Does Trump actually think climate change is a hoax invented by China...

Does Trump actually think climate change is a hoax invented by China, or is he just saying that to appeal to uneducated Bible Belt retards?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All_palaeotemps.svg
youtube.com/watch?v=Gh-DNNIUjKU
npr.org/sections/money/2016/01/15/463237871/episode-677-the-experiment-experiment
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed-cycle_gas_turbine
youtube.com/watch?v=90CkXVF-Q8M
theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/jul/27/climate-models-are-accurately-predicting-ocean-and-global-warming
twitter.com/AnonBabble

well AGW (man made climate change) has no scientific basis. But to say it was invented by china is a bit of a stretch I do agree

He didnt say climate change was a hoax.

He said the concept of climate change is a hoax.

R-redpill me on climate change?

Probably

I bet the decision to have Pence be his VP was also made to appeal to Bible Belt evangelical subhumans

FUCK DRUMPFFFAAHHAHAH

maybe he does maybe he doesn't but the fact is that China is the biggest contributor to global warming and ruining your economy to reduce global warming while China doesn't do jack shit.....

>AGW (man made climate change) has no scientific basis
>this is what uneducated white trash retards believe

man made climate change isn't real. man made global warming isn't real. sorry.

Fuck Kek and fuck frogposters.

>well AGW (man made climate change) has no scientific basis

ROFL

He is saying that humans affecting or making a difference is the hoax.
Climate change is a natural process of earth. Humans are to insignificant to make a difference nothing short of a nuclear winter

...

No, he said Global Warming is, not Climate Change

The guy has autism. Leave him alone.

>He is saying that humans affecting or making a difference is the hoax
see >climate change is a natural process of Earth
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All_palaeotemps.svg

If you want the atmosphere to go back to when all living things on Earth didn't use oxygen, keep denying climate change

China is the world's largest co2 emitter

Global warming is not 100% man made
Actual % is really up for debate
Sup Forums average gives 10%, which means inaction is better
Typical tree hugger thinks it's 100%
Reality is definately somewhere inbetween

China did not invent global warming, but...
China is using global warming/ greenhouse gasses emissions as leverage in international trades
Since they'll win no matter how it's bargained fairly

feel free to join us on /sci/ !

specifically the latvian fellow. Why do you have to lash out and insult somebody because they don't subscribe to the same governmental beliefs as you? you should know that climate change is a political tool, not a reliable scientific theory that can make predictions and replicate experiments like (for example) general relativity.

If you don't want to click that thread, how about you watch this video?

youtube.com/watch?v=Gh-DNNIUjKU

thanks

>human contribution = 10-15%
>at least double that is livestock
>remainder is nature
>climate records show CO2 was insanely higher during dinosaur era, when ALL life thrived extremely WELL, especially plant life
>plant life has been on the decline for a while

>there were two small ice ages in the Common Era (Roman empire and afterwards)
>last one ended around 1850
>1850 is when ecomentalists claim start of global warming
>human contribution insufficient to cause the massive changes

So far the science, next post is the politics

>not a reliable scientific theory that can make predictions and replicate experiments like (for example) general relativity
this is wrong

The reason people deny climate change is because it is new, and it has only been happening for a few decades.
Before it started happening, though, we already were predicting massive changes in climate (people didn't know which factors would be stronger, so some said global cooling, but most said global warming)

We know for a fact that a massive increase in CO2 in the atmosphere will cause global warming

..........And?

Also remember pic related any time a conservative memelord tells you "we should be more like China" regarding environmental/industrial deregulation

>feel free to join us on /sci/, which is also swarming with Breitbart-reading conspiracuks!

>And
Why should the west ruin it's economy when it's the developing world fucking up the planet.

>because it is new

no. climate change alarmism has been going on for 40+ years, with predictions swinging wildly.

>We know for a fact that a massive increase in CO2 in the atmosphere will cause global warming

we are incapable of the massive increase it would take for any effect that is outside the normal bands of variation of atmospheric condition to occur

This. There is just so much money to be made off it so they just keep pushing back the date where we are all supposed to drown from the rising sea levels.

>avoiding the actual question
>not knowing the difference between "it's" and "its"

You must be at least 13 years old to post on Sup Forums.

>was also made to appeal to Bible Belt evangelical subhumans

This is just a fact, it's not speculation.

>40+ years
That is new, and that's why people deny it.

>People have been claiming climate change for 40+ years already!
>But not much has happened within those 40 years!!!
It is happening right now, and it will keep happening in the future

The fact that our CO2 emissions have been increasing a lot only recently started to make a visible impact on climate change doesn't mean it's just alarmist bullshit

>>at least double that is livestock

>livestock is not a human contribution

jesus fucking christ dude

Now the politics.

