Trump to Undo Vehicle Rules That Curb Global Warming

>On Feb. 21, a coalition of the 17 largest companies that sell cars in the United States sent two letters to Mr. Pruitt, asking him to revisit the tailpipe rules. They said it may be “the single most important decision the E.P.A. has made in recent history.”

>They complained about the steep technical challenge posed by the stringent standard, noting that only about 3.5 percent of new vehicles are able to reach it. That even excludes some hybrid cars, plug-in electric cars and fuel cell vehicles, the automakers wrote. “Even today, no conventional vehicle today meets that target.”

>The automakers estimated their industry would have to spend a “staggering” $200 billion between 2012 and 2025 to comply and said the tailpipe emissions rule was far more expensive for the industry than enforcing the Clean Power Plan.

>Former Obama administration officials and environmentalists denounced Mr. Trump’s expected announcement.

>“The rest of the world is moving forward with electric cars. If the Trump administration goes backward, the U.S. won’t be able to compete globally,” said Margo T. Oge, a former senior E.P.A. official and the author of “Driving the Future: Combating Climate Change With Cleaner, Smarter Cars.”

>“This means they’ll just keep polluting,” said S. William Becker, the executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies. He also predicted that “if this administration goes after the California waiver, there will be an all-out brawl between Trump and California and the other states that will defend its program.”

>The tailpipe pollution regulations were among Mr. Obama’s major initiatives to reduce global warming and were put forth jointly by the E.P.A. and the Transportation Department. They would have forced automakers to build passenger cars that achieve an average of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025, compared with about 36 miles per gallon today.
...

>Eventually achieving those targets would have drastically reduced the nation’s vehicle tailpipe pollution, which accounts for about a third of the United States’ total greenhouse gas emissions.

>Those regulations are locked into place for vehicle model years through 2021, and just before Mr. Trump took office, the E.P.A. put forth a final rule intended to cement them for vehicles built from 2022 through 2025. However, the E.P.A. did not jointly release its plan to do so with the Transportation Department, leaving a legal loophole for the Trump administration to take advantage of.

>The E.P.A.’s Clean Power Plan regulations, which would cut climate-warming pollution from power plants, will probably be much harder for Mr. Pruitt to undo. He will have to legally withdraw the existing rule and propose a new rule to replace it, a process that could take up to two years and is expected to be fraught with legal challenges and delays along the way.

>The effort to undo the tailpipe standards will be much more legally simple. After withdrawing the Obama administration’s requirement for model years 2022 through 2025, the Trump administration will have a year to put forth an alternative set of efficiency standards, people familiar with the matter said.

>>117807
Why is Trump so fucking retarded.

>>118052
He doesn't believe in global warming.

Some people believe in Jesus and some people don't, but this is America and you can freely believe whatever you want, even if Jesus is our lord and savior.

>>118052
It's going to be tough for the US later this century when they're playing catch up on green energy.

Trump's spending looks like it will leave them with plenty of debt as well.

>>118058

>climate change
https://weather.com/news/climate/news/yale-university-climate-change-maps

>religion
https://i0.wp.com/www.smileosmile.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/adherents.gif

>>118052

Trump has called the status quo a disaster and has promised higher incomes and economic growth at a faster clip. 3%.

That's a tall order for an economy already as sophisticated as the US, considering the "disasterous" status quo features full employment, moderate GDP growth rate, and a pathway to full healthcare coverage for the working class.

The republicans are just going to sell out our future by risking environmental degradation and unleashing banks to practice risky lending and gambling as they please. They're going to enable energy companies to make deals that empower some of the worst autocrats.

They know a large portion of their electorate will believe whatever the right wing outlets feed them unquestioningly as long as they bring up the spectre of the liberals scheming against economic growth with burdensome regulation.

And when the inevitable disaster happens, and it becomes apparent we've sold out some of the robustness of our society offered by government imposing some structure onto industry, they'll hope it's some other administration in power and that Americans remain as myopic as they are today.

>tfw you're hoping Trump will start the construction of nuclear power plants for energy because he said he wants the USA to have more nuclear capability

Only this will redeem him.

I want to believe...

>>118165
>full employment
I think the republican's obsession with slashing environmental regulations is disastrous too but let's not lie here.

>>117807
>Be poor
>Can't afford smogable car
It's a dumb idea to rollback these policies, but I'm kind of hype because I might be able to drive my shit car again.
>If your emissions control system has been modified or replaced without being certified it's an instant smog check failure
Things like that are dumb as hell, so what if it's a DIY or unofficial fix, if it's emissions are appropriate that's all that should matter.
>Live in California
>California would fight it to protect me from my own wallet
Ah fuck, oh well it was nice to dream.

>>118061
Yeah both of those are going to suck. I still don't the possible logic behind promoting dying industries like coal. Like if you are worried about them being jobless why not just retrain them into the booming green industry or other alternatives. Just seems like they're putting on a band aid instead of fixing the problem. But with figure heads like Tillerson, I wouldn't be surprised if they just wanted to milk the fossil industries for their last drops, pass a quick buck and run off before they have to fix it.

They should focus on banning self driving cars

I sure love photochemical smog enhanced by the inversion effect around cities don't you?

>>118188
This. Getting rid of the red tape for nuclear and building new plants while reducing oil subsidies accordingly would be a great move for energy diversification.

So the government was forcing auto makers to make better cars? What happened to free market forces? Why doesn't that work? HMMM?!

It must be nice to have the president in the corporations back pocket.

>>118597
Trump doesn't really support the free market. Going against the TPP, trying to re-negotiate NAFTA, and forcing companies to stay in the US proves that.

>>119010
The free market was a stupid issue anyway

Just like everything RINO conservatives support.

Thank god Trump has us talking practically again.

It amazes me that any of these automakers build anything in the US, when we keep changing the fucking rules every 4 years. They literally can't plan for more than a couple years in advance and don't know where to allocate resources for when the rules change again.

>>118165
>They know a large portion of their electorate will believe whatever the right wing outlets feed them unquestioningly as long as they bring up the spectre of the liberals scheming against economic growth with burdensome regulation.

Yeah, no. The problem is that you guys are doing some seriously embarrassing shit that makes the right question how sane you are. Literally. In regards to social issues, I mean. Some of your herd is allowed to speak way too loudly about stuff only a minority of democrats consider legitimate. But those loudmouths hog so much of the spotlight, it raises doubt on everything you do. It's basically like 2 or 3 muslims in suicide vests ruining it for the other billion just trying to live their lives.

You guys have got to moderate yourselves if you want the right to stop making funny faces at you. Otherwise, the right will keep thinking that Trump is their only hope to rescue the country from 'degeneracy' or whatever.

>>119820
You act like the right doesn't do this all the time. I have yet to see a right wing forum or comment section that doesn't chimp out over the phrase "right wing terrorism". Right wing news outlets regard it as liberal propaganda even though the fbi have documented the rising problem

>>117807
>President Donald Trump (age 70 years)
>Environmental Protection Agency administrator, Scott Pruitt (age 48 years)
>transportation secretary, Elaine L. Chao (age 63 years)
I expected nothing less from people who will all be interned back into the ground within the next 20 years, not living to see the consequences of their actions.

as an aut/o/ enthusiast, this pleases me.

>>119818
This is why Toyota made a profit of $18 billion US in 2015, while general motors made 9

One of the reasons at least

>>119825
The word is interred you fucking fourteen year old

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/09/epa-chief-scott-pruitt.html

Priutt sounds like my kinda guy. Doesn't afraid of any liberal.

>>119998
What a fucking looney.

>>120279
>what a looney he actually looked at the science


Yes us smart liberals all trust "common knowledge" and whatever television scientists say.

It's great being part of the academic elite without having to read SHIT

>>120315
Except actual science shows carbon dioxide is the main cause for pollution.

>>120323
What does that even mean

>>120323
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_garbage_patch

>>120325
Carbon dioxide is causing global warming.

>>120327
Irrelevant

>>120333
It's called climate change... lol

>>120337
The climate is warming

>>120342
It was warming before humans started burning dinosaurs.

Maybe Global Warming is being caused by time traveling republicans??

Those bastards!

>>120345
And humans are accelerating the progress.

>Dis is da priz of fredom :D

>>120345
>Haha you idiot heroin isnt gonna kill me im dying already

I don't believe in gravity.

>>117807
In 10 years, which country will have worse air pollution: the US or China?

>>120361
This has not been proven.

It's just really easy to believe because of the massive amount of liberal anti west propaganda you've shoved up your ass.

>>120374
>republicans don't believe in svience LOL
>ong why did we lose the election??? Stupid republicans!

>>120388
> liberal anti West propaganda

What the hell does this even mean?

And it's been proven over and over again by NASA and a shit ton of other agencies/organizations. Stop reading Drudge and Breitbart

>>120384
If things keep going the way they are, the USA easily. At least China has been pushing nuclear power and trying to close down some coal mines

>>120397
Global Warming is a myth designed by Commies to kill businesses. Same with Pollution and Extinction.

Regulation is a Communist ploy to enslave the masses. Don't buy into the Liberal Hype!

