The only reason I dislike Trump is his stance on climate change...

The only reason I dislike Trump is his stance on climate change. Is there any chance that he changes this and actually moves the US towards a clean energy future? If he does I'll be 100% on the MAGA train

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=0gDErDwXqhc
youtube.com/watch?v=yTTaXqVEGkU&t=1s
youtube.com/watch?v=3QmkHr0W5Vk
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event
scientificamerican.com/article/how-president-elect-trump-views-science/
popularmechanics.com/science/green-tech/a23417/convert-co2-into-ethanol/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
npr.org/2016/11/09/501451368/here-is-what-donald-trump-wants-to-do-in-his-first-100-days
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

There isn't conclusive evidence that climate change is caused by human activity. Lurk moar.

There is though. Stop lurking here and go somewhere else.

It's bullshit. It's just a lie that greedy "scientists" repeat to make money. Politicians pay them to do this because it gives them an excuse to keep populations down and more manageable. You know it. I know it.

Warmer weather would be better for the world anyways. More oxygen, more crops, nicer wealther.

I remember reading that he's a fan of all energy if its efficient and wants to work towards making it so.

the argument i heard was that he is going to indirectly fight climate change through this, even if he personally doesnt believe it to be an issue

Climate change is a lie. CO2 is not going to do anything to us.

youtube.com/watch?v=0gDErDwXqhc

youtube.com/watch?v=yTTaXqVEGkU&t=1s

youtube.com/watch?v=3QmkHr0W5Vk

>nobody denies that human activity releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere
>no one denies that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas
>no one denies that the earth's climate is changing
>somehow there is still debate on whether the change is caused by human activity
Why is Sup Forums so bluepilled on the corporate-sanctioned destruction of the Earth?

>stance on climate change
Climate change is real, global warming is a myth. There's no solid proof that says humans are speeding up the change or causing it.

If there's so much co2 in the atmosphere then why aren't there giant plants again?

IPCC models forget the influence of the sun.
I suppose when the icecaps on Mars recede at the same rate ours do here... that's Martian CO2...

Oh yeah and the billions of dollars oil companies make is nothing. Even better is when they finance "scientists" to find evidence that climate change isn't real. Or when they give money to politicians to deny climate change. Yeah its totally the scientists who make the greatest profit here.

>A fucking leaf

Oh there probably will be in a few million years after we've died off. Evolution isn't immediate you know

>muh corporate
>corporate corporate corporate haha your argument is invalid

this

He's not going to stifle alternative energy, he's just not going to use taxpayer money to generate an artificial market. Frankly nuclear fission is the only "clean" energy that is currently self sustaining and it also happens to be objectively safer and denser than any other source so far.

they're called 'trees', and we're lobbing them down en mass.

But user how is global warming a myth when global temperatures are increasing year by year.

Climate science is a scam. People get environmental science degrees and need to lobby governments to actually get jobs because there is no money in it otherwise.

Any scientist getting paid to work is immediately guilty and not to be trusted. You think they're going to tell the truth when their jobs depend on lying to keep their jobs?

there is a downfall is it has not been proven to be possible yet

>clean energy
Nice meme. If you actually cared about climate change, you'd say "go nuclear or go home." Trump is the most pro-nuclear candidate, so he's probably your best bet there although I wouldn't hold my breath. It's also way too late to do anything about climate change, so we'll all just have to put on our big boy pants and deal with whatever the negative impacts are.

its literally nothing

But then why would you trust one bunch of scientists over another? They all have to lie to get paid right? So nothing is real, they're all lying?

>No make fire.
>Fire make sky angry.

Hey cockfag, just watch the videos here
Or you are not objective and can fuck right the fuck off.

Fission, not fusion buddy. Fusion experiments are like small numbers of particles at a time and costs immense amount of energy, we haven't been able to produce a reactor which is capable of sustaining a nuclear fusion reaction while producing usable energy. Fission on the other hand has been functional and in widespread use for the better part of a century now.