>1945 onwards
>WW2 left the west with insane industrial capacity, which was used to propagate the economic boom of the 1950s
>globalism wants to destroy the west
>China has massive industrial potential but is yet untapped
>globalists implant communism in China like they did with Russia
>results were similar: Mao Zedong killed a rough estimate of 80 million people
>population now loyal, build up of industry began
>insert global warming
>the west is already cucked / puppeted into abandoning the colonies
>climate treaties are made to curb climate change, the west holds their end of the bargain
>China couldn't give a toss, continues yearly GDP growth of at least 10%

>Kyoto Protocol
>Western industry already smashed out of competition
>Chinese industrial quality finally sufficient for competition in Western markets
>treaty curbs Western industry some more
>Paris Treaty
>more of the same

Why would killing western industry be good for the globalist cause?
We're the only thing standing in their way. Killing our industry means we cannot become wealthier than their most loyal puppets.

Climate change is real, but the man-made portion is ridiculously exaggerated for political purposes.
A few days ago I saw something on Sup Forums about the next ice age hitting us between 2045 and 2060. Anyone got that source?

>humans fart litres of methane a day
I can be pedantic too

I gotta agree with this honestly, I certainly think that humans are having a real impact on the planet, to think otherwise would simply be stupid, there are so many of us, and especially in the 1st world we all contribute to it.

But to say that it's 100% our doing and that recycling will "reverse" climate change is stupid.

I'd put my personal wager somewhere in the 30-35% range, but a lot of that has already been taken care of since the initial climate change scare, probably closer to 15% now.

>we are incapable of the massive increase in CO2

>heh yeah i'm super educated and I believe in global warming!!!

Here's the thing kid, if you're older than 25 you know global warming is bullshit. They've been talking about global warming and "peak oil" since I was a little kid.

I remember learning when I was in primary school that we only had like 10 years of oil left... now in 2016 we have some of the cheapest oil ever.

It's all a load of bullshit, and they have no real solutions.

What solution do they have to cut emissions enough to avoid climate change without radically lowering the standard of living for all people? there is none

>But to say that it's 100% our doing and that recycling will "reverse" climate change is stupid
It's not 100% our doing, but we are pushing the climate over the tipping point

We are emitting too much CO2, and the stabilizing climate forces are unable to keep up, and in fact, massive amounts of plankton are dying out due to ocean acidification
Plankton contribute to ~50% of all global CO2 recycling

no no you see, I am a scientist and I am only looking at the validity of the scientific theory, and I don't concern myself with what people have been claiming and I understand the perils of anecdotal evidence.

40 years in modern science is not new by any means. it is literally alarmist bullshit, and the fact that it is so heavily politicized should raise some red flags in your little latvian brain.

ah the good ole adjusted graph as soon as surface temperatures don't match ice core data!

love it

>little latvian brain
t. Amerishart who's claiming that global warming is a hoax

>I am a scientist
You meant to say you are an armchair scientist, because denying CO2's effect on the atmosphere is the same as denying that Earth is round

I do not disagree with any of that.
But things like that should be filed under ecological effects, not climate change.
I understand that one can effect the other, but you see where I'm coming from.

Humans certainly have an impact on their environment, and sadly it's mostly negative, but the planet's overall climate change? Again I must say it is a sub-20% figure.

>adjusted graph

>all data I don't like is adjusted

i am not claiming it is a hoax? it just has no basis in scientific reality. and the media pushes it and pushes it and people like you gobble it up. its lel

>i am not claiming it is a hoax? it just has no basis in scientific reality
Doesn't that make it a hoax?

And why exactly do you think it has no basis in scientific reality?

>Here's the thing kid, if you're older than 25 you know global warming is bullshit.

That must be why everyone over the age of 25 (who hasn't been cucked by Fox News) knows that global warming is actually happening in measurable ways.

The irony is that there was an experimental closed-cycle fossil fuel plant, I forget which type of fuel, and it was doing well right up to the point where the Obama administration pulled the plug.

Emission-free fossil fuels? Can't have that in lefty Merica.

They're also the largest investor into green technology research, because the pollution in their major cities is creating huge health problems among the populace

What? It's pretty clear Co2 levels are massively increasing.
>human contribution - 10-15%
>double that is livestock
Are you seriously going to tell me livestock is producing double the amount of CO2 of billions of cars, boats, planes, factories, and power plants?