>>120397
It has not been proven.

Their theories are based on computer models that have failed to predict our climate over and over.

Historical levels of CO2 do not correlate with temperature.

I could go on but its boring. A bunch of shitty scientists act like the s ience is settled, and liberals eat it up.

Even IF we can warm the planet, thats a good thing. I hope we are.

We ought to quadruple the CO2 in the air. Plants would thrive and maybe we won't have to deal with regular ice ages anymore.

Not one scientist can prove why that would be bad. This entire theory is a joke.

>>120398
>>120397

Classic example of why liberals love this stupid ass doomday prophecy, right there.

It perfectly demonizes the west. Anti west views and climate alarmism go hand in hand.

>>120400
Gave me a good chuckle.

>>120401
You're such a fucking dunce it's unbelievable.

>>120402

What is anti west views?

>>120404
>What is anti west views?
How can you call me a dunce right before asking a stupid question like this?

Honestly this liberal tactic of acting stupid is amazing.

Or are you actually that ignorant?

>>120401
It's not based off of computer models, it's based off what's currently happening.

>Historical levels of CO2 do not correlate with temperature.


>Carbon dioxide (CO2). A minor but very important component of the atmosphere, carbon dioxide is released through natural processes such as respiration and volcano eruptions and through human activities such as deforestation, land use changes, and burning fossil fuels. Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by more than a third since the Industrial Revolution began. This is the most important long-lived "forcing" of climate change.

>On Earth, human activities are changing the natural greenhouse. Over the last century the burning of fossil fuels like coal and oil has increased the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). This happens because the coal or oil burning process combines carbon with oxygen in the air to make CO2. To a lesser extent, the clearing of land for agriculture, industry, and other human activities has increased concentrations of greenhouse gases.

The consequences of changing the natural atmospheric greenhouse are difficult to predict, but certain effects seem likely:

>On average, Earth will become warmer. Some regions may welcome warmer temperatures, but others may not. (so far the global average temperature has risen by 2 degrees in the last decade)

>Warmer conditions will probably lead to more evaporation and precipitation overall, but individual regions will vary, some becoming wetter and others dryer. (again, look above)

>A stronger greenhouse effect will warm the oceans and partially melt glaciers and other ice, increasing sea level. Ocean water also will expand if it warms, contributing further to sea level rise. (happening right now as the arctic circle is losing ice and oceans are rising)

https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

>>120406
>denies climate change
>calls me ignorant

The irony is strong. There's nothing wrong with being a liberal on some issues.

>>120408
>It's not based off of computer models

So you haven't invested any time into this topic. How else would they make predictions. A comic strip?

Rhey put data in their program and that's the supposed future. Too bad they're wrong every time.

The weatherman cannot predict next week, but you have the arrogance to think they can see 50+ years into the future. It's laughable.

You've got talking points, irrelevant facts, and a generic link to nasa. The classic combo move of a pseudo-intellectual college student.

>There's nothing wrong with being a liberal

God dammit you fucking troll. Well played.

>>120412

You didn't even read the source.

>there's nothing wrong with being a liberal

On some issues, faggot.

I'm liberal on the environment and a few other issues but overall I'm conservative.

I'm not a climate denier. I'm not a dumbass like you.

>>120412
All data is base off of current trend and they said that we'll be extinct within a century if no actions were taken. Actions will be taken by those "commie liberals"; but said actions will destroy major industries, like coal and oil.

Granted Oil will live on since there's plenty of use for them beside fuel; coal, not so much.

>>120414
If you were a conservative, you would know that "climate denier" is a nonsense term thrown at conservatives.


You're just a basic liberal, who has accept talking points as dogma.

Everyone who looks at this issue understands the science is not settled.

>>120415
>All data is base off of current trend
Currents trends, data, and how people think these data points might interact.

Even if we had all the data, to think we understand how this climate works is an outlandish claim.

If we could predict this accurately, someone would do it and this debate would be over.

>>120423
You're not providing any good argument against climate change.

"humans aren't the cause for the current climate change because reasons" isn't a good argument.

I trust NASA more than an anon with baseless claims and loves to project.

>>120414
Climate Change Denier doesn't Exist because Climate Change Doesn't exist.

We're not going to die due to fossil fuels, stop perpetuating the hype!

>>120415
Noone can predict the future.

All data is fabricated by Communists in Universities.

Stop spreading the lies you filthy commies.

If I were President, I declare War on Liberalism and Abolish all of those god damn social programs like the EPA and the DoL.

>>120440
You're trying too hard

>>120433
The burden of proof is on you.

But if you understood this much, you would get that there isn't proof.

Heres my argument

https://youtu.be/qN5L2q6hfWo

Basic questions about climate change cannot be answered. College students and politicians just believe in this shit like religion.

>>120440
>false flagging every day

Carbon is evil but fukushima is meh

>>120456
Not him but anthropogenic climate change is overwhelming supported in literature, so his position is well supported, and really it's you who needs to justify their position with evidence

>>120472
I don't care how many people support something, fucking normies.

>>120479
I'm waiting for your proof m8

>>120479
>I don't care to do even cursory research on a subject before offering my worthless opinion on it
FTFY

>>120497
>you can't prove my god doesn't real

>>120501
False equivalence

>>120594
Its the same stupid shit.

You can't disprove something like this.

The entire theory is that Earth is warming naturally and humans are making it warm FASTER.

There is no posdible way to debunk such a minor effect.

How fast was it warming before we started burning fuel? Its a mystery.

Bull nye cannot answer basic questions on this issue bevause the answers don't exist. Video above.

Temperature data us notoriously unreliable. Not to mention there are other non technological issues. Like the USSR paying people based on how cold it was.

Fuck this theory and all the politics that come with it.

>>120598
I actually agree with a lot of what you said here, but to play devils advocate wouldn't it be safer to err on the side of caution on climate change rather than continue down the path were going down now?

>>120611
No, because there is no reason to think anything catastrophic will happen due to heat. Are you religious? One of them moght be right.

If anything, we should be trying to avoid another ice age. That's a legitamite threat.

>>120613
You're not providing any sources for your claims. Hence why they're baseless.

There's a shit ton of data arguing that the current climate change is from man.

>ice age being a legitimate threat

Yes, with the earth heating up we should really be worried about another ice age. Yes.

>>120598
>How fast was it warming before we started burning fuel? Its a mystery.

That's simply not true. The overwhelming consensus among climatologists is based on evidence from multiple domains of research corroborating the same conclusions. Evidence not just from climatology, but from laboratory scale experimentation, geology, oceanography, and astrophysics

We can build models of Earth's climate in the past and extrapolate how much warming we should be seeing. Then we can model how much faster humans will be accelerating warming and compare the results to what we observe. That the expected and observed models match on the basis of decades of research carried out globally is very worrying.

>>120611
And Kill the Fossil fuel Industry for it?

It's not worth the risk.

>>120616
I don't need sources for that kind if thing.

Its common knowledge we go through ice ages. Read a book.

Has the Earths greenhouse effect ever gotten so hot that everybody died? No, it hasnt. So there's no reason to think it'll happen in the future.

>>120617
Temperture reading from the past are highly suspect due to various factors.

Weather monitoring in general suffers from this weakness.

Science denier here

If anyone has RAW temperature data, I'd love to see it.

>>120629
>>120624
>>120623
Go read an ice core, faggots.

>>120722
I did and it showed that CO2 doesn't cause the temperature to increase

nice try bill nye

>>120613
>No, because there is no reason to think anything catastrophic will happen due to heat.
Are you high ?

>>120736
According to Earth's history, there is literally a 0% chance of that burning fossil fuel will cause our temperature to spiral out of control.

It's basic math.

doomsday prophecy - psychic abilities = political bullshit

>>120624
you won't have 100% certainty about anything, but when you have broad expert consensus across multiple fields, even a 5% risk of catastrophic climate change is reason enough to question the foundations of modern growth-driven economic models

>>120629
Look in the mirror. Take 5 seconds to think about what the fuck you just said.

>>120755
>broad expert consensus
this is bullshit

spend a moment looking into it and you see it's baseless

many of the papers included in this supposed consensus weren't even proponents of catastrophic anthroprogenic climate change.

Is there a list of scientists somewhere? That would allow us to say x% of scientists believe x. Afaik there is no such list.

If you have one please share.


>5% risk of catastrophic climate change

It's 0% accoording to my math. Can you show me your work?

>question the foundations of modern growth-driven economic models

You must me fucking with me now. No way would you admit you want to slow human progress.

>>120722
>>120760
Of course you don't have the data.

Because none of you believers in this hoax have actually looked at it.

Your teacher and somebody on tv spoke of global warming as if it was common knowledge, and you bought it.


why do I bother? Sheeeple gonna sheep

>>120772
>Of course you don't have the data.
Where did anyone say that? If you aren't a complete dumbass, the ice core data is in a simple google search. Use some common sense.

>>120775
And they're all liberals.

Name one one conservative think tank that support the idea of Global Warming.

