Want to vote Trump

>Want to vote Trump
>Human contributed climate change denier
Why can't there be conservative candidates who realize we're fucking shit up and need to stop?

Other urls found in this thread:

edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview.php?v=CO2ts_pc1990-2014
forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2015/05/19/updated-nasa-data-polar-ice-not-receding-after-all/#57a26b4a32da
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>we're fucking shit up and need to stop
Got a source for that claim?

You really think humans are the only reason climate change is happening?

Science.

Nope, but we're causing chaos with our pollution.

the USA could stop polluting 100% tomorrow and it wouldn't make a difference because there are 56 billion chinks, indians and africans who are content to breed and ruin on a scale that outstrips the rest of humanity

until that changes, fuck off

You really think the U.S. Is the main cause??

Go on.

I feel Climate Change is big enough to declare war with China over to get them to stop polluting.

What chaos and what pollution?

I'm not an autismo who collects .edu/.gov links

So basically you're a giant idiot

True, you're just an autismo who makes moronic statements without a shred of evidence for them.

If you're not willing to support your claims then you have no business making them.

Yeah, thats what I thought.

it doesn't matter if AGW is real or not. It'll never be fixed as long as it can be used to shame first world countries into destroying their economies

Kek demands it
Trump/Sanders 2016
Trumps get wall, berns get college.
America First

Even if you believe in that garbage, Trump will do by far the most to fix it.
90%+ of the pollution causing the global warming is coming from China manufacturing shitty plastic because of our free trade deals with them, Trump will put a stop to it.

Sup Forums doesn't believe in reality. They deny historical events that actually happened. They deny science constantly (climate change, race, etc). They're just delusional. Basically, if reality hurts their feelings then they try to combat that reality by denying it or saying it's a conspiracy .

>thinking we can stop CO2 emissions
Wew lad just accept it. Wed live in an age were everyone uses massive amounts energy. There's no way to stop emitting shit.

Actually, Trump is still the best choice for AGW alarmists because he's the only pro-nuclear candidate.

>"We are fucking shit up and need to stop!"
>What shit and what needs to stop?
>"Idk do I seem like a faggot who has links?"

>CO2 is bad
Kill yourself then, you are polluting the planet by breathing.

Fresh off the boat from Reddit, kid?

Nowhere did I say that, but okay.

False. Chine only produces about 30% of emissions and the West produces the most emissions per capita by far.

Not to forget that he is against net neutrality and doesn't speak very highly of people like Edward Snowden to say it in a nice way.

He's an idiot but i guess an idiot is better than a snake.

I agree with Trump on a lot but this is just really fucking important.

I dunno why most conservatives don't believe it.

Except clean energy is growing crazy fast(And Nuclear is clean)

Fusion is FINALLY making real strides and would be 10 years away if given budget and superior to fission in every single way.

Even in the worst case fusion meltdowns are cleaner.

Solar panel efficiency is becoming pretty good and affordable.

Fully electric cars will be doing 400-500 miles a charge by 2020 and with tax credits you can get some electric cars as cheap as 15k new.

Wind power is seeing good use too.

Yeah anti net neutrality is shitty, also Snowden is a great guy.

But he's anti TPP at least and the only conservative who remotely wants to end tax evasion.

Shame perfect candidates don't exist.

It wouldn't matter because there is like 2 billion ching chongs polluting Shit with factories and another 1.5 billion streetshitters being filthy, unhygienic animals. FUCK climate change, we need to anschluss india and china

Most of the renewable energy are all memes. Wind is complete shit and requires massive amounts of land. Solar is fine for little things, but it cannot replace or meaningfully supplement massive power plants. Both wind and solar are also highly constrained by geography. Electric cars can't replace massive trucks going back and forth across the US 24/7.

Nuclear is the only viable energy source that can meaningfully replace fossil fuels right now and for the foreseeable future. Liberals and leftists all tend to be anti-nuclear for whatever dumb reason, so they have no solutions. Trump is actually the only pro-nuclear candidate, so you don't have a choice if you are a AGW alarmist.

>muh fusion is only 10 years away
That's what they've been saying for decades. I'll believe it win it happens.

