Trump doesn't believe in climate change

>Trump doesn't believe in climate change
>Pence doesn't believe in evolution
How can Sup Forums vote fot these idiot?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol
wearechange.org/hillary-clinton-speaks-dead-therapeutic-release/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Two bad ideas < Lots of good ideas

Who cares, Trump/Pence can't do anything wrong.

most people don't like voting for criminals

Trump does believe in climate change but Republicans will never admit it because then they would have to agree with abortion which they will not do for religious reasons. The only solution to climate change is reducing the population. 150 years ago the population was 1.3 billion. The population now is 7 billion due to the invention of electricity. The planet can only sustain 5 billion.

m-my god

it burn my eyes

If you want to fix climate change kill yourself along with 2 billion Muslims.

Because neither of those issues are important.

You forgot to mention abortion. Abortion will never be illegal. Republicans claim to be against it but both sides know that abortion is how the government controls the population of blacks

> He seriously believes this.
> mfw

>Hillary is literally a witch who uses the souls of children to get demonic powers and energy
Trump and Pence all day, everyday famalan

QUADS CONFIRMED

They just say that to get votes from the huge amount of wild cavemen living in the USA.

Record C O R R E C T E D

Which part don't you believe that the population is 7 billion? Or that planet only supports 5 billion? Or that population was only 1.3 billion 150 years ago? Dumb fucking retard

They can at least use spell check
>fot

KEK

Muh 7 gorrilion

This

fpbp

Also, so what? Is trump going to fix global warming in the 4 years he's in office? Is Pence going to outlaw evolution? Nonsense. Vote on shit that matters.

Well neither of these things have been scientifically proven anyways

Being a creationist should be illegal. No one that delusional is fit for public office.

> The only solution to climate change is reducing the population.

The only solution to climate change is absolutely nothing at all. The climate has changed many times before for as long as the planet has existed and will continue to change regardless of how many people exist. But go ahead and kill yourself if you think the Earth can't sustain you. lol

>delusional people support delusional men
Really makes you think...

Pence looks like a fucking alien

>fot these idiot
How can you post with that grammar?

C H E C K E D
H
E
C
K
E
D

not saying I don't believe in either of these things, but both climate change and evolution are theories. Sure, people may present a lot of evidence for both, but If you've ever studied science you know that a theory can never be proven, only disproven.

They are honest idiots atleast, they are TRUE and speaking without teleprompter. Clinton and kaine on the other hand....

t. voted Merkel and let in refugees

You're not in position to shit talk anyone for electing whoever, Hans

Gravity's a theory too, but I'd like to see you vote for a candidate who says gravity is a hoax

But creationism cares about everybody you a thirst nobody. There will never be an atheist in the White House unless he lies and then reveals it

>File no longer exists (404).
What did he mean by this?

>Or that planet only supports 5 billion
Seems to be supporting more than that this very moment.

r u ok?

Climate change is a Jewish made meme

If I agreed with their political policies, I wouldn't care.

Not at anything approaching a decent standard of living.

NA POLITICS LUL "IMA VOTE FOR TRUMP HOLD ON LEMME GET BURGER" TRUMP SUPPORTERS LUL

>naive people support a corrupt criminal warmonger
Makes you think even harder...

I can sustain my self Euro Spic. I have a farm. If a solar flare occurs and knocks out the power grid for two years or so I will live. However half the planets population will die considering that the only reason our population has grown so much in the last 150 years is because of antibiotics and electricity which has allowed us to grow food at an unprecedented level

Explain how Gravity is a theory again Cacuck?

because the planet and atmosphere were built by carbon monoxide, and i didnt evolve from a plains roaming nigger skeleton they cant provide proof of

EU LOGIC LUL

The global standard of living has never been higher. The extreme poverty rate has never been lower.

No man! God will end your life when he chooses!

Trump dosen't believe in the ((Climate Change)) in which tons of shady people saying we are all going to die if we don't give them political power to change shit.