>>120772
>Is there a list of scientists somewhere? That would allow us to say x% of scientists believe x. Afaik there is no such list.

between 90 and 100% of climate scientists, globally:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

>It's 0% accoording to my math. Can you show me your work?

That's because you don't do math.
Here's one expert estimate for you: 10% for runaway climate change:
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2015-04-27/climate-shock

>You must me fucking with me now. No way would you admit you want to slow human progress.

Well that's an investment. We mitigate risk now so that in the long term we can expect even better outcomes for living things, including humanity.

Sometimes, you put off a benefit in the short-run for greater benefit in the long-term.
Sometimes, you have to cooperate with others, even people you don't like, toward a better outcome.
Sometimes, you invest toward an insurance policy not because you're certain that the worst can happen, but because it's a possibility.

If it is the case that the conservative worldview, or at least some variants of conservative worldview, cannot account for these basic necessities, then it's not a robust worldview, and it cannot be expected to sustain civilization through everything we might face, no matter how dear it is to you and how hated liberal worldviews might be in every other capacity.

Here's the thing; if you have specific grievances with current climate models, do your own research, and get published in a scientific journal. Convince experts that your evidence is superior.

Circumventing scientists to feed blatant misinformation to the electorate and question the inherent value of research and placing gag orders on scientists are precisely not the tactics used if we want intelligent policy and better public understanding of reality. Rather, it reeks of conflicting interests.

>>120775
>the ice core data
How is that raw temperature data

fuck off

>>120782
If it wasn't backed by conservatives, then it's a piece of shit.

>>120782
Your consensus is bullshit.

Post links to it all you want.

And I was just kidding about the math. Obviously, you can't do math on something like that. Not really.

I'm not reading the rest because my commie sense is tingling.

>>120788
You tell them.

Fossil Fuels is healthy. Other wise the planet is dead by now.

Look at all of them libertards defending those climate change lies.

Everybody knows that it's a Hoax by communists to take over our nation by preventing us from using fossil fuels.

>>120791
Meanwhile they use it to enrich themselves. They should be driven into the sea

>>120791
this is true though lol

>tfw this is only the beginning
Can't wait for my well water to become undrinkable due to toxic chemicals leaching into the local aquifer, thank you so much based Pruit for ensuring that big ag can fuck us even harder than it does already.

>>120807
I thought you people wanted free shit?

>>120778
Not every think tank exists to be a partisan hack job. Some are actually interested in science.

>>120785
And that's why you aren't a climate scientist.

>>120810
>All the free poison you can drink!
Hey wait a minute!

Educate yourselves Libertards: http://www.conservapedia.com/Global_warming

>>120919
>conservapedia

Wow, surely this is a good source and totally isn't bias at all!

>>120919
Sorry, but I'll keep believing the scientists. Why don't you educate yourself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

>>120919
>>120926
>>120930
False flagging samefag

Climate alarmists cannot answer the most basic questions about our climate.

Why did the Earth's warming "pause" recently?

Why is sea ice growing? Lol

>>120969
>Why is sea ice growing?

Because polar glaciers are fragmenting from increased heating, duh.

Poor troll, you need better bait.

>>120969
Better question:
Why didn't we reach 3 degree celsius by now?

Because Global warming is bullshit, That's why!

>>120979
Arbitrary figure for an arbitrary goal against continually mounting evidence of an issue.

Thanks, you've been great.

>>120970
You seem to be drawing a distinction between "sea ice" and polar ice for no reason.

All sea ice is stable or growing.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

>>120979
Here's that fag who likes to post hyperbolic nazi shit to follow up genuine conservative posts.

Are you proud of yourself? Soending your days getting in the way of communication.

Get a lyfe

>>120983
>You seem to be drawing a distinction between "sea ice" and polar ice for no reason.

It's the sea, dumbass. Ice moves.

>>120983
You seems to be against the notion that Global Warming is a communist ploy to establish a federal agency paid by taxpayers to degenerate the entire populace into pussy ass tree huggers.

>>120990
what does that matter

I guess you are trolling now that you realized how little you understand this topic?

>>120995
That's kinda accurate but it's a bit nuanced. You might want to stick with less abstract issues.

>>120995
You seem to be a real nice guy with nice looking musculature, like a big nice feller, oh boy.

>>120999
If english is your second language, you could get a pass for being dense.

There's nothing trolling about comprehensive observation and labeling concerning global warming effects.

Of course, given your *elite* level of understanding--which must surpass basic scientific and common-sense understanding of cause and effect--I'm sure you're immune to blatant data supporting climate change.

Blatant. As in: undeniable, given rationality.

Thanks for participating, pleb.

>>121002
I just posted some data from NASA from 1979-present that shows sea ice is stable or growing.

Your reply?
>sea ice moves

I wish you were trolling but sadly ypu might just be a stupid asshole. Such a unfortunate combination.

>>121006
>ypu

I wish you were trolling.

Fragmentation of polar ice leads to stable and growing levels of sea ice.

Ice fucking moves. Not just sea ice-->polar ice.

Haha you global warming swines are pathetic

>>121012
Oh ok. Thanks for explaining.

>>118068
>use fraudulent data
>wonder why climate models never work

GIGO

>>120617
>overwhelming consensus
if you can't prove it with experimentation and without manipulating data then, it's not science.

just because the consensus is that the earth is flat doesn't make it so.

>>120782
>cultist diatribe about how repeating a lie makes it true
>calls 'opinions' facts and 'settled science'


https://realclimatescience.com/2016/07/global-temperatures-are-mostly-fake/

i think this guy might be a racist to his grandkids

>>120782
ignoring all content, look at this post, then read its replies. This one is well thought out and well argued.

>>120786
>>120788
>>121087

Then look at these guys jesus. And then there's this.

https://realclimatescience.com/2016/07/global-temperatures-are-mostly-fake/

>Global Temperatures Are Mostly Fake
Posted on July 21, 2016 by tonyheller

>Steven Goddard (pseudonym for Tony Heller) is a blogger and the publisher of "Real Science,"

Go to his youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/user/stevesgoddard/videos

Bill Clinton is a rapist https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBNivGzxt48
Hillary Clinton Defends Child rape https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OI55tTxGWUA


I know that stuff is subjective but it shows how bad he is at filtering fact from scandalous fiction.

read his wiki, he's been proven wrong every time he's gained attention for his claims and has conceded a few times as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Goddard

>>121122
>attacking the source
>relying on "scientific consensus"

Climate alarmists are DONE

>>121128
I dont give you sources just so you can look at the link slack-jawed.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Goddard

>Noted global warming skeptic Judith Curry characterized Goddard's analysis of NASA's data as "bogus."

>Ten days later, however, Goddard acknowledged that the data on which the graph was based was accurate.

>The claim was dismissed by Politifact.com, which rated it as "pants on fire"—its lowest possible rating.

>Goddard's analysis was that it ignored the changes the network of U.S. weather stations had undergone over the last eighty years.

>>121128
pfft... yeah! who relies on "facts" or dumb stuff like that!

>>121132
You think facts are determined by consensus?

>>120772
>It's 0% accoording to my math. Can you show me your work?

Writing
> chance = 0%
Is not math buddy

>>121155
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

>>121328
How about an unbiased non liberal dogma source?

>>121328
It been posted before, dipshit: >>120930

Got any sources that doesn't attack Free Market?

>>121339
That is the unbiased source. You're just too far to the right to know better.

>>121341
>implying the free market doesn't deserve it

>>121344
Libertard confirmed.

If you're against free market, then you're a communist.

Which is why Global Warming is a bullshit ploy to convice the populous that regulation is good; when all it does is stunt the growth of the economy.

>>121324


doomsday prophecy - psychic abilities = political bullshit

>>121341
>the Free Market
>>121345
>libertard

Pathetic false flagging.

Really shitty work comrade. 2 week in gulag.

>>121433
I'm refering to liberals, not libertarians.

Of course global alarmists made this shit up to promote regulations and government control; that what communism is.

So anything they said about needing government intervention is bullshit.

>>121448
Ok. You go to gulag only 10 days.

>>118052
> retarded

That would imply he doesn't have a strong motivation for his actions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwdigYvkzOI

>>119820
You have a point; the partisan left, race-baiters, and radfems certainly did not dissuade voters from supporting Trump in order to MAGA (aka. maintain the status quo).

But do recognise that all the tantrums they have thrown and will throw in future will not equal an iota of the catastrophe that Trump, Bannon and his ilk will wreak on the country. 'American Carnage' is going to look like a spoiled picnic compared to the ensuing chaos if they continue to get their way, with consequences for the world at large.

I realise I must sound hysterical, but I've lost faith in any possibility of a competent or even stable Trump presidency, to say nothing of a prosperous one. Now all I can pray for is the day he finally steps down and allows the whole world to breathe easy again.

>>121577
>Now all I can pray for is the day he finally steps down and allows the whole world to breathe easy again.
Do you really think a closet neocon like Mike Pence would make a better president than Trump?

>>121580
No. The wishful thinker in me wonders if there's any way to cut the cancer by the root, but it's eaten too far into the government for anything short of slow, harsh treatment.