What about the trees that we aren't cutting down like in the national forests? You'd think the plants that at one time took full advantage of the high amount of co2 would be doing it agai .

>actual pollution ravaging the planet and poisoning the soil, the air, and water
>The left wants to spend hundreds of billions trying to stop a harmless gas that is a vital nutrient for plants.

The left is evil.

I'll watch them. But then I'll come back with critiques and if you don't read them and dismiss them outright you can fuck off. Agreement yeah?

>we're lobbing them down en mass
Maybe in like Russia, but not here.

There are many good scientists who work for free and share their hard-earned knowledge with the apathetic masses. See

All the temperature increase that has occurred is within the margin of error for the reporting criteria. Oh... they didn't tell you that?
Calm the fuck down.

100% I will absolutely respect you and hear you out.

climate change is the least of our worries environmentally

it's a scam to tax people for using carbon

the real problems are a dead pacific ocean that will lead to lack of oxygen for us to breathe

the great barrier reef is dead, the pacific ocean is dead

if this is not addressed 80% of human life will be dead in 150 years

Thank you for not understanding how margins of error work.

>Lurk moar
>believing everything you read on the Internet

wew
e
w

president isn't going to change this, industry is. Bannanorama was all for solar and then he bungled it so badly america is a decade behind the industry.

what was the temperature where you are exactly one year ago today? what is the temperature today? do you see how stupid your argument is? there is no conclusive evidence temperatures are increasing, you are just repeating pc propaganda you hear echoed in the same media that lied about trump's chances in the election.

>If he does I'll be 100% on the MAGA train

hop on or not, no one cares
he's already won without your help

I do.
It's my job.
What do you do for a living?

Thats about the most deceptive chart you could possibly make.

The only way to actually do anything about it would be to come up with a viable, cheaper source of energy. The government has already tried investing in companies and completely failed. There's no fucking way that China will stop polluting unless there is a cheaper alternative, and if you enforce strict regulations in the US it would completely kill the economy.

Solar is shit though. It suffers the same problem wind does in that it needs a lot of space to make very little actual power. The maintenance on the generators is also really high compared to something like a nuclear reactor or a coal powered energy plant.

This. Earth moves in space and rotates too, so it is impossible to know if a "spot" is truly getting hotter. If you can't know if individual spots are getting hotter, you can't know if two spots are getting hotter. By induction, you can't say the world is getting hotter.

Because murikins. Right-wing murikins.

This is my main gripe with most right-wing powers. I'd be fine with one that doesn't try to fuck up my and my kids' planet to make big corporation stakeholders richer, one that would try to stop depending on oil because goatfuckers, and one that wouldn't be ass backwards with shit like religion, gays, abortion, etc.; no SJW, just don't be batshit insane and let people fuck whatever they want.

That would be perfect.

>tfw saws and axes arent good enough for russia so they set off nuclear bombs in the woods to clear forest
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event
>i-it was a meteor, guys! We didnt do anything!

Yes, the Climate is changing.

How much is human caused and how much is a natural cycle the earth regularly goes through?

How much return on stopping climate change (If it can even be stopped) will we see vs the damage to the economy. If we only slow it down by single digit percentage points while causing the economy to contract massively does it even fucking matter?

Will this apply to Africa and India?

cleaning up actual pollution requires actual work, and the left hates work.

Climate change agreements are easy to set up, since they're just pieces of paper, and nobody abides by them, and they accomplish nothing for the environment, but they can be used as a way to bribe and move money around.

same

I can look at sources of record highs and see that most occurred this year.

kek

if you don't like it, build some solar power plants
no one's stopping you, loser

A FUCKING LEAF

Dear user I share your concern. However I read this and now I feel a little better. He actually mentions wind and solar and biofuels by name. Although I am still worried he thinks manmade climate change is fake he seems to be driving at energy independence using the most profitable means of doing so which very well could mean solar given rapid reductions in solar cost/advancements in solar technology

scientificamerican.com/article/how-president-elect-trump-views-science/

Co2 is good for plants and crops. keep in mind all of this Co2 was originally in our atmosphere until it got trapped

>I have a graph
>I'm sure its accurate
>I've never checked it
>I have a graph

nah it's getting better

honestly though we should make better use of nuclear, it has the lowest casualties/unit of power it produdces and it doesn't pollute (except in the event of a meltdown, but these are very rare) like coal/oil

...but liberals have fucked that for us already

Not entirely and there never will be. What people don't understand is, as nice as renewables are, they're at the beck and call of the earth's natural forces, and are thus only SUPPLEMENTAL.