And Pence is religious, so denying something that goes against his beliefs is okay

Antifcuck get off the internet and blow Ahmed.

Adding to this, climate change IS a hoax because when the apocalypse comes, the earth with be on fire

The same people don't like the idea of spirit cooking

Here let me control the thread as usual, it's not a hoax per se, it is getting warmer..?....?.. We have to make it snow pol! Make it fucking snow!

Well, (((they))) actually want it down to just 500million, see pic related, Georgia Guidestones

I call English

Dude wtf??? That's my whole fucking point. We are supporting 7 billion but people are starving and drinking shit water. If we lost electricity world wide the most the planet can feed is estimated to be around five billion. Did you not see my other post how the worlds pop. Has grown from 1.3 to 7 billion in 150 years? It's unnatural for any animal to grow that fast. We need to eliminate 2 billion people and it just so happens that the Muslim population accounts for about 2 billion

Nature is unpredictable. If a meteor strikes your farm or whatever you're fucked as well. Then what are you gonna do about it? Nothing.

> However half the planets population will die considering that the only reason our population has grown so much in the last 150 years is because of antibiotics and electricity which has allowed us to grow food at an unprecedented level
Yeah, so how is that the earth can only sustain 5 billion people according to you if we are producing more food than we can consume at the moment? If the system collapses sure, a lot of people will die, but surely you don't expect everyone to go back to subsistence farming, do you?

Easy: their opponent is literal satan incarnate.

Dude how the hell are we putting millions of dollars of tax money into CLIMATE CHANGE. They're lying to us pol. You think they're putting that money into wind turbines? No, they're giving the money to kamakazis

The Creation Answers Book: David Catchpoole
Taking Back Astronomy: The Heavens Declare Creation: Dr. Jason Lisle
Ultimate Proof of Creation: Dr. Jason Lisle
Learn the Bible in 24 Hours: Chuck Missler
Has God Spoken: A.O. Schnabel
The Genesis Flood 50th Anniversary Edition: by John C. Whitcomb (Author), Henry M. Morris (Author)
Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome: Dr. J. C. Sanford

>It's unnatural for any animal to grow that fast
Name another animal that had an industrial revolution, and then you might have a useful comparison.

9/11 kamakazis

My point is that without electricity the planet can feed about 5 billion which would lead one to believe that anything above 5 billion is stressing the planets natural resources. Mother Nature will react and cure itself of the Paris ire that infects it which happens to be us. No we don't have to be farmers. We have to eliminate 2 billion people( the Muslim population happens to be 2 billion) and then the 5 billion of us that are left can do whatever the fuck we want within reason as long as we don't completely trash everything. We can all drive fuckin Hummers if we want and it probably wouldn't be that big of a deal

Clinton doesn't believe in justice.

Parisite not Paris. Fuckin autocorrect

same thing really

Do you even have a point or opinion or are you just arguing with whatever I say???

> We have to eliminate 2 billion people

Yeah, good luck with that. lol

Look, I get what you're saying. Obviously without modern advancements in agriculture things would be a lot tougher for us, but we have the capacity today to effectively produce a lot of food. If shit hits the fan and some natural catastrophe or economic apocalypse destroys this, of course a lot of people will suffer and die. But we can't kill two billion people, ffs. Let Mother Nature do what she needs to do.

and this effects their ability to lead... how?

Ron Paul didn't believe in evolution either.

...

>If a meteor strikes your farm or whatever you're fucked as well
never forget

Sup Forums is a cesspool of larping hivemind retards played out as "opposition" or yet another group of useful idiots. Trump vs Clinton is just distraction.

My point is that you're completely wrong, though apparently I didn't spell it out clearly enough for you.

The population has increased by 2 billion since 1990, and there are 1 billion fewer people living in extreme poverty. If you're going to claim that the planet "can't support" 7 billion people, you should be providing evidence that living conditions are getting worse or are unsustainable with current technological trends. On the contrary, conditions are getting better, with agriculture continuing to become more efficient at a faster pace than population growth, to the extent that richer nations, such as the U.S., can afford to allow more land to revert to nature.