Pence has the better of Trump in that he is, at least, an actual politician instead of an overgrown New York shyster. But that just makes him the perfect Republican fall-back when Trump has a sudden case of the peaches. I wouldn't be surprised if he's been planning to play Cassius all along.

This is just horrible! We're going to be screwed when we're going to have to tell our kids what happened to America, let alone the Asias.

You would think the democrats with all their power over the last 8 years would have sanctioned China and its smog cities but nooo, its much more important to destroy home resources when some of which can burn clean.

>>121577
>I realise I must sound hysterical, but I've lost faith in any possibility of a competent or even stable Trump presidency, to say nothing of a prosperous one. Now all I can pray for is the day he finally steps down and allows the whole world to breathe easy again.

Governing effectively was never the idea. Deconstruction or destruction of the institutions of our state and post WWII global order is. There's really no reason otherwise to appoint people who have made it their life's goal to blow up the agencies to now lead them, just as there is no point to cutting the State department funding, sacking officials without the intention of replacing them, or being publicly provocative and confrontational towards our allies. Bannon and Trump likely view these as chains that have held back the US from greatness, and our now attempting to break them, and not in the gradual, incremental way, but in a way that is guaranteed to create chaos and uncertainty.

Bannon really is a mastermind if you think about it though. The establishment is completely hamstrung and can't do a damn thing against Trump because of their past shittiness leading up to this. If they do react, they'll likely rally the conservative public around Trump and create a crises of confidence in the government. If they don't, then Trump can continue blowing things up, which will also lead to a crises of confidence. Either way, he gets what he wants, especially if the economy crashes too. After all, Bannon believes that a major crises and revolution will be required to redefine what America is, and he's not that far off from the truth.

>>121603
>some of which can burn clean.

American coal will be the cleanest.
That's why none of the regulations matter anyway.

>>121604
Bannon is a libertarian dream come true.

>>120408
>deforestation
how can that be a thing when the earth has been the greenest in a long time?

>>121604
Yeah trump and bannon want to crash the econony!

>trump supporters will regret their decision any day now >;[

>>122759
Because humans cut down huge forests faster than they can grow back. It isn't rocket science.

>>122877
So what.

>>122877

>>http://science.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/01/18669647-global-greening-the-other-greenhouse-effect-is-underway?lite

>>122879
Cutting down whole forests inn a year at a rate that it would take decades worth of natural forest fires to match is bad for the environment, to say nothing of the destroyed ecosystems and the effects on wildlife or humans.

>>122880
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/deforestation/

>>122883
>>122877
Brazil es numero uni!

>>122882
>>122883
Emotional argument.

Globally, the trees are growing.

Deforestation was always exaggerated anyway. How do you think we have cities and huge populations now? Wtf are you complaining about? Lol

>we need to stop being here!

>>122894
>Globally, the trees are growing.
No they aren't.
>Deforestation was always exaggerated anyway.
No it wasn't.
Anything else?

>>122897
Not atm

>>122894
And they're all cut down for Farming, and resource extraction; so what's your point?

>>118349
>Retrain them into the booming green industry
The industry is heavily subsidized right now, and I can assure you, while increasing, saying it's booming would be a bit of an overstatement. I'll agree when the industry can sustain itself. The reason while you can't retrain coal workers, is that green energy doesn't distribute money as well as fossil fuels. People get paid royalties just for having land to lease to coal companies.

>>118559
The irony in this sentence, is that Nuclear is subsidized by the govt. while to my knowledge, oil isn't

>>120415
>But said actions will destroy major industries like coal and oil

No, the actions aren't killing coal or oil, coal is dying because it's expensive and inefficient as compared to natural gas, which will exist for at least the next 20 - 25 years, as powerplants today are being built to burn it, and run for as much time. Unless solar can become cheaper, and there are breakthroughs in the science and technology of batteries, allowing massive amounts of electrical energy to be stored, then we're going to be seeing fossil fuels for a long time. Maybe solar will be cheaper, but it's still a nightmare for utility and power companies.

>>123831
>is that green energy doesn't distribute money as well as fossil fuels. People get paid royalties just for having land to lease to coal companies.

Well we're creating jobs but not wealth. We're paying folks to dig holes and fill 'em up again. Of course since social programs are the devil that's the only way to keep the Republican base happy.

The green energy industry can certainly sustain itself.
It just can't compete with extractive resource industries that have a century+ head start in growth and now feature companies with GDP equivalent to large swathes of Asia and Africa. They can sustain significantly undercutting their profits to muscle competitors out of markets. Fledgling green technology companies don't have that clout yet, so they've mostly competed in niche markets until recently. Even so, Iceland derives 100% of its supply from renewables, and France derives 75% of its power from nuclear.

The difference between green energy and extractive energy is that the former isn't a fuel, it's a technology. With that comes the promise we can obtain the same energy productivity with lower overhead and less ecological collateral and less dependence on foreign resources. It's going to be a change we'll have to make at one point or another. We should be focusing investment there, especially government subsidies.

>>122894
To my knowledge, deforestation is a serious issue but desertification far moreso.

>>122838
>>trump supporters will regret their decision any day now
>;[

I've long given up hope that they can be reasoned with any more than we can train jungle niggers to produce NASA.

Given their disdain for science, reason, evidence, all the things that are necessary to make sensible predictions about reality and by extension our interests.

I've come to terms with the fact that humanity is imperfect, some problems don't have explicit solutions and are just to be managed. We'll live beside them, do our best to influence outcomes, hope more of them can take a more nuanced view of complex policy, but realize we'll always have some baggage.

>>123835
your faux racism is not persuasive

>>123833
>The green industry can certainly sustain itself
Why do they need subsidies then?

>They can sustain significantly undercutting their profits to muscle competitors out of markets.
They don't need to do that, it's more economically efficient to use natural gas over solar in the US right now for power.

>Iceland derives 100% of it's power from renewable energy
They also have specific geologic features unique to it's location, please enlighten me about all of the geothermal energy that the US isn't utilizing

>France derives 75% from nuclear
And it's cheaper (and safer) to use natural gas power plants.

>Green energy isn't a fuel
This is a massive erroneous assumption. It is very much a fuel, and an unreliable one at that. Renewable energy doesn't have nearly the same energy productivity, and has far more overhead. It can sometimes have more ecological collateral, and it doesn't necessarily mean that we'll be less dependent on foreign resources. There's a reason why Norway still drills for oil.

>>123831
>The irony in this sentence, is that Nuclear is subsidized by the govt. while to my knowledge, oil isn't

US military welfare for our Jihadist OPEC enemies isn't a subsidy? We fight wars to keep oil flowing.

>>117807
>>117810
Good. Fuck green energy efforts. The third world vermin can drown, starve and get shot at our borders for all I care.

We should use geothermal energy

>>123833
>The difference between green energy and extractive energy is that the former isn't a fuel, it's a technology
it is a fuel just like any other.
no solar panel will last for forever and wind turbines require insane amounts of upkeep/repair, and have many parts that wear out over time.
nuclear requires far less of both "fuel" and initial construction materials as either of those, takes up barely any space at all, is silent, clean and safe.

>>123833
>We should be focusing investment there, especially government subsidies.
also you do realize that half of USA's yearly energy budget already goes to renewable energy, as in solar & wind.

>>123929
>And it's cheaper (and safer) to use natural gas power plants.

The green energy industry is a bunch of hippies with just enough information to make a shitty machine. Nuclear is the only green energy worth anything and it is safer than coal. I'm not sure how dangerous fracking is so I can't really contest your statement on natural gas but it is extremely detrimental to communities. Being unable to drink the tap and water catching fire doesn't sound safe in the slightest.

>>121603
>sanctioned China and its smog cities but nooo
You do realize China has been making major strides in moving to clean energy right? Or do they not talk about that in the land of "alternative facts"?

>>125703
yeah and Africans have been growing a lot of crops lately

Fuck America

>>125704
What does that have to do with anything?

>>125707
Sorry I thought we were taking any excuse to prop up shitty countries and demonize the west

>>125631
Anon... I don't think you understand just how bad things are getting. The effects of global warming thus far have already caused some serious ecological problems, but things are going to get much, MUCH worse. The relatively minor increase in temperature is causing the polar ice caps to melt, which would be bad on its own due to rising sea levels, but the real problem is the ungodly amount of methane gas trapped within the ice which is being released, causing a much greater increase in temperature.
This isn't some "Chinese conspiracy", this isn't a joke, we are recreating the conditions of the Permian-Triassic extinction event which killed nearly all life on Earth and took thousands of years for the environment to recover, in which a large number of volcanic eruptions released CO2 into the atmosphere and caused the same effect we're seeing now. But while that was caused by a massive natural disaster, the effect we're seeing today is simply caused by the greed of fossil fuel CEOs who know they'll be gone before they feel the effects of their actions.

