On Trump's White House website, no more mention of climate change

Toward the bottom of the page is a reference to preserving natural resources.

“Lastly, our need for energy must go hand-in-hand with responsible stewardship of the environment,” the statement reads. “Protecting clean air and clean water, conserving our natural habitats, and preserving our natural reserves and resources will remain a high priority.”

David Yarnold, president and chief executive of the National Audubon Society, was not reassured.

“It will take a lot more than the stroke of a key to erase the effects of climate change, it will take a plan,” Yarnold said in a statement. “As with the healthcare millions of Americans depend on, we expect President Trump to have a science-based replacement in hand to make progress toward confronting the climate crisis threatening our birds and our communities.”

Sam Adams, U.S. director of the World Resources Institute, agreed.

“It’s truly disturbing that one of the first actions by the Trump administration is to remove nearly all references to climate change from the White House website,” he said in a statement. “The website’s lone climate reference is to eliminate the Climate Action Plan, which is a wholesale attack that flies in the face of common sense and would do harm to all Americans.”

>>101941
if we pretend it doesn't exist it will go away, right?

>>101954

Just kicking the can down the road.

Good job he can only set the policy for at most 8 years.

>>101960
>implying

What we need to do is get those corrupt politicians out. What we need is the Trump revolution in the White House. Congress is clearly going to impede Trump's efforts to fix this garbage fire: https://www.rt.com/shows/sophieco/374311-trump-russia-foreign-policy/

>there are still people dumb enough to believe in clean coal and fracking

If you're an ignorant retard, I can get the coal, but fracking generally fucks over your fellow sister-fuckers, why do the trailer trash still support it?

>>101990
Because we care about working and making money, not existing off of government aid like some liberal welfare bitch.

>>101941
No more LGBT fag shit either.

>>101954
It doesn't matter even a tiny bit.

The only thing you could do to fix it would be to undergo massive and immediate population control. So unless you're ready and willing to genocide all of China, Africa, India, and whatever other densely populated subhuman shitholes still persist, then you might as well just give up and stop caring since there is literally literally LITERALLY nothing you can ever possibly hope to even begin dreaming of the chance at maybe slightly slowing down the effects perhaps.

>>102063
Well cletus, maybe you should have gone to college and your job prospects would go beyond "I push a button in a factory now gibmemoneez plz"

>>102080
The only reason ladyboys like you can even mince around at your barista job is because there are men out there who do the actual hard work of supplying heat, energy, and food to your entire society, which by the way can pay very well if you're not retarded, almost like any other job.

The whole world can't get by for more than a day if everyone's working a gig at daddy's advertising firm selling catfood to 60 year childless women.

>>101941
You mean the articles the Obama administration put up themselves and EXPLICITLY stated they were going to be transferring somewhere else, giving Trump a fresh slate to work with for his own administration, got taken down and transferred like they said they would be?

OH GOD OH NO TRUMP IS COMING TO EXECUTE EVERY CLIMATE SCIENTIST RIGHT NOW
HO FUCK OH NO BETTER POST SENSATIONALIST FAKE NEWS ARTICLES AND THEN BITCH AT CONSERVATIVES FOR BEING STUPID

>>102083
Not your op but the 'ladyboy' scientists who invented fracking and engineered the tools to allow you to have that job required a much higher education than what's attainable by simply working in that factory. You do understand that right?

>>102080
>"I push a button in a factory now gibmemoneez plz"

Better than doing nothing and saying "gibmemoneez plz"

>B-but I know better than you!
Keep alienating people, bud. You're our greatest ally.

>>102063
>Work for a company that is at the same time causing earthquakes and poisoning your ground water

What's it like to work for a Captain Planet tier supervillain?

>>102123
Well, you crying libs make it all the sweeter, I'll tell you that.

>>102128
It will be pretty sweet when you're out a job after the extraction companies leave and then you get cancer from whatever was in those fracking chemicals.

But at least you made a buck right?

>>101941
>GUYS THESE THINGS ARE MISSING
you do realize the website is wiped clean after every change of presidency....