Also CO2 levels were extremely high in the jurassic because there was a shit ton of volcanic activity. It would not be good for human life, the sea levels would be much higher and it would hot as fuck. We are also not experiencing a ton of volcanic activity either, so our CO2 levels shouldn't be high.

Any combustion reaction is going to produce CO2. I have not heard of the type of plant you are talking about.

>Are you seriously going to tell me livestock is producing double the amount of CO2 of billions of cars, boats, planes, factories, and power plants?
It does though
Livestock accounts for a huge amount of CO2, but so do fossil fuels

>I do not disagree with any of that.
But things like that should be filed under ecological effects, not climate change.

Climate change is just a blanket word for the masses, because people aren't going to care if you say "we're killing all the plankton!"

It's indisputable man is having a serious effect on the climate, and if we continue the way we are, there will be catastrophic effects

...

The birthrates of all creatures need to decline. Anytime someone uses the declining birth rate excuse, I point to climate change.

Who cares?

Clinton is a cultist, child sex trafficking, uranium selling, US secret leaking treasonous Illumanti member.

Who-gives-a-fuuuuck about what Trump thinks about Global Warming.

Climate change in the way that leftists think of it IS a hoax. Whether it was created by China or not is up for debate, but there is no denying that the leftist idea of climate change is a hoax.

Look everyone, a retard!

similar to the way I think most psychology studies based on sampling x participants are a whopping load of bullshit.

many of the results of the studies are not replicable, but resources within psychology departments are limited so they do their best. Many climate change scientists don't understand the theoretical underpinnings of the models they work with. watch the video I posted earlier, and tell me how that does not raise suspicion to you? I am math and applied math trained, and I understand the HUGE gap between data collection and reporting and the models that are being put out.

another thing, albeit anecdotal:

I was told when I first moved to this country that my house would be underwater by 2020 (i was told this in like 2002), now my house is worth like 5x what it was then, because it is close to the beach and there is not a worry in the world about sea levels rising, since "scientists" in the media have continually made false prediction after false prediction

Did Hillary actually say being anti fracking was Russian propaganda in one of the leaked emails? Yes she did. No one is voting for the "green" candidate this year. Obama's energy subsidies did nothing but inflate the value of the green tech market. Hillary would be more of the same.

>Shitty infographic with no sources proves my point!
And Al Gore saying that does not making climate change any less real. A politicians job is to exaggerate, just ask Trump

>there is no denying that the leftist idea of climate change is a hoax

There's plenty of denying it. For example: scientific fact and empirical evidence.

You climate change deniers are just as stupid as antivaxxers.

Is anybody who learned basic chemistry and physics a leftist now?

here is a nice short( less than 20 minute) podcast about soft sciences that have insurmountable amount of variables like the science of climate

npr.org/sections/money/2016/01/15/463237871/episode-677-the-experiment-experiment

>"I LIKE TRUMP BECAUSE HE SAYS IT LIKE IT IS!!!"
>What about this really stupid thing he said?"
>"HE DIDN'T REALLY MEAN THAT! SHILLARY! SHILLARY! SHILLARY!"

Global warming is not synonymous with climate change.

Warming has always preceded CO2, not vice versa.

4% of atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic.

The IPCC is a fraudulent political body.

Lots of American conservacucks are anti-science. This is nothing new.

But climate change is based on real theoretical knowledge.
How much the sea level will rise is a soft science, but the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and it will cause Earth to heat up is hard knowledge

Yes, there are many variables, and we don't know exactly what will happen and in what order, but we do know that Earth will heat up. CO2 is rising (it's already at 400PPM), and Earth is warming up. Plankton are dying out, meaning even more CO2 will keep staying in our atmosphere

Al Gore's models were way off. There is climate change but it's not changing solely based on what humans do. It's all about energy regulation.

>You climate change deniers are just as stupid as antivaxxers.

Not true at all you fucking dumbfag.

>666

lel

I just don't understand how you can show me that graph and not realize that the earth has been around for 4 billion years and that a "trend" over 140 years is supposed to be damning?

it's just too small a sample size

>Al Gore's models
Al Gore isn't a scientist

This is the technology I was thinking of:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed-cycle_gas_turbine

As for CO2, it's almost the weakest greenhouse gas in the world. Plants consume it and correlations can be found between their abundance and the abundance of CO2.

The big ones are methane and sulphur. Sulphur comes from volcanoes, indeed there isn't anything we can do about that.
Methane however comes from ice pockets that are exposed when the ice melts and from cows.
Animal husbandry IS something we can remedy, perhaps with specialised food that's designed to limit methane production or genetic modification. The easiest way to solve this one is of course to abstain from cow farming altogether, and that means far more expensive beef and dairy products. Bad for business.