>That's what they've been saying for decades.
Except we finally had a working fusion reactor, although they shut it off after seconds because it was a proof of concecpt shitty prototype.

If scientists had more money to make more prototypes then progress woudl speed up.

This project was 2bn alone.

Also solar roofs+batteries supply enough power for most people.

Wind+Solar+Nuclear working in conjunction are adequate to power everything besides trucks are there isn't battery tech good enough for those to go electric yet.

>tfw I am

>>Human contributed climate change denier
climate change doomsday is a meme

The candidate you're describing is Ron Paul.

You could have stopped this :(

China already produces more CO2 emissions per capita than the EU.
edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview.php?v=CO2ts_pc1990-2014

Americans are in their own class of fat gluttonous pollution, it's not fair to compare them to the rest of the West.

Part of it is how spread out we are. Europeans can bike to work/take public transportation. Outside of our major cities, most of us drive to work. Many of our suburbs are 30-90 minutes away from our jobs.

Even ignoring the fact that CO2 reduction is about the highest cost to benefit geoengineering method imaginable (horribly weakening plant growth), human civilization has done best in warm periods like the Roman Warm Period, the Holocene Climate Optimum, and so on. We don't need the planet to be colder, though it may become so anyway.

A lot of the top Russian scientists find history to be more consistent with cosmoclimatological theory, not the CO2 uber all of Greenpeace-leaning "scientist"-activists in the Anglosphere. The rapid diminishing returns of CO2 wouldn't do jack against the actual effects of a soon-upcoming Grand Minimum period of solar activity, once you understand how the prime modulator of climate change on relevant timescales is actually vast albedo change (by cloud cover and ice sheet variation) in a system dominated by negative feedback.

This is more the real physical threat: www.iceagenow.info

>Also solar roofs+batteries supply enough power for most people.

Who are most people? Do you think the majority of people live in a place where solar panels alone will suffice?

Yeah, I know, just shitposting.

Though there is an element of driving big fuckoff trucks to the goddamn gym.

A shitty prototype is not "only 10 years away." I know fusion reactors exist; we've had them for decades. They are all inefficient. I'll believe fusion when it happens.

>Also solar roofs+batteries supply enough power for most people.
Yes you can slap a shitload of solar panels, but it costs way too much money and can't compete with traditional fossil fuels. Also solar panels lose efficiency as time goes on, so you would have to replace them. It's a money sink.

>Wind+Solar+Nuclear working in conjunction are adequate to power everything besides trucks are there isn't battery tech good enough for those to go electric yet.
Nuclear could replace our power planets, but electric cars won't cut that much into our transportation industry. Most of the emissions are from planes going back and forth and trucks driving all over the place. It's possible to cut back on co2 emissions, but you can't get rid of it any time soon.

forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2015/05/19/updated-nasa-data-polar-ice-not-receding-after-all/#57a26b4a32da

Oh god damn that burn though.

I really don't get the fetish some burgers have with trucks. It's a waste of money. We also have a surprising number of motorcyclists that drive around for no apparent purpose, though their mpg is probably good enough it doesn't change much.

>it costs way too much money and can't compete with traditional fossil fuels.
Maybe not quite yet, but very soon.

That's not what he said.


Shills get out!

REEEEEEEEEEEE

Solar would be a really nice auxillary power source though if more buildings had them installed in the most effective areas. On top of skyscrapers, and mostly on buildings in the south of US for example. The equator.

This is probably an optimistic estimate. Solar by its nature is unstable since something as simple as a series of cloudy days could threaten your energy production.

>Solar would be a really nice auxillary power source though if more buildings had them installed in the most effective areas.
Well maybe.

Believe it or not the amazon forest contributes more co2 than the US
Plastics and hormones are worse and it´s just the tip of the iceberg

This is cost per watt on paper, installation costs are not included, neither is the fact that solar by nature doesn't run all the time, only during the day. Which is why solar pv isn't already clearly better than everything. I think it's at or very near grid parity in California though - maybe including subsidies, maybe not. Not sure.

Luckily, energy storage technology is also improving atm. Maybe it will end up being economical to store electricity overnight rather than buying natural gas or coal to burn (only plebs use oil in power stations these days).