>>102128
>hey liberals, take this!
>hack and wheeze nonstop for five minutes straight
>puff inhaler for the 20th time today
>take a pull from my oxygen tank
>take big swig of dark brown water
>heh, I sure showed them liberals

>>102465
Well, if all that climate change bahooey is true, then you libtards in your cities will be the ones dying out from pollution and all that other shit, so me and my own can just sit back and laugh at all of you.

nobody outside the usa actually gives the slightest shit

>>102063
>if you don't approve of a environment-ruining energy producing method then you are on welfare
edgy

>>102103
source?

>>102497
Uhh bad news, climate change isn't very localised.

>>102497
>once again, Trumpets display their supreme intellect

>>102497
>Not mentioning space colonization for the elites.

Way to stay quite my friend.

>>102497
Except for the fact that the big liberal cities aren't the ones full of smoke belchers these days. Most heavy industry has moved to smaller cities, if it hasn't left the country entirely. Cities are all about having high land values and catering to the wealthy elite, you can't do that if your factories are making it a disgusting place to live. With railroads and highways, there's no need to have the factories in the middle of cities anymore, it makes more sense to have them out in the countryside where they won't bother as many people.

>>101941
>Trump did something to some site nobody visits anyways
oh woe is me

call me when something real happens

>>103087
Global Warming is fake news for Democrats because reality isn't treating them very well right now.

>>103107
Out of curiosity where are you getting this information? It'd be interesting to see where you're coming from on this issue.

>>102497
>being this stupid
kek

>>102075
>Africa
Because that's a key facilitator of Climate Change and everything.

>>102105
>A group of 20 PhDs develop a system
>Thousands of Cletus's actually put the system into effect
>Mincing faggots simultaneously bitch about environmental impacts while enjoying cheap energy that didn't require lining a Saudi princes slave harem with a 6 piece international Loli set.

Here's the thing, and it may hurt your brain trying to piece this one together, but college doesn't make you any smarter. Some people are just handed a lower intellect than others and there's not a whole lot anyone can do about that. It doesn't mean they arnt people, it just means they arnt going to university to make groundbreaking studies in energy. You don't need a 160 IQ to drive a truck and deliver natural gas or fill 400 flour sacks a day at the local mill. The people that get spit on in this board serve a vital function to this country in the remaining manufacturing sectors. As is we have too many people drinking the college koolaid and coming out the same way they went in, just 5 figures in debt and still dumb as a brick.

t. College town trashman

PS, I noticed after typing that all out I missed the point. Education differences between the people developing a process and the people putting it into effect are irrelevant.

>>103154
>The people that get spit on in this board serve a vital function to this country in the remaining manufacturing sectors.

For now. But we're gonna take care of those truck drivers reeeeeeeal nice soon.

if global warming is happening, then it is a good thing

when ever the earth warmed, life flourished

when ever the earth cooled and an ice age set in, hundreds of species died out.

>>103198
Uh oh, looks like we got another evil science denier.

GET 'EM, BOYS.

>>101941
>Price on green energy has gone down
>It's actually cheaper to produce than coal
>Not only is the immediate production cheaper but the environmental and health care costs down the road become cheaper
I can get country folks wanting to dig holes and burn piles of carbon, it sounds fun but really, what's the point in enforcing that direction. We could kill two birds with stone, gain jobs - someone has to make those panels, wind rotors and so forth and people have to maintain them. The second part is that we don't have pay again later when we eventually don't have to clean our rivers, air and pay for excessive healthcare of coal, oil etc workers.

I really don't get it, it's a win win moving over to green energy.

Like look at the Navy's bio diesel program, not only can they stay deployed longer because the fuel is cleaner and requires less maintenance - both saving money, but it's also cheaper to produce, yet idiots seem to come out of the wood work and condemn it because it's hippy fuel and couldn't possibly be better or more efficient.

We wouldn't have to just stop at America's jobs and energy infrastructure too, since other countries like china are trying to move over to green energy we could capitalize on that an become their sole producer and seller of green products. But with coal, we can't export that, everyone already has that and doesn't want it, other countries like china again are even waging to slap tariffs on our goods because they don't want them produced by crude energy.

You can only deny that green energy is the better direction for so long, it really confuses me why we don't take advantage of it. Literally shooting ourselves in the foot with the drill baby drill crap.

>daily reminder leftists unironically think the US produces an amount of polution relevant to what asia puts out

>>103355
What does it have to do with leftists? Even if it's true, what does that mean about "right"ists?