This was what made me reluctant to vote Republican. Then I realized that there's basically nothing they can do to influence either issue. Almost everyone knows evolution is true. I think Trump believes in climate change but jokingly said it was a hoax. Either way as long as we strive for a clean environment that solves most of the drivers if accelerating climate change.

It's a fair question though.

my god this is beautiful tb᠎h f᠎am

Nice of you to bring that up.

That gives me the chance to post to take the fangs out of one of Trump's most controversial points.

Here it goes, a series of posts I prepared about that (and other) Trump statements about global warming.

It will be long by twitter standards and even by Sup Forums standards but you guys are intelligent and can handle a longish read every now and then.

What Trump says:

> the concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive

What some articles and his detractors says Trump said:

> Trump has called climate change a hoax, claiming that China created the myth in order to surpass the U.S. economically.

Saying the ***concept of*** (emphasis 1) ***global warming*** (emphasis 2) is a tool to benefits the Chinese in detriment of the U.S. Is not calling "climate change" a hoax.

This started as a short text that nobody probably will read and became a full blown essay about the subject. I apologise for that and I'll post anyway, it is a small dose red pill and may help people to understand better the objections a part of the right leaning individuals and organisations have with regards to the whole climate change debate.

The summary is: THE CLIMATE CHANGE DEBATE WAS COOPTED BY THE LEFT AND BY THE GLOBALISTS IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION ON A GLOBAL SCALE, BENEFITING CHINA AND HURTING THE U.S., EUROPE AND OTHER DEVELOPED COUNTRIES.

This post will be divided in parts so, before resorting to the leftists and globalists tactic to dismiss my point without analysing the whole reasoning try to read it.

(continues)

Neither view point affects my daily life.

>climate change

The crux of the discussion is the "anthropogenic" (man made) cause of climate change. Some clarifications:

> climate is not weather. Weather is local and have a short cycle, climate is global and have a long cycle
> there are plenty of studies and a clear explanation linking certain gases to the greenhouse effect and a potential global climate change

Now, and here are the points of debate:

> 1. is the planet going to a process of climate change?
> 2. if so, is it natural and part of a natural cycle or is it man made?
> 3. also, if so is it detrimental or beneficial?
> 4. assuming it is predominantly man made, is it possible to reverse it?
> 5. also, if so, at what cost?

Point 1 is more or less uncontroversial. People that don't understand the whole problem and argue on "gut feeling" tend to argue against this point to base their objection to what I'll argue about later. That's is a mistake because data points to the reality of climate change and arguing against it is pointless.

Point 2 is arguable but, just like point 1 there is a very good collection of data that points that man made greenhouse emission is a powerful contributor to the current global climate change pattern.

Point 3: this is the point ideology takes over science. "Scientific consensus" (an oxymoron, science should never be an appeal to authority, it should always stand on its own merits) not only states categorically that climate change is predominantly man made but also for years it predicts its catastrophic consequences on short and long term unless it is reversed.

That brings us to point 4: assuming all the previous points to be as the "scientific consensus" says, is it reversible? If so, how and (point 5) at what cost?

(continues)

christ-chan is best chan.

"We" don't have to kill anyone. The Military will once the war starts and we nuke Iran and the rest of the Middle East. After that we just have to sustain around 5 billion at it will be one big fuckin party. Hopefully Hollywood gets nuked to

Are they not allowed to have their own opinions?

If global warming is as bad as the Left claims, we should be destroying China, not working more trade deals so they increase their pollution.

As far as evolution. To each their own. Im a man of faith and wrestle with the idea myself.

In America, people are allowed to have their own opinions.