>>125727
>WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE

>>125729
Honestly? If we don't take drastic measures to prevent the problem, yes. The whole claim that its some hoax created by China doesn't even make sense because China is currently in "OH FUCK OH FUCK OH FUCK WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS" mode on the issue.
I'm not sure why some people insist on burying their heads in the sand on this and trust the word of big oil and coal executives over that of scientists in every country on earth. Its fucking baffling considering these are the same people who think that "DA JOOZ" are trying to destroy humanity and nonsense like that.

>>125731
I agree with you dude

WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE

0.04% OF OUR AIR IS CO2 AND RISING SUPER DUPER FAST

even though we're burning more WAY CO2 THAN EVER the so-called global warming "paused" recently which makes no sense...

and the warming observed was actually on Earth's surface, not the atmosphere where the CO2 is...

and sea ice is growing...

none of this is making any sense???? AL GORE WHAT THE FUCK

>>125732
>>125729
>>125732
>>125631

.....Go back to Heartland and other Think tank corporations that tries to protect the Coal Industry from abolition.

>>125727
>>125731
It just another shitposter, don't respond.

To him/her, Global warming is bullshit propaganda to increase taxes and regulations on the people themselves; that's the only thing that matters.

>>125735
Yeah ignore the data.

You're a super duper good person at least. America is bad! Yeah, so greedy country.

>>125735
replying to:
>>125727
>>125731
About Shitposter:
>>125631
>>125729
>>125732

>>125737
>don't talk to the reporters they're going to hurt your feelings
>NO BAN NO WALL

>>125732
>0.04% OF OUR AIR IS CO2 AND RISING SUPER DUPER FAST
It was 0.025% just 2 centuries ago before the industrial revolution, so yes, it is rising extremely quickly. But that's not even the big issue here- as I said, the bigger problem is that its going to release about 50 gigatons of methane into the atmosphere, which is a far more potent greenhouse gas.
>even though we're burning more WAY CO2 THAN EVER the so-called global warming "paused" recently which makes no sense...
Temperatures have been steadily increasing, it hasn't "paused" by any means. There is expected to be a shift in solar activity about a decade from now which may help reduce global temperatures in the short term, but it will only buy us some time, not solve the issue.
>and the warming observed was actually on Earth's surface, not the atmosphere where the CO2 is...
Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere keep heat trapped on the surface below it, that's the entire fucking point.
>and sea ice is growing...
The only increase in sea ice is due to large chunks breaking away from the polar ice caps, while the ice caps themselves continue to shrink.

As I said before, this is something that has happened before millions of years ago and caused the biggest extinction event in the history of the planet, but this time we're the ones causing it.

>>125739
>its going to release about 50 gigatons of methane into the atmosphere
Great, just GREAT. As if the CO2 wasn't bad enough.

>>125739
>Temperatures have been steadily increasing, it hasn't "paused" by any means. There is expected to be a shift in solar activity about a decade from now which may help reduce global temperatures in the short term, but it will only buy us some time, not solve the issue.
this isn't even debated

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus#Length_of_hiatus_in_relation_to_climate_models

>Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere keep heat trapped on the surface below it, that's the entire fucking point.
Heat is trapped on the surface? Like the ground?

I thought it was CO2 that trapped the heat?

Do you see why this isn't making a lot of sense to a science denier like myself?

>>125739
>The only increase in sea ice is due to large chunks breaking away from the polar ice caps, while the ice caps themselves continue to shrink.
This isn't true at all. Some ignorant anon made this exact comment a while ago on this board.

Are you the same person? You still don't understand that sea ice includes the polar ice caps?

I told you already, whatever.

>>125740
>this isn't even debated
Did you even read your own link? It basically says that there are brief periods where the surface temperature stops increasing for a few years due to various weather patterns, but still remains higher than it was previously, and that it began increasing again in 2015- the overall trend continues to show an increase despite these small delays. Even during those short periods, the temperatures of the oceans continued to climb while the levels of arctic ice continued to decrease.
>Heat is trapped on the surface? Like the ground?
There are multiple levels of the atmosphere you dense fuck. The gases in the upper level are keeping heat trapped in the lower levels near the surface.

>>125746
The point is there was a warming hiatus. And you were totally ignorant of that.

Are you sure you're educated on this topic?

>>125746
>Even during those short periods, the temperatures of the oceans continued to climb while the levels of arctic ice continued to decrease.
This is totally false. You're trying to tell me the Earth cooled... but the oceans warmed? The oceans are pretty big how is that even possible.

Arctic ice is not decreasing, it is currently GROWING.

>>125746
>The gases in the upper level are keeping heat trapped in the lower levels near the surface.

If the CO2 is trapping heat in the air, the air would be hot first, then the surface.

No?

How do you know Al Gore wasn't possessed by the Devil to fool us?

>>125751
How do we know that think tanks were funded by Oil and Coal Tycoons to prevent the government form abolishing Gasoline and Coal in order to address climate change.

Couple of websites? like how you got your information to the contrary?

>>125759
I get my information from faggot ass NASA and the other commie "scientists"

the trick is to look at the data gathers by noble men, not the conclusions written by political hacks.

>>125763
Then if you read scientific papers, surely you must have read the discussion of the results, the part that gets reported by the media. Do you or do you not agree with the researcher's interpretations of their own data, which by and large imply the reality of anthropogenic climate change/global warming?

>>125772
>Do you or do you not agree with the researcher's interpretations of their own data
That's not even how it works. Many of the scientists included in the IPCC. for instance, had their data taken out of context.

They did work that wasn't even related to climate change only to have the political fucks misuse their data. If you read the papers included in the report you see a lot of it is irrelevant. They just include it because it fluffs up their "conclusions."

>>125727
Yeah no. All that's going to happen is some worthless mystery meat minorities are going to die before inevitably shitting out their 12th child or some such bullshit. The developed world is wealthy, powerful and technological advanced. None of this will seriously affect us at all and I for one am looking forward to liveleak footage of refugees from the turd world being shot, blown up, or drowned.

>>125774
Why do you keep bringing 'political fucks' and media bias into this? Stop diverting and give me a straight answer; if you've gone the extra mile and read the research directly, do you agree with the conclusions the researchers themselves drew from their own data, which they summarise in the abstracts and discussion?

And to prove your sincerity, can you give me a link to peer-reviewed papers that support your view? I too would like to view data free of media bias, honest.

>>125779
no they don't because Breitbart doesn't believe in climate change, and neither does the far right.

Climate change is liberal bullshit.

>>125776
'Technological advancement' isn't going to save you from Nature kicking down your door and demanding rent, nor is it intended to; the trend of science nowadays is overwhelmingly favouring projects to protect the ecosystem from further damage. But go on, feel free to try explaining to your kids and grandkids why wrecking their future home was worth it just to piss off some 'liberals'. You'd better hope you're six feet deep before they kick your dense skull in.

>>125781
You're obviously not the anon I replied to, but I'll humor you nonetheless. Are you totally comfortable with trusting Bannon and the Republicans as the sole arbiters of truth? Are you willing to take that risk when the stakes are this high, and they'll be long dead while you're footing the bill?

>>125782
>>blah blah mother gaia will punish you, you'll see!
Cry some more you retard. We are already in the process of inventing our way out of pretty much all of the potential problems with climate change. All we need to do is keep bleeding heart ethnomasochists out of power so that the population of the turd world is properly reduced by upcoming events.

>>125784
As long as they're not hippies and paid protesters, yes.

>>125785
>We are already in the process of inventing our way out of pretty much all of the potential problems with climate change.
Citation needed

>>125788
Lesee now, carbon sequestration, sulfate spraying, various forms of flood control, development of GMO crops that are drought and excess rain resistant, etc.

We will at worst experience mild discomfort, the turd world savages will die in droves and I for one am absolutely delighted by this prospect.

>>125779
>do you agree conclusions the researchers themselves drew from their own data
Not necessarily. Many scientific papers draw incorrect conclusions. But most of the time they're looking at data and saying, "It got hotter over here."

Do I agree with the Al Gore and IPCC's misrepresentation of the scientists conclusions? No. Those are the politicians I keep bring up.


The only data that shows a warming trend is based on models and altered numbers.

I'm having a real hard time finding raw data right now

here's something though
http://www.remss.com/research/climate#Atmospheric-Temperature

I do believe the Earth is warming, and was warming before we began burning fuel. It's normal. Some data shows no warming at all, either way, it's not our fault.

>>125787
Oh, Bannon's cronies definitely aren't hippies. As for 'paid', that's a different story...

>>125793
>I don't believe that Coal will bring the end of days.

same narrative every fucking day.

No matter what Trump can do, Coal will be killed off.

Gasoline may be safe for now; it's the only fuel that they need for all of their vehicles. Coal will be killed by Fracking, Solar, Wind and other sources of cheaper energy.

Coal Diggers BTFO.

>>125797
oh you

>>125799
But it's true, if they treat ACC seriously, they'll forcefully abolish coal. That's why the coal industry funded many of the think tanks, to protect their asses.

>>125801
I don't know if coal miners can make money in 2015 but I'm willing to let them try.

It's hard to comprehend why they wouldn't be able to see their product. Everyone needs energy.

>>125803
the same reason why you confused on why lead is abolished in Europe.