>>103355
I don't exactly care if we are or not, I'm more concerned about the future of our own land. In the past few years, even with all these regulations our state has had several severe contamination issues with random asshole companies dumping shit or old abandoned mines leaking out into our rivers and lakes, turning them bright orange and toxic, then we the tax payers have to turn around and shell out the big bucks to clean it all up.

>>101941
>>101954
>>103299

climate change may be real but its not attributable to human actions really, at least in terms of carbon footprint

the original research conducted in the 70s concluded this was going on anyway and human activity (carbon emissions) were only responsible for about 5% of it

I mean cutting down the trees sure doesn't help (especially if you then burn them) but

> green energy cheaper

The problem is its not all that portable. It takes up alot of land and it produces electricity that has to be stored in some way.

Cars are a huge application of energy, the energy it takes to move them just 100km is enormous.

Whether its getting cost effective or not is irrelevant if its not Practical for everything people wanna use it for (and will continue to use it for, even if you frown on it).

Also its not all that sustainable either because an added problem with solar and wind is these machines break down and have to be replaced about every 10 or 15 years. Nevermind the harmful ass chemicals that go into solar cell production. I did a project on this in college so I did not just peel this off of a website.

So factor in that Infrastructure Replacement compared to a regular power plant which only needs to be re-constructed over the course of 40 years.

Also I know for a fact you're not talking about
> The biggest source of green energy available

And that would be Thorium Nuclear Power. Unlike uranium or plutonium the biproducts for thorium dont pose a long term hazard.

And unlike uranium or plutonium it undergoes Alpha decay which is effectively "pure heat" (it has no penetrating power).

Thorium nuclear reactors cannot melt down, at least without catastrophic results.

And the fuel source is alot more plentiful than uranium is.

Whats more, you cant turn it into nuclear materials for a bomb. The closest it can be enriched to is U-233 and nobody has done any work on turning that isotope into a weapon.

So tell me, why arent we using that...

>>105876
I'm with you on nuclear power but climate change not being aided by humans is a bit strange of you to state considering the unnatural layer of smog over every big city, the constant burning and burning of trees, and the massive reliance on fossil fuels,

Actually nuclear power is a hoax. They are just pulling it from the sky and charging us for it. Ask anybody who works in a power plant it's so compartmentalized Noone has acess to it besides special government agencies. https://youtu.be/sULjMjK5lCI

>>101941

climate change doesn't matter. even if it was as bad as they say it could be, it wouldn't really be a problem for the US.

>>106044
I hope we enjoy our millions of climate refugees

>>105920
The thing to consider is that carbon dioxide is a heavy gas and it sinks down to ground level, that infographic we've all seen about thermal energy being reflected back to the surface of the planet is highly misleading.

Also smog and similar effects are rather local and the planet is a big place (mostly water anyway).

Every time a major volcano goes off it knocks the average temperature down by a few degrees for several years, if just one single thing like that can blow it backwards then its suggestive that whatever we're doing it isnt enough to cause the climate change really.

> cutting down massive forests is a big issue though, but is anybody doing anything about that?
> are we using hemp and bamboo for all of our paper and wood building materials yet?
> has an international consortium been formed to ban deforestation worldwide, by military force if necessary?

Plants remove carbon dioxide, reduce those and you obviously have more of it laying around.

> bad for business and farming?
> but this is bad for the entire planet, kinda makes them an enemy of the people when they do this.

>>106044
yeah it's not like you built all your cities on the coast or anything

>>103299
What's green energy?

>>106049
Are you serious dude? Stop. You create "science deniers" with your idiotic predictions.

Part of me thinks you do that on purpose. At least the people who gave you that meme to regurgitate.

>>103154
>but college doesn't make you any smarter.
Here's a post for the ages.

>>106264
>The thing to consider is that carbon dioxide is a heavy gas and it sinks down to ground level, that infographic we've all seen about thermal energy being reflected back to the surface of the planet is highly misleading.
It is misleading... But not at all in the way that you seem to think it is. The thermal energy is not literally reflected at the planet. The CO2 absorbs the thermal energy (as do other large molecules like methane). It then admits longwave radiation in all directions - including back to earth. It does not matter what its altitude is.

