's the same man that nominated Scott Pruitt, a man who wants to dismantle the EPA to lead its organization. The same man who wants to eliminate the NASA Earth Sciences division and halt all climate research at NASA by nominating Jim Bridenstine, a politician with no science background to head the organization, and not surprisingly also a climate change contrarian. Trump's administration is littered with people like this, again he's surrounded himself with only those who will confirm his own biases and satisfy his base, instead of challenging him.

It was pretty clear to me, and essentially anyone else that followed Trump's campaign before the election that this would happen, it's not surprising in the slightest. People on Sup Forums will defend it because they have cognitive dissonance, and are afraid of skepticism due to the cult of personality around Trump that's been built up on this board. Too afraid / too ignorant to be critical of Trump.

Same old tired meme, it's hilarious how garbage like this refuses to die. Increased CO2 is only "good" if all the other impacts of a rapid increase in CO2 are negated, such as increased atmospheric and ocean temperatures, increased droughts, etc. It's not good in any way for human civilization that is overwhelmingly coastal-based, or our agriculture, or aquaculture, or for sea life, or for all the other stuff I could ramble on about.

Oh, and I just remembered another Trump blunder in his cabinet, Rick Perry, who he appointed to head the DoE, who didn't even know what the DoE was or what they did before he was appointed. Previous administrators of the DoE have been nuclear physcisists and nobel prize winners, now we have Rick Perry, the guy who got a D in a class called "meats," (yes, it's true, look it up) and overall a mediocre college student overall who barely passed his classes with Cs. He doesn't even have a solid science background at all, while previous administrators of the DoE were PhDs in physics. This is the type of expertise Trump wants in charge of our nuclear weapons and physics research.

t. Liberal brainlet

You are a child. the real world doesn't care if you got a C in fucking class you pleb

Why is everything paraphrased rather than using direct quotes?

Nice response leaf, the real brainlet is someone like you who's too dumb to be an actual skeptic when it comes to climate change. Perhaps if you actually did a little bit of research yourself, read some scientific literature on the subject, you would actually understand it instead of being a brainlet yourself.

Yep, I guess the whole concept of meritocracy is dead then right? Oh wait, I thought you guys liked meritocracy? What is it then? Do you want the person who is most qualified for a job, or do you want to make concessions to get the diversity hire (in this case Perry would act as the diversity hire if you don't understand brainlet).

Because having experts in their field heading organizations focused on their expertise is totally bizarre, right? Let's just fill all our scientific organizations with people without any scientific background, that should work out really well.

Let me spell it out for you. The DoE went from being administrated by Ernest Moniz, a nuclear physicist with a PhD from Stanford, headed the physics department at MiT, and previously worked at the DoE as an undersecretary before being appointed to head it.

Before Moniz, Steven Chu was the secretary of Energy. Has a Ms and PhD in physics. He did research at Stanford, winning the nobel prize in physics in 1997.

Now we have Rick Perry, a man who's transcript is pictured above. A man who graduated with a BS in Animal Science, and never took his education further. He never conducted any scientific research in his life, obviously has no background in physics, and is now heading a department that engages in that type of research.

...

...

We are about to enter a new Ice Age, it's several thousand years overdue in fact.

You are putting too much value on worthless indoctrination degrees

>he thinks patterns repeat forever unchanged
>he thinks there's evidence of another ice age beginning
>he thinks

>reddit spacing
Brainlet confirmed. Most notable (((scientists))) these days are bleeding-heart leftists so I can see why you would suck their dick so hard. Rick Perry's job is to thin out the apparatus itself seeing as it's become a mountainous obstacle blocking the white working class from moving up.

We're in an ice age you dumb fuck, it never ended, there's still ice at the poles, and no, we're not "about to enter another ice age" implying that the last glacial maximum is going to repeat itself, that is not happening anytime soon, and in fact mankind's actions have likely prevented that from occurring for quite some time because of the amount of CO2 that has been emitted and continues to be emitted every year.

Global warming itself won't even completely exit us from this current ice age, as it won't ever be warm enough at both poles throughout the year to completely melt all of the ice, even centuries from now, but enough ice will likely melt in the coming centuries to cause significant changes in sea level, combined with the thermal expansion of the oceans which has caused most of the SLR we've observed thus far.

Yep, using different paragraphs to differentiate different parts of the post is most definitely "reddit spacing." Considering I've been using Sup Forums longer than Reddit has existed you have no argument. I guarantee the vast amount of Trumpfags on this board are recent immigrants to Sup Forums, and most of you are underage phoneposter faggots.

Damn, now I want to see trump'a grades. He made a big fuss about Kenyan obamas but never showed the taxes or his grades.

That's because Trump played everyone with that tax return shit, he just waited and waited, never did it and people just forgot. It's amazing how little people's memory is when it comes to stuff like that. But remember, he has a really good brain so it's all ok.

Those degrees are so useless you'd think that the left would love her.

DoE main job is maintaing our nukes. Like 98% of it’s budget. Did someone drop you on your head as a child ?

I literally don't give a fuck about that department, and it probably shouldn't be funded by my tax dollars anyways.

Clearly he's just making a mockery of it to trigger you plebeian libtards

It is humanity's purpose to accelerate the consumption of all natural resources on this planet.

We are not designed to live in harmony with nature. If we were, we would. Instead we are parasitic.

Check your human privilege.

More CO2 *is* better. It's plant food. Literally everything we eat comes fundamentally from photosynthesis.

Without CO2 in the atmosphere, we're all dead.

Humanity is God/nature's way of returning precious carbon into the biosphere.

Seems pretty good to me.

Check, and mate, faggot.

She could favor setting minimum standards for children's consumption of arsenic, and we'd still be way, way better off.

>More CO2 *is* better. It's plant food.
Wrong on both accounts. Think of it this way, you have a plant in a greenhouse, it has ample nutrition in the form of gardening soil, and ample water supply. You increase the CO2 and yes the plants often favor better (but not every plant does in this scenario even, as it's variable depending on the type of plant).

Take the same plant, limit the amount of water it receives (from droughts), or lower the amount of nutrients it receives from its soil (desertification from climate change) and what happens? Do the plants thrive in all conditions in which CO2 is increased? The answer is no they don't, and increased atmospheric CO2 does not have all positive implications for plant life on Earth, but that's besides the point anyways because more atmospheric CO2 is detrimental to human civilization in so many ways that I've already gone over earlier in the thread, most importantly thermal expansion of SL due to atmospheric temperature and oceanic temperature increases, which also causes increased extreme weather phenomena. Then you have increased droughts in regions of the Earth that are already drought prone due to increased atmospheric temperatures. Depletion of fisheries due to overfishing combined with reduction in coral reefs due to ocean warming also due to increased atmospheric CO2, combined with ocean acidification from the increased formation of carbonic acid in ocean waters due to increased CO2 dissolved in water.

Read more on the subject here:
skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm

>Humanity is God/nature's way of returning precious carbon into the biosphere.
You're clearly a brainlet if you "believe" this garbage. The Earth doesn't need humanity's aid in placing CO2 into the atmosphere you stupid fuck, you know nothing about the geological history of the Earth if you believe this garbage. Humanity has existed for a negligible time in that history (4.6 billion years).