And for how long have humans been on Earth?

see

Nobody knows what Trump thinks he sleeps 3 hours a day and spews literal non sense all day

Name 3 Trump policies that he will enact when he's president
*pro tip you can't

>building a wall
How? Who's paying for it? When? Spics build underground tunnels to get here

>turning Washington/Congress upside down & cleaning it up day one
How? This is America president is not a dictator..

>repealing/replacing obamacare
Again how and with what? Insurance companies will charge more no matter what they're greedy jews who are in love with money some screaming orange guy won't change that

>creating jobs with his Dahnold-approved stimulus.. it's gonna be great believe me your gonna be so rich your head will spin

What is the exact plan?
>head will spin

Lip service doesn't prove anything he's just a talking head for the elites so Hillary can win Tuesday he's literally saying anything/everything to lose votes but MAGACucks are too hopped up on burger/pizza to know the orange guy is a inside horse for the Clinton's

>Melania wants to stop cyberbullying..
Donald stays up till 4am talking shit on twitter under his bed sheet daily

We basically got meme'd as the diet coke guzzling bafoon nation we are

>not knowing Trump is a biphasic sleeper
Bad CTR. Baaad CTR.

Livestock does account for 51% of CO2, according to a new study. This is pretty shocking but cow manure also releases nitrous oxide when it decomposes, which a lot worse than CO2 per gram.

Fuck off m8, with lab grown meat technology improving along with nuclear and renewable energy and electric cars, humans should be able to reverse this trend pretty quickly.

He's not perfect, but he is better than Hillary

so was it invented by china?

>well AGW (man made climate change) has no scientific basis.

Picked related. It's (you)

>As for CO2, it's almost the weakest greenhouse gas in the world. Plants consume it and correlations can be found between their abundance and the abundance of CO2.
>CO2 is almost the weakest greenhouse gas in the world
Citation needed

>Plants consume it and correlations can be found between their abundance and the abundance of CO2
Plants within forests live in a pretty closed system, where the amount of CO2 they recycle is nearly the same as the amount of CO2 they release.
Organisms that actually have an effect on global CO2 levels are dying out massively.

>CO2 is a greenhouse gas and it will cause Earth to heat up is hard knowledge
>this is a fact

The historical record says otherwise.

The oceans contain around 50 times more CO2 than our atmoaphere, and the interface between the two is what regulates and changes atmospheric levels.

Warming precedes CO2, this is a fact.

The oceans warming is what drives CO2 release more than any other natural factor, and exceptionally more than any of even the most ludicrous models that say that man is responsible for a majority of CO2.

What causes the vast majority of CO2 release? A warm ocean. What causes a warm ocean? Not CO2 above them.

What the sun is doing is far more pertinent to the release of CO2 into our atmosphere than anything else.

It is out of our control.

Video related
youtube.com/watch?v=90CkXVF-Q8M

>inb4 he uses a private jet himself!!!
not an argument against climate change, and he contributes to charities to offset it
he places a carbon tax on himself

notice the evolution of the internet climate critics
first it was
>There is no global warming, we're actually cooling
then
>There is global warming but it has nothing to do with humans
soon it will be
>There is global warming and it is caused by humans, but it is actually helpful to us
then
>There is global warming and it is caused by humans, it is bad but no catastrophic

>strawman
>strawman
>strawman
>strawman

Not an argument.

There sure are a lot of KochBucks™ being earned in this thread.

The notion that Climate Change is not anthropologically driven is not THAT controversial a concept amongst conservationists.

The strongest fight back against the anthropagenic argument is mainly coming from Geologists, largely because they think in terms of millions of years.

Climate change is a normal process, to argue that man is the main driver, or even a major driver is beyond ludicrous as it is completely unproven.