>Every time a major volcano goes off it knocks the average temperature down by a few degrees for several years, if just one single thing like that can blow it backwards then its suggestive that whatever we're doing it isnt enough to cause the climate change really.
This logic is extremely flawed. "One single thing" killed the dinosaurs. There is no basis to your argument here whatsoever.

More plants would be good. That doesn't contradict anything I have said.

So much of this is based on the ASSUMPTION that increased co2 and heat is bad.

Logic suggests the opposite. Most Earthlings eat co2. Cold weather kills more than hot weather.

>omg you immoral science denier

>>103299
You greenies produced shit compared to fossil fuels, so why bother building useless shit. Also, nuclear energy are ticking time bombs.

>>106297
It's bad for humans.

>>106306
Modern nuclear energy is actually exceedingly safe. And if we switch to thorium reactors we won't have to worry about people making bombs with them, either.

>>106309
>It's bad for humans.
Says who? More plants is good for literallt every life form. More people die from cold weather.

Ill answer for you...
>blah blah blah
>don't you CARE about the Earth bro?
>doomsday predictions!!!! We're gonna die!!!!!
>don't you at least care about your grandkids?
>lol stop denting science

>>106326
Strawmanning isn't very nice.

>More people die from cold weather.
This actually depends on where you live. In hot places like Texas, more people die from heat (https://www.dshs.texas.gov/chs/vstat/Hotcolddths/hotcolddths.shtm). People, like almost every living thing, work best in specific temperature ranges. If you push long enough in either direction, you're going to end up somewhere worse.

Plants are also at risk because rising temperatures affect precipitation patterns. This would cause increased desertification in many areas (http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/wcp/agm/publications/documents/wmo_cc_desertif_foldout_en.pdf).

Also, rising temperatures eventually leads to melting ice caps, which leads to rising water levels. Rising water levels is bad, because, in addition to short term negatives like flood damage which are already increasing (http://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/waters-edge-the-crisis-of-rising-sea-levels/), eventually it'll start displacing people who live on the coasts>>106326
, which is disproportionately populated.

>>106348
>>106348
>This actually depends on where you live. In hot places like Texas, more people die from heat . People, like almost every living thing, work best in specific temperature ranges. If you push long enough in either direction, you're going to end up somewhere worse.
Blah blah blah (you refuted nothing and stated the obvious)


>Plants are also at risk because rising temperatures affect precipitation patterns. This would cause increased desertification in many areas

There's the doomsday predictions! Real scary stuff!

>rising temperatures eventually leads to melting ice caps, which leads to rising water levels

Omgomgomg HELP WE ARE DYING

>like flood damage which are already increasing, eventually it'll start displacing people who live on the coasts, which is disproportionately populated.

Oh no! My grandkids live there :((((((

>>106382

>his reply is saying the same thing with a sarcastic tone

Fuck you, retard.

>>106382
I'm not sure what the point of posting like this is. You're not going to convince anyone who doesn't already agree with you of anything by posting in such poor faith, but it's not irritating enough to be a trolling attempt.

>Blah blah blah (you refuted nothing and stated the obvious)
I helpfully quoted the exact statement of yours I was refuting.

>There's the doomsday predictions! Real scary stuff!
>Omgomgomg HELP WE ARE DYING
These don't refute anything though.

>Oh no! My grandkids live there :((((((
Rising sea levels will become a concern within your lifetime. As I pointed out (and provided a citation for), they're already causing damage now.

>>106398
>implying that anon didn't argue as predicted
>implying that anon is not you

You underestimated me. Just this once I'll let you off easy.

*backs into the shadows*

>>106399
*steps out from the shadows*

>I'm not sure what the point of posting like this is. You're not going to convince anyone who doesn't already agree with you of anything by posting in such poor faith, but it's not irritating enough to be a trolling attempt.
Ok.


>I helpfully quoted the exact statement of yours I was refuting.

Refuting? I said cold weather kills more than hot. You said, "well not in Texas" as if that means shit to the global average.

This is the exact kind of nonsense climate alarmists usually mock.


>These don't refute anything though.

How do i refute a prediction? Im just loling at your inability to argue without doomsday predictions. Even when I called it out beforehand.

>Rising sea levels will become a concern within your lifetime. As I pointed out (and provided a citation for), they're already causing damage now.