If it's not a windy day and your power is exclusively wind, or you get it from solar panels and it's nighttime, well fuck you, you aren't getting power.

What we need to do is get the stigma away from nuclear power.

Specifically, we need to abandon fusion, and go for fission - barely any cleanup, and nearly impossible to make a decent bomb out of.

>graph on CO2
>only goes back 2000 years

Probably. All you have to do is invest in the people that figured out how to transform CO2 into ethanol. The way you stop it is by removing CO2, and only this way. Going solar and other green shit doesnt reverse it. So if you want to preach climate change, GO FOR THE PROCESS TO TRANSFORM IT INTO ETHANOL. You will MAGA that way. Remember what I said and spread it.

Climate change is fake faggot.

This. Co2 is literally us. You are Co2. How can it be a pollutant?

There's no evidence that raising energy prices 10x and/or taxes has any impact on the climate.

Because a lot of them are former cuckservatives. Global warming denialism is a good way to know that a person's path to nationalism ran through cuckservatism.

The MAGA train isn't perfect, but hopefully one day Sup Forums will learn.

I used to believe in climate change, Than i started looking into the idea that our system actually had a binary sun, and still does. Nibiru (Planet x, woormwood etc) is heating up the earth as it flies by.

And what's the timeframe of these records? Considering the billions if years the earth has been around the only evidence we have of ancient climates is from shit frozen in ice. Too bad that ice hasn't been around since the very beginning.

you have no independent way of verifying the claims of those records, and the international panel on climate change has been caught repeatedly faking and using flawed data and tweaking models to make it appear their agenda for world government in the name of global is rational. it's all just bullshit and people like you are just stupid shills being used to further an agenda ultimately harmful to yourselves.

i love what moyneaux has to say but i am bored sick of him after three minutes

Well concentration is something you need to develop with time. Watch him and practice. Med students have to concentrate for hours at a time. You will go far if you develop these skills.

the thing they dont tell you about CO2 and the greenhouse effect is that it has diminishing returns up to the point where it has no net effect on heat trapping at all

this is why our planet doesnt have run away greenhouse gas like Venus because of cloud cover

I think he is actually rather entertaining. Pay attention to his vocabulary and way of speaking and logical train of thought. He is a pretty impressive man.

Are you prepared to accept science in your life OP? Late Ordovician period. Atmospheric CO2 > 4000PPM. Ice age.

Honestly mate, I'm with you on this. Anthropogenic climate change is obviously real and we need to do something about it ... but good look convincing pol of that.

Ultimately though I think Trump is a smart man and given the position he's been elected to there should be enough scientists around to explain the data to him. I'm cautiously optimistic that he won't fuck the environment over.

FIngers crossed for nuclear

You're coming along for the ride whether you want to or not. Unless you want to fuck off to Mexico.

Here's my argument.

We know the climate is currently getting warmer. What we do not know is: (A.) Whether human activity is accountable for 0.01% or 99.99% of the warming or (b.) what the explicit cause is. Why should we tax energy sources and decrease our citizen's net wealth if we are not sure if our efforts will help, much less if they are needed? It isn't any hotter now than it was in the Roman or Medieval warm periods. If and when climate change is detrimental, why can we not deal with it then through geoengineering? Why should we trust the state to deal with an issue that may or may not pose a problem in future, especially given the track record of statist intervention in the economic and environmental realms previous to the climate change question.