Seriously, there is no proven model that backs up the argument.

t M.S Conservation Biology

>The oceans contain around 50 times more CO2 than our atmoaphere
So what?
We are taking massive amounts of carbon that has been deposited underground over millions of years, and releasing it all into the atmosphere in barely even a 100 years
Nothing can place that back underground fast enough, and the ocean sucking it in will acidify it, causing the food chain to collapse

>Warming precedes CO2, this is a fact.
Citation needed

>The oceans warming is what drives CO2 release more than any other natural factor, and exceptionally more than any of even the most ludicrous models that say that man is responsible for a majority of CO2.
>What causes the vast majority of CO2 release? A warm ocean. What causes a warm ocean? Not CO2 above them.
Citation needed

>What the sun is doing is far more pertinent to the release of CO2 into our atmosphere than anything else.
Wrong. The sun has never in human history caused a raise in global temperature so quickly. The rate at which the global temperature is increasing right now is even accelerating, and coincidentally places where CO2 levels are rising also have a rising temperature

>CO2 is almost the weakest greenhouse gas in the world
kek, CO2 has been the most important greenhouse gas in the course of earth history.
more important than both methane (which is more competent) and water vapor (which has a higher concentration in the atmosphere)

Sulphur (in the form of sulfate aerosols) is almost completeley irrelevant for time scales larger than a year (because the aerosols typically have a lifetime of a couple of months before they fall out of the atmosphere)

pic related: long-term correlation between temperatures (red) and solar + co2 forcing (black)

Anthropogenic climate change is real, I really don't understand why people deny it. The science is there, it's kind of like the vaccines causing autism argument at this point.

Careful

Next they are going to say two things:

>Muh 800 year lag
>Muh Hockey-Stick theorem

I dont bother any more.
>No replicable model.
>No party.

He's literally mocking our nation so he can lose go on book tours and open a cable news network.. he's not even pushing the bill Clinton rape scandals and threatening to sue his own rape accusers even if he's still elected..

Donald's a complete inside horse meant to set the GOP back decades lol how do you not see that?? No viable candidate could lose to Hillary or even come close to losing

Things a real candidate would bring up to win:
>33,000 emails-she worships Moloch
>calls people niggers/fags
>Danney Williams
>takes money from terrorist
>most corrupt politician in modern history
>lesbian
>had people murdered

What Trump brings up:
Walls
Mexicans are rapist
She is ms piggy (can't even apologize)
Shooting someone in times square

Trump is trying so hard to lose but ameriburgers are so amazingly stupid they only know cheese pizza and diet coke

sage this stupid fucking thread

If it was invented by the Chinese then I'd say they are retarded as fuck, as they already surpassed USA's emissions long ago.

>it's kind of like the vaccines causing autism argument at this point

False equivalency

We can prove through replicatable trials that vaccines dont cause autism

There are no workable models to prove the anthropagenic or "doomsday" argument.

Ever single model that has ever been built has been completely BTFO \

Until you can model it, and the model can produce predictions that materialize, you have nothing but unproven theorem.

it is a hoax, that China is benefiting from, but they didn't invent it. That credit goes to power-hungry politicians.

>Muh 10000 reports
There is 30000 reports saying it isn't man made, stay mad amd keep pushing for our government to control everything. You liberal utopian fags are the fucking worst.

>No way to stop it
>As if every country will stop using fossil fuels and stop farting and eliminate cows

>the very compound that encourages plant growth
It also blocks infrared radiation, causing global warming, which can potentially kill all those plants that were able to grow a bit more because of it

>you leverage their guilt for profit
nah, climate science deniers are being used to protect the profit of (((Oil companies)))

theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/jul/27/climate-models-are-accurately-predicting-ocean-and-global-warming

They are also the biggest investors in green energy right now, so the Chinese shot themselves in the foot if they did invent this

Climate is always changing user. Should we be concerned about Solar System Change?

>There are no workable models to prove the anthropagenic or "doomsday" argument.
>Ever single model that has ever been built has been completely BTFO \
>Until you can model it, and the model can produce predictions that materialize, you have nothing but unproven theorem.

The biggest problem when arguing with climate change deniers is they are able to say a bunch of bullshit with a completely straight face

>I saw a bunch of graphs on the internet that told me every single scientist that works with studying climate change is a liar
>that means it's true

It's because it's so easy to spin it into a conspiracy theory. Glenn Beck wrote a book called Agenda 21 that was basically 1984 for climate change, all because the UN passed a resolution that said, "It'd be nice if we all tried to live carbon-neutral"

>Citation needed
CO2 being the weakest greenhouse gas is the mainstream political narrative.
>Plants within forests live in a pretty closed system, where the amount of CO2 they recycle is nearly the same as the amount of CO2 they release.
Plants increase their intake and growth rate from something as negligible as talking at it once a day. This is well documented, you fucking polack
>Organisms that actually have an effect on global CO2 levels are dying out massively
Seeing as sea algae blooms have been the dominant factor for 3 billion years this doesn't seem particularly acute

>it is a hoax, that China is benefiting from
see

climate change was a hoax adopted by regan democrats. it uses feels to prevent black people from developing their countries just as endangered species list

green peace is what you get when republicans and democrats have kids