...And moral arguments. Which i also called out, but you couldn't help yourself.

Climate alarmists are done son.

>>106401
>Refuting? I said cold weather kills more than hot. You said, "well not in Texas" as if that means shit to the global average.
That would be a pretty poor faith reading of my post. Especially since I already provided a fairly explicit conclusion:
>People, like almost every living thing, work best in specific temperature ranges. If you push long enough in either direction, you're going to end up somewhere worse.

>How do i refute a prediction?
By presenting on alternative model better supported by the evidence.

>...And moral arguments
This means what, exactly? Any definition of moral that applies to the quoted statement can applied to the rather few arguments you've made as well, so I'm uncertain of what you're getting at here.

Furthermore, you seem rather concerned with whether my arguments have been "called out" or not, but seem to do very little refuting of them.

>>106408
You're acting like you're refiting things, but you're just making irrelevant points.

Yes humans have an ideal temperature range, thank you captain obvious.

This does not refute anything.


>By presenting on alternative model better supported by the evidence.
I don't need to waste time addressing your predictions as if they're evidence. It's just fear mongering.

>This means what, exactly?

You're bringing up feelings in place of scientific arguments. It might have worked if I knew anyone with a beach house.

Those sea levels ate rising steadily, arent they? Almost as if humans weren't even burning dinosaurs.

>>106414
>You're acting like you're refiting things, but you're just making irrelevant points.
>Yes humans have an ideal temperature range, thank you captain obvious.
>This does not refute anything.
I'm not sure you understand what refutation means. I'll attempt to put this as plainly as possible:
You say that the cold kills more people than the heat. You claim that rising temperatures are good because less people will die to cold. However, this claim is invalid because it does not consider the rise in heat related deaths. This is unlikely to save more people than it kills (https://health2016.globalchange.gov/temperature-related-death-and-illness)

>I don't need to waste time addressing your predictions as if they're evidence. It's just fear mongering.
Luckily, I made sure to link the evidence for you.

>You're bringing up feelings in place of scientific arguments. It might have worked if I knew anyone with a beach house.
Again, you seem to be throwing out words without any regard for what they mean. Please identify an emotional argument made.

>Those sea levels ate rising steadily, arent they? Almost as if humans weren't even burning dinosaurs.
This is pretty incoherent, so I'm not sure what you meant. Given the general tone of your posts I assume it's attempting to cast doubt on rising sea levels, which would be factually incorrect. (http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html)

>>106434
>You say that the cold kills more people than the heat. You claim that rising temperatures are good because less people will die to cold. However, this claim is invalid because it does not consider the rise in heat related deaths. This is unlikely to save more people than it kills
Let me translate. I cannot refute your statement because its true. But i will rattle on about other stuff and eventually say that in my PREDICTION it is UNLIKELY you will be correct long term. Btfo.

Did i miss anything, or misunderstand?

>Luckily, I made sure to link the evidence for you
For predictions. Ok. If they come true ill say "oh no."

>This is pretty incoherent, so I'm not sure what you meant.
You can't correct 1 typo with yoir brain? You don't get that burning dinosaurs = burning fossil fuels?

>Given the general tone of your posts I assume it's attempting to cast doubt on rising sea levels
So even though i just said "sea levels are rising steadily" you think im casting doubt on rising sea levels?

That's close enough to a "science denier" accusation. The prophecy is complete.

>>106440
>Did i miss anything, or misunderstand?
A basic understanding of cause and effect, apparently.

>So even though i just said "sea levels are rising steadily" you think im casting doubt on rising sea levels?
Apparently I was wrong and your statement was merely logically incoherent instead of sarcastic. If you read the linked source and do the math you would note that the rate of sea level rise is increasing, which seems to handily dismantle whatever point you were trying to make.

>>106447
>A basic understanding of cause and effect, apparently.
But i expressed your argument accurately.

What are you getting defensive for, its your argument. Not my fault it sucks.

Its your assumption we'll just get hotter and hotter until we die. Something which has never happened.
>>106447
>Apparently I was wrong and your statement was merely logically incoherent instead of sarcastic.
Why cant it be both? I told you not to underestimate me.

*opens robe revealing duel katanas*

Anyways, the accelerating rise in sea level has been wildly exaggerated.