>"""believing""" in either of those things
good goy

You're FBI

Here comes the big problem, the one brought up (as succinctly as a 140 characters can fit) by Trump and by many in the "climate change skeptic” camp (something today so vilified by the media and by the left it is compared to flat earth proponents):

*** the main solution proposed by the left is to force (through government regulation) the reduction of emission of greenhouse gases by the industry. ***

They propose two main ways to achieve that:

> 1. To put a hard limit in the amount of greenhouses can be emitted, with hefty punishment for non compliance

> 2. To create the concept of "carbon credits", where the amount of greenhouse gases one can emit is allocated by the government, and companies that emit less than its share can sell its surplus to entities that want to emit more than its share.

This causes an obvious problem: there is no incentive to apply these measures at a national level, companies would simply move to other countries without the restrictions.

To solve that for many years countries (spearheaded by the left) meet trying to agree on a common framework to reduce emissions globally and at the same time. These talks (look up Kyoto protocol) happened on *** the Bill Clinton administration *** and the agreed upon measures are very damaging for U.S. industry, to the direct benefit of China.

> The Protocol is based on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities: it puts the obligation to reduce current emissions on developed countries on the basis that they are historically responsible for the current levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol

In short: developed countries (US, Canada, Europe, Australia) must reduce emissions while underdeveloped countries (like China, India, Brazil) gets a pass.

(continues)

>Le climate change meme
Trumps policies would actually help the environment. Industry would.move out of China and stuff where major environmental goes unpunished and move to the US which has some regulations

*Satanic criminals

parasite not paris-ite to fix auto correct for you.

Because they believe in America, and that's all that we need

MAGA

Go back to Sweden

It is clearly detrimental to the U.S. (and to Europe) and it clearly benefits China even if the later economy (and consequently industrial output and emissions) will reach and maybe surpass the former in the next decades.

Even conceding all the 4 points enumerated above (it's happening, it's man made, it's detrimental and it can be reversed) the solution proposed by the left and so detrimental to the national interests of the U.S. that no national politician in its right mind would consider supporting and implementing.

So, why does the left tries to push it with all their influence (monetary, political and mediatic)?

The answer, my friends, is because the whole proposal is an attempt to implement wealth redistribution, at a global level, from the richer countries to the poorer ones.

By allocating carbon credits not In the proportion of current industrial output but based on the fact that "on the basis that they [the developed countries] are historically responsible for the current levels of greenhouse gases" the left creates the perfect mechanism to force richer countries, if they want to keep at their current levels of productivity, to buy these "carbon credits" from poorer countries.

WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION. At a global level. From the developed countries and productive countries to the underdeveloped ones.

With China counting as underdeveloped.

Trump 140 characters can explain his objection to it at length, even these 7000 or so cannot fully. But, and that’s where people underestimate him, he have closed deals in most countries in the world and is certainly well versed in the art of spotting a bad deal.

I hope it helped you guys to understand well how the proposed remedy to "global warming" is a ploy to benefit China and other underdeveloped countries in detriment to the interest of the United States and other developed and productive ones.

>>>r/atheism

>having an opinion should be illegal. No one who opposes my beliefs is fit for public office

tl;dr:

Even if one concede the main points of the globalist left that climate change is man made, detrimental and reversible the left is using it to implement socialism at a global level.

It is the old trick:

> You deny global warming? You are no better than flat earth proponents
> OK, you accept it? Then the only solution is our solution
> It involves making US and Europe paying poor countries in order to keep industrial production
> Wait, that's wealth redistribution? Pure coincidence!

Easy, they speak the truth faggot

>However half the planets population will die

there problem solved no more climate change folks

> It's called weather.
Pretty much.

Nice fantasy, m8.

which policy specifically

>thinking Sup Forums is rational in any way
Top wew lad

>Hillary believes in blood sacrifice and talks to the dead

wearechange.org/hillary-clinton-speaks-dead-therapeutic-release/

We are falsely sustaining. Corn is about to go extinct because of all the unnatural shit we've done to it. With your logic the population can just keep growing and growing without any repercussion. Not gonna happen. Mother Nature will purge itself at some point. The host will cure itself of the parasite.

.......................; I hope we have more hurricanes Are any pollsters also annoyed at how much climate change is important to people in this country?