>>125804
i don't think coal is that deadly. Besides, I eat iron every day.

>>125807
Same with Lead

There's no safe level of lead.

A microbe of Lead will turn you into a fucking retard.

>>125751
>The point is there was a warming hiatus. And you were totally ignorant of that.
You can't really call it a hiatus when the ocean temperatures continued to increase and ice levels continued to decrease.
>You're trying to tell me the Earth cooled... but the oceans warmed? The oceans are pretty big how is that even possible.
The earth DIDN'T cool, the surface temperature simply stopped increasing temporarily due to weather events. We've essentially gone from a pattern of warming->cooling->warming... to one of warming(faster than previous levels)->staying roughly the same->warming.
>Arctic ice is not decreasing, it is currently GROWING.
This is blatantly false, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_sea_ice_decline
The levels of sea ice increase and decrease with the seasons, so I guess if you really want to play lawyerspeak then yes, it was increasing during the winter, and will decrease during the summer, that's how it works. The issue is that it's less than it was in previous winters, you have to compare apples to apples here.
>If the CO2 is trapping heat in the air, the air would be hot first, then the surface.
READ, NIGGA, READ!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

>>125793
Thank you very much for at least linking something, which is more than other debaters have bothered to do. However, you really may want to take a closer look at this:

>Over the past 35 years, the troposphere has warmed significantly. The global average temperature has risen at an average rate of about 0.13 degrees Kelvin per decade (0.23 degrees F per decade).
>Climate models cannot explain this warming if human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are not included as input to the model simulation.
>The spatial pattern of warming is consistent with human-induced warming. See Santer et al 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2012 for more about the detection and attribution of human induced changes in atmospheric temperature using MSU/AMSU data.

The only concession they're making is that the warming isn't happening QUITE like they modelled it, although it is definitely happening, and they describe a variety of model input errors to explain discrepancies (which merely proves the fact that the models are indeed unbiased towards human greenhouse gas input, and that the 'evidence' brought up by Cruz was far from the complete picture).

>>125809
hm,.. I guess I should stop eating it thanks. Coal too? I REALLY like coal.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
It really sounds to me like the air would be getting hot first. But ok.

>>125813
In all seriousness I hope we are warming the planet. It's too cold in this mother fucker if you ask me.

>>125686
Radioactive waste concerns keep in mind

>>125791
Coffee will be gone.

>>125838
We can't grow coffee beans in greenhouses now for some reason? Try "coffee will be more expensive" instead.

>>125826
So what? Just bury it out in the desert where nobody lives.

>>125826
how about you read up on that "radioactive waste" before commenting on it.

>>125811
>https://en.wikipedia.org
stopped reading there.

>>125791
>We will at worst experience mild discomfort,
Even minor change in temperature are already melting methane bubbles in the arctic permafrost.
It _could_ be nothing, or it _could_ lead to a greenhouse-gas avalanche and radically accelerate climate change.

>>125853
>>https://en.wikipedia.org
>stopped reading there.

>I don't like facts.

>>125623
This was such a retarded tin foil response idk where to begin. The US produces most of the natural gas it uses and it imports most of it's oil from Canada, and uses the oil it produces domestically. Also, I'd like to know about all of the oil and gas contracts that were awarded to US companies after OIF.

>>125697
>Being unable to drink the tap and water catching fire doesn't sound safe

And neither of these have anything to do with fracking.

>>125873
>wikipedia
>facts

choose one
the only even remotely reliable parts of wikipedia are the chemistry/physics/math sections

>>125811
You're too dishonest. Stop replying to people on 4chan.

>>125853
Wikipedia is fine for uncontested information

Like this

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus

But some people just don't give a shit about facts

>>125927
Best part about this hiatus is it lasted so long the noaa adjusted the numbers to remove it.

But it already happened... lol

>>125930
>Best part about this hiatus is it lasted so long the noaa adjusted the numbers to remove it.

Source?

>>125932
It says that in the wiki>>125927

>>125898
Do you live in a bubble?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fracking-can-contaminate-drinking-water/

>>125937
Quote me the bit where it says they "adjusted the numbers to remove it."

>>125940
Must you take me so literally?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/global-warming-hiatus-never-happened-say-climate-scientists-1.3922378
>Three years ago, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported a 15-year-long plateau in ocean surface temperature changes.
there's the hiatus
>But in 2015, the NOAA published an update that said the previous measurements suggesting a warming hiatus were wrong.
there's the "adjusted the numbers to remove it" part
>The data now suggests there was never a warming hiatus and that the Earth has been warming faster than ever.
That's the funny part for us science deniers lololol

here's some more data as well
http://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures

We can talk about why this hiatus happened, or what it really meant regarding climate change, but it happened. To deny that is only an expression of your ignorance on this topic.

>>125939
Hydraulic Fracturing, known as fracking, is the processes of drilling thousands of feet underground and using water with chemicals to break up the shale, and to get the rocks to produce hydrocarbons. Just because the company was negligent in disposing of waste water, doesn't mean that fracking is responsible for contaminating drinking water. That's like saying drinking soda from aluminum cans causes pollution because people litter.

Man, fuck this country.

>>125951
Are you fucking retarded.

About half of the chemicals used in fracking fluid are known carcinogens

>>125974
So what? Hydraulic Fracturing takes place thousands of feet underground. Isn't there all kinds of cancer down there?

>>125976
No, just minerals. If you dig down 1000 feet, break off a chunk of whatever down there, you can make a smoothie that will work just like activated charcoal, or clay, or diatomaceous earth. However the drilling mud (water and chemicals) shouldn't even sit on your skin for too long!

>>125951
No, fracking in general disrupts local biomes like affecting drinking water. Check out >>125939
It's more like saying pouring salt water on your garden will kill your plants because the salt will kill the plants. Then some idiot like you comes along and suggests since his neighbour DID pour salt all over his garden and killed it, doesn't mean that whenever everyone else does it it will happen.

>>125985
>https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fracking-can-contaminate-drinking-water/
Actually that article makes it sounds like the contamination was caused by improper storage of the chemincals
> people’s water wells in Pavillion were contaminated with fracking wastes that are typically stored in unlined pits dug into the ground

as >>125951
stated

>>125974
>About half the chemicals used in fracking fluids are known carcinogens
This isn't true it depends on the location, there's not one standard mixture used >>125983
Drilling mud isn't the same as fracking fluid, which shows how much you don't know what you're talking about. Drilling mud could be oatmeal depending on the pressure needed in the area. If you dig 1k feet down, it isn't charcoal, it depends on the location and terrain, however, crude oil and natural gas, depending on their deposition, can be very toxic in their natural state. This guy is either trolling or is actually this uneducated
>>125985
You don't have any idea what you're talking about, there's absolutely no evidence of fracking, see the definition of fracking, affecting the drinking water

>>125994
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDpopfFMci8

>>126175
Once again your lack of knowledge of fracking and the oil and gas industry in general leads you to post this. Natural gas in drinking water could be due to pockets of natural gas seeping into the drinking water and escaping, or it could be due to an injection well that seeps into the water table, or it could be due to faulting cementing in the well causing leaks for the natural gas to escape. Good thing they tested the natural gas through samples to figure out if it's naturally occurring or a leak. None of those things, however, have to do with fracking, the hydraulic fracturing of rocks. The video addressed improper disposal of byproducts but not that actually fracking causes pollution which was what I stated

Money is the root of all evil.

>>126205
Usury*

>>126199
Once again you got caught lying and advancing BigOil's agenda. Do you get paid or do you do it for free to help out your dad?

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/14/fracking-hell-live-next-shale-gas-well-texas-us

>nytimes

No fake news sites allowed. Mods delete this thread

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/03/ny-times-publishes-then-retracts-fake-news.php

>>126270
Back to /pol/.

>>126270
Oh look, the little /pol/tard got lost again. You need to be 18 to post on this board, junior.

>>120472
Circumcision is overwhelmingly supported by literature. So was electroshock therapy. It doesnt matter if there is "consensus" if said scientists cant even create a prediction model that works. If you cannot create a proper projection, or reproduce your results consistently (the real killer of most anthropogenic "science") then you cant call it a theory and must take it back to formula. The only place this ISNT true is with "climate change" (prior both global warming and global cooling) where we instead change the science at whim to meet current variables by designing experiments to get expected results instead of the truth.

And to top that off, much of the data put out is wholesale manipulated. I hate people that talk out of their ass on this subject but really know nothing but what the EPA has told them (google Monsanto ghostwrites for EPA)

Ive been on /news/ 2 days and this place is way more anti-truth than/pol/, or even/b/.

>>120782
>well thats an investment

With what money? Its like you fucking retards forget we are 20 trillion in debt with an extra 11 trillion expected in the next decade, spending 4 trillion a year (double what we spent in only 2005) with unfunded liabilities and an exploding "healthcare" system. Oh yeah, and dont forget the interest rate on top of the new debt ceiling. Should we simply soend into oblivion, and sell the populace only expensive "green" shit they cant afford, that many times creates so much waste on the backside that its not even viable as a "green" product?