No argument: The post

I don't know why this has to be an argument about 'climate change' and not instead one about "renewable energy"

Regardless of if it's in our generation or not, we're currently running on a time limit. I don't know, I feel like alternate energy sources and adoption rates should be a pretty big deal to everyone

BUT HE HAS A FUCKING CHART!
THE CHART MAN, THE CHART!

you fucking imbecile
try those levels with humans breathing the air

good luck

/sci/ disagrees tho

popularmechanics.com/science/green-tech/a23417/convert-co2-into-ethanol/

Can you fuckers read this. This helps both sides, it will shut up the hippies and give Ameria wealth.

What was the composition of life like on the planet then user? How many billions of humans existed then?

>we need to abandon fusion, and go for fission
you reversed them.


But the rest is essentially correct. Solar and wind are pipedreams, and dumb ones at that. We have the capability today to have nearly free energy in the form of nuclear power, and have had it for half a century. But because people are stupid and easily scared, we have refused to take hold of this world changing opportunity.

>The only reason I dislike Trump is his stance on climate change.

Name ONE fucking policy proposed by Trump that deals with Climate Change in ANY way, shape or form.

MILANKOVITCH CYCLES
>MILANKOVITCH CYCLES
MILANKOVITCH CYCLES
>MILANKOVITCH CYCLES
MILANKOVITCH CYCLES
>MILANKOVITCH CYCLES
MILANKOVITCH CYCLES

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

So by your logic, it's getting that hot anyways so we're all just going to die? Or maybe animals (we are animals) live just fine either way.

Climate change is real but it's caused by solar activity. CO2 is good for plants and our harvest yield has been increasing because of it. Other planets go through the same cycle as we do, and we're on schedule for alternating between rising and lowering heat, just so happened we were coming out of a small ice age when industrial revolution started.
The models we currently use are inaccurate as fuck and incomplete.
The amount of CO2 people contribute is minuscule at best to the point of having no effect.
Go look up Freeman Dyson's video on this for more information.

meh, i dont give 2 fucks about the climate, im all about the here and now.

even though that type of thinking is definitely not ok and absolutely selfish, but then again im a bastard.

thats not to say the climate hippy homos wont throw a bitch fit and absolutely shit on trump should he even think about shitting on the environment in this day and age.

>soros
take off your tinfoil hat skeeter

Misleading y axis

I know we shitposted a lot about CTR but I actually think many of the denialists here are actually, literally shills paid by oil companies

>buying into climate change hysteria
kys

You are not OP. You are also clearly not interested in intelligent discussion or science. CO2 needs to be 60000PPM to be toxic to people. One minute with Google would have told you that.

If Soros spent money on something, it is immediately suspect. Why would he spend his money on this shit if he didn't have a personal interest in it?

5th, 6th, and 7th on his bringing jobs back

npr.org/2016/11/09/501451368/here-is-what-donald-trump-wants-to-do-in-his-first-100-days

It runs on electricity, the majority of which we still make by burning fucking coal. It's kinda pointless if it's dependent on using a power source that generates more CO2.

Personally, I'm skeptical about the significance of CO2 in climate change but I doubt this is gonna settle any hippies.

Hey look another graph that uses misleading scaling to make it look like it increased a gargantuan amount when in reality it hasn't even doubled.

Well yes you can tell that human activity releases CO2, and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas using empirical observation and the scientific method. Humans driving climate change can not be demonstrated using the scientific method. This is why the models don't work. usually when the results don't match the hypothesis you fix the hypothesis. In this one instance we adjust the data sets instead to match the hypothesis. Not science.

>also what is a logarithm
>what does diminishing returns of CO2 mean?

It seems you aren't sharp enough to follow basic scientific evidence. I'll leave you to argue with sign posts.

>clean energy future?
Most Americans don't want to live like North Koreans.

If people hadn't gotten in Hitler's way, we could have culled the nonwhites, and there would be no more than some two billion people alive. All of the Northern Hemisphere would be the German Reich and technology would have progressed much faster. There would be no billions of Chinese and Indians. There would be no pollution. There would be no climate change. But you simply had to fuck us over.