>>121122
Are you denying Bill Clinton has been accused of rape multiple times and settled out of court?

My lord, the Clinton case is exactly like the Cosby case, down to the clinging deniers.

>>117807
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html

>>126358
Btfo

>>125703
China also has some of the worst human rights abuses in the world and still use slave and child labor, and will steal your organs and sell them to elites if you try to question the government. But hey guys we got da solar panels, wowwee!

>>125811
All you have done is source wikipedia this entire thread, which only demonstrates your inabilty to perform actual scientific research.

>>126373
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-mail/

Not as extreme as Breitbart, but just as dubious.

>>126373
http://www.snopes.com/2017/02/08/noaa-scientists-climate-change-data/
>.... the British tabloid Mail on Sunday (and the Daily Mail‘s online site) published an article by David Rose — a longtime proponent of climate change conspiracy theories whose analyses the scientific community widely regards as flawed and deceptive — alleging that scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) used misleading data in order to rush publication of a groundbreaking climate study and thereby “dupe” world leaders.....

>an article by David Rose — a longtime proponent of climate change conspiracy theories whose analyses the scientific community widely regards as flawed and deceptive

>David Rose — a longtime proponent of climate change conspiracy theories whose analyses the scientific community widely regards as flawed and deceptive

There's your problem, you got and article from a climate denier equivalent of Alex Jones.

>>126382
>>126383
>muh snopes
>muh mediabiasfactcheck
>muh politifact

Fuck off with these craps

>>126385
>muh conservative views.

Go back to /pol/

this is /news/ where real news matters.

Go spread your Alex Jones conspiracy dipshit somewhere else.

>>126383
>Snopes
>owned by new york slimes
>owned by Carlos Slim, "Mexican" (middle eastern) billionare and top single contributor to the Hillary Clibton 2016 campaign

Oh yeah and
>snopes ceo embezzles millions to feed his hooker addiction

But of course "the definitive source for urban legends" is where we should all be getting our facts from.

>>126388
>my worldview
cry moar.

>>126388
Link
>http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/12/22/snopes-ceo-accused-in-divorce-proceedings-of-embezzling-company-money-to-spend-on-prostitutes/

>mommy, the cat lady and the pervert are fighting!

>>126389
Not an argument.

I want 2nd amendment, now please.

>>126386
I don't need an authority website to tell me what's biased or not.

Why do you?

>>126386
>this is /news/ where real news matters.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

(sent from mobile)

>>126388

Here's more sources then:

https://skepticalscience.com/David_Rose_blog.htm

https://mediamatters.org/research/2017/02/07/bogus-daily-mail-story-spearheads-latest-right-wing-assault-climate-change-science/215257

https://www.desmogblog.com/david-rose


>>126390
>Breitbart
really?

Oh look the /pol/tards are here to take back /news/ to rid the world of communist Libfags.

>>126393
U america? Gib guns noa plox

>>126397
>breitbart

How can you type that when you posted snopes? And you just posted mediamatters, a print directly funded by democrat money. You have absolutely no awareness, the only place your "progresiveness" has gotten you is up your own asshole.

>>126400
Just build one, it is totally possible.

A super soaker is basically a flamethrower minus ammunition

>>126402
/pol/tard detected

>>126404
/Ree/tard detected. $0.02 doesnt even buy bubblegum.

>>126373
yet another /pol/tard believing that Global warming is a communist lie.

>>126413
It is. Man made global warming at least.

>>126267
>You were caught lying
Really? Can you prove which statement was false? Is that why you had to resort to anecdotal evidence that had nothing to do with my original assertion? Is that why you have to resort to ad hominem attacks? Face it, you know nothing about the industry, and are only parroting talking points that you've heard in the media

>>126453
You remind me of the smoker who tells people there is no conclusive evidence for certain that cigarettes cause cancer.

>>126454
Do you actually have any rebuttal for what I've written or are you going to continue with false equivalence?

>>126358
>Ive been on /news/ 2 days and this place is way more anti-truth than/pol/, or even/b/.

Well duh. /b/ and definitely /pol/ are some of the most truthful places on the internet. Wake up, and realize that the world you've been propagandized to is a lie.

>>12466
>Well duh. /b/ and definitely /pol/ are some of the most truthful places on the internet. Wake up, and realize that the world you've been propagandized to is a lie.

>intentionally fudges online polls to make it look like /theirguy/ is winning
>invents pizza conspiracy theory as agitprop and pushes it as hard as they can
>denies objective truth in favor of feels and muh white race

"""truthful"""

>>119820

They appear to speak loudly because people give them attention. Arguing with these people is like patting yourselves on the back for out-debating the classroom retard. It's an ego stroke for anyone who thinks they deserve a response. It's also a great tactic for the right to use: "LOOK AT HOW CRAZY THESE PEOPLE ARE, LITERALLY EVERYBODY THAT VOTES DEMOCRAT IS LIKE THIS. LOOK AT HOW MANY OF THEM EXIST." The way some people carry on about them makes them look like are swarming the American countryside like a parasite.

I live in a liberal city and go to liberal college in a fairly liberal profession and hardly anybody cares about social justice ideology. It's never once entered conversation among classmates. We once had an urban planning class where a black man lectured in the front for 16 weeks about how rich people were ruining everything and the liberal class was fed up with it by week 4.

I agree the shit is asinine, but their media focus is the work of both sides, one plugging in the megaphone and the other plugging in theirs.

>>126482
Liberal detected

>>121604
The issue is all that shit is patently not what Trump campaigned on, and I feel like Trump supporters will wake up in a couple years and he'll be at 0% approval rating. Once he loses his base, strange things can happen.

>>126455
The equivalence is only false in our bubbleworld of denial.

>>126485
It's going to be hard for you to adjust once you finally realize most people are liberals.

>>126526
But there's literally 0 evidence that fracking is bad, you could say the processes surrounding it are bad, but using water to break up shale, doesn't contaminate the water supply, it's the disposal of fracking fluids that does that

>>126532
>I'll stick my head in the sand and pretend there isn't any evidence!
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/fracking-is-harmful-to-health-scottish-government-report-damning-evidence-climate-change-a7405296.html

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fracking-can-contaminate-drinking-water/

http://e360.yale.edu/features/forum_just_how_safe__is_fracking_of_natural_gas

>>126534
>I'm too retarded to understand the terms he used, so let me just spam some articles which were addressed earlier in this thread

You can't actually refute what I said because you don't understand what I said. This is the part where I do your job for you because you're too ignorant about the industry to do it yourself.

The first article says fracking could be bad due to potential exposure to toxic elements, but gives no evidence

The second article talks about disposal wells, which I mentioned earlier

The third links a study that mentions methane leaking into drinking water, however, this is due to faulty casing/cementing and has nothing to do with fracking, and the article even mention that fracking fluid and saltwater brine hadn't been found in the groundwater.

>>126538
I'll explain this so that even you can understand it:
You claimed there is no evidence of fracking being harmful. I proved you wrong. You can adhom me all you want, but it doesn't change that you're wrong about there being no evidence.

>>126545
>I proved you wrong
You didn't, fracking is short for hydraulic fracturing, which is the breaking up of rocks in underground formations. I stated that the processes surrounding it can be harmful, such as the disposal of fracking fluids but the actual use of fracking doesn't contaminate water supplies. The articles only prove my point, you didn't prove me wrong because you don't understand what you're talking about. You aren't even capable of telling me the processes of how a well is fracked or even drilled, so I highly doubt you have any idea what you're talking about besides talking points you parroted.

>>126548
>I refuse to look at the proof so there is no proof!
You really shouldn't be posting on this board until you're 18.

>>126548
Here's some more proof for you to ignore:
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/04/study-raises-questions-about-measuring-radioactivity-fracking-wastewater

https://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2016/09/23/erin-brockovich-chemical-found-in-pa-water-systems-study-says/

http://www.ecowatch.com/pennsylvania-fracking-water-contamination-much-higher-than-reported-1882166816.html

https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/122-a50/

The environmental concerns about fracking only distract from the bigger issue that it's not very profitable. Low energy returned over energy invested

Also FYI, the debate about global warming (which is certainly debatable as much as mainstream liberals and environmentalists say otherwise) distracts from the indisputable fact that higher CO2 volume in the atmosphere increases ocean acidity which kills plankton thus disrupted the oceans ecosystem and reducing the amount of oxygen in our atmosphere. It might be a futile effort to reduce emissions either way though because we're going to burn every barrel of fossil fuels that we can either way. Too bad both sides are too uninformed to have a practical discussion about this

>>126549
>>126550
Once again, I said fracking, the hydraulic fracturing of rocks, not the disposal wells, not faulty casing, the actual fracking fluids, leaking from the shale formations. Give me a link where that happens (pro-tip, you can't).

I'm not saying these companies are saints or that they don't pollute the air or groundwater, just that fracking isn't the cause

>>126554
If you think CO2 is bad for oceans, you should see what SO2 from unregulated coal emissions does. CO2 is the quite the celebrity gas for all the popsci blogs, but in reality it's among the least harmful of the greenhouse gasses we should be worrying about. Even water vapor retains heat.

>>126555
Fracking *is* the cause though. I don't know why anyone would become such an apologist for the industry as you apparently have. It's inherently a filthy practice to start with that's only made worse by substandard industry practices and lack of oversight and regulation.

>>126556
I agree CO2 emissions are overblown, but id say they're not harmless. It's definitely a sort of red herring and I agree that sulfur emissions are much more harmful. I wish more would recognize that the United States is lucky to have coal with a much lower sulfur content than China so it's not necessarily fair to hold US coal plants to the same emissions standards

>>126557
>Fracking IS the cause though
It's not. The EPA even concluded the same thing. Fracking fluid doesn't magically leap from the shale formation into the water table. I'm not an apologist, I just think it's irritating when people that don't know about the industry you are involved in, start making false statements about the industry. It would be one thing if they knew anything about the topic, but they don't. You can't actually describe which process associated with fracking or drilling causes the pollution, which is irritating to say the least, so I have to read through these articles, hope they actually post results from the research that are pertinent to the actual question posed, and hope that it proves my assertion false, which I haven't found one. If you actually knew anything about the subject, this process would be a lot less frustrating.

>>126560
Okay, let's play it your way. Even if one sets aside all the groundwater pollution, water table corruption, and the radioactivity, then on top of that you have earthquakes. Or are you denying those are from fracking too?

>>126554
This is mostly because of the fight between social welfare and free market ideology.

>>126561
>Even if one sets aside groundwater pollution, water table corruption, and the radioactivity

These aren't directly from fracking, these have to do with the processes surrounding fracking, and the EPA agrees with me https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-releases-final-report-impacts-hydraulic-fracturing-activities-drinking-water These have to do with processes surrounding fracking, but none of these dealt with fracking fluid in rock formations, migrating into the drinking water, which was my point. Most geologists agree that fracking fluid won't migrate into drinking water, however, it would take years before we would know if it did.

>Are you going to deny earthquakes are from fracking

Most seismic activity isn't caused by fracking, but by injection wells. But don't take my word for it.
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/research/induced/myths.php

>>126574
>It's not caused by fracking, it's caused by fracking related processes
Not the other guy, but it's the same fucking thing man. I don't get why you're nitpicking about this

>revoke a waiver for California that was allowing the state to enforce the tougher tailpipe standards for it's drivers

Can someone clarify? Isn't this stripping a right for the state to govern its self?

>>126577
Because it's not, many of the processes surrounding fracking that cause pollution could be avoided through regulation. Fracking itself isn't that bad, and is the best solution that we currently have for energy.

>>126586
I figured that it was already regulated so that's a valid point. I don't agree that it's a solution to the energy problem though. It's already well past peak and we're approaching the point of diminishing returns when it comes to energy returned over energy invested

>>126596
>peak oil

>>120611
no. because while it's a noble effort, not everyone is playing along. so we cripple ourselves, while other countries laugh at us and pass us by.

It's the equivalent of driving 10 MPH on a 50MPH highway. Driving fast causes accidents, so slowing down will make things safer! except everyone else around you just thinks you are an idiot and drives around you.

>>120782
>between 90 and 100% of climate scientists, globally:
>99% of scientists who's job is study climate change believe in climate change!

>in other news, 99% of Christians believe in Jesus!

>>126642
Christians rely on faith for their beliefs. Climate scientists have science backing them up.

>>126668
Christians rely on faith for their beliefs.

Climate scientist rely on computer models for their belifs.

BIG DIFF

>>126672
ice core samples are better than computer models.

>>126689
The ice core samples show that the Earth was in an ICE AGE when CO2 was at 5x current levels.

>science

>Climate change and Global Warming a propaganda tactic to declare war on Oil and Coal.

>>126672
>Climate scientist rely on computer models for their belifs.

No they don't

>>126733
Yes they do
Because the historical record shows no correlation between co2 and heat

Not the way climate freaks need it to correlate

>>126692
>an ICE AGE when CO2 was at 5x current levels.
I don't think you understand how global extinction events work.

>>126757
No they don't.
>Because the historical record shows no correlation between co2 and heat
Where are you getting this shit from?
>climate freaks
It's like you got everything you know about global warming from Breitbart.

>>117807
Good, the free market will dictate.

>>126783
>he actually trusts the free market

>>126774
yes surely I'm the one who misunderstands the issue

>>126775

Today co2 is at like 400 parts per million

But in the past (millions of years ago) the co2 was way higher
https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/image002-3.gif?w=584

During the cambrian period co2 was at 7000 ppm, but the temperature was normal.

None of this co2 kept the Earth hot enough to avoid ice ages

>yes but when we tweak the data a certain way AND WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE gib money ploz

>>126774
>>126775
Better link here

http://www.biocab.org/Carbon_Dioxide_Geological_Timescale.html
>Scientific studies have shown that atmospheric Carbon Dioxide in past eras reached concentrations that were 20 times higher than the current concentration.

My mistake the co2 was actually 20x higher in the past hahaha

Isn't this great news? Now we know that atmospheric co2 doesn't cause some retarded positive feedback mechanism that causes the Earth to become hot lava.

>>126842
>>126841
Neither of those are good links. Steven Goddard is an oil lobbyist and biocab.com is yet another tentacle (of hundreds) flowing out of the Heartland Institute funded by the Kochs'. This kind of shit is exactly the PR campaign misinfo I was talking about here >>126454

>>126859
>>126859
>Neither of those are good links
From the link

Quoting this article:

Nasif Nahle. 2007. Cycles of Global Climate Change. Biology Cabinet Journal Online. Article no. 295. http://www.biocab.org/Climate_Geologic_Timescale.html, and
http://www.biocab.org/Carbon_Dioxide_Geological_Timescale.html. Accessed: (Day, Month, Year)
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Analysis of the Temperature Oscillations in Geological Eras by Dr. C. R. Scotese © 2002.

Ruddiman, W. F. 2001. Earth's Climate: past and future. W. H. Freeman & Sons. New York, NY.

Mark Pagani et all. Marked Decline in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentrations During the Paleocene. Science; Vol. 309, No. 5734; pp. 600-603. 22 July 2005.

Drew T. Shindell et al. Solar Forcing of Regional Climate Change During the Maunder Minimum. Science, Vol. 294, Issue 5549, 2149-2152, 7 December 2001.

Prothero, Donald, R. Bringing Fossils to Life: An Introduction to Paleobiology-Second Edition. 2004. McGraw-Hill Companies Inc.

Ronov, A. B. 1994. Phanerozoic Transgressions and Regressions on the Continents: A Quantitative Approach Based on Areas Flooded by the Sea and Areas of Marine and Continental Deposition. American Journal of Science 294:777–801.

Source for Nomenclature and Ages: © 1999, The Geological Society of America. Product Code CTS004. Compilers: A. R. Palmer and John Geissman.

David Jablonski, Douglas H. Erwin, Jere H. Lipps. Evolutionary Paleobiology. 1996. The University of Chicago; Chicago, Illinois.

>not good enough

Why does it even matter? Its a simple study of the Earth's history. There's nothing controversial about the data. Except what it means for co2 alarmists.

Perhaps someone more educated than you can explain why the Earth went into ice ages when co2 was WAY higher that current levels.

Did we het hit with a frozen meteor, cooling our planet? Lol

Go to Beijing for a few summer days and then feel free to say air quality/traffic regs are no big deal. Wheezing isn't fun and smoggy skies make you feel like shit for days on end.

>>126872
Yeah who cares about science and history

Look at china!

>>126863
>co2 alarmists
This alone invalidates anything worthy you might have said.

>>126885
I invalidated Earth's record of atmospheric co2?

I never knew words had such power.

>>126887
It's happening
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u9meHJFGNA

>>126892
I can't wait. I love watching you alarmists fail.

Your deflection from the Earth's co2 record is quite telling.

>>126893
When you're quoting shit like Steven Goddard it's pointless to quote facts or truth to you.

>>126894
See
>>126863
Theres like 50 names there. Are they all bad?

This is just basic history...

Coal and oil will not doom the human race; so calm the fuck down you libfags

Tfw somebody on the internet is wrong

Tfw the Earth's history debunks anthroprogenic climate change

>>121131
>politifact
>a trustworthy source
You're fucking kidding me lmao

>>127050
What exactly is wrong with politifact?

>>126841
>directly comparing the cambrian climate to the present day's
CLIMATE ALARMISTS BTFO XXD

500 million years ago the world was 80% covered in water and a supercontinent was breaking up. The electrical engineer blogger is comparing apples and oranges. He is not a scientist and this is not scientific

>>126931
>Tfw the Earth's history debunks anthroprogenic climate change
U wot m8? Again, there WAS a point in history where we had similar levels of CO2 (from volcanic activity, in that case) which caused the polar ice caps to melt and release a fuckton of methane which further increased the global temperature- it was the Permian-Triassic extinction event, which killed the majority of all life on Earth and took millions of years for the environment to recover. You can't really point to the biggest natural disaster in the history of the planet and claim that just because it happened before is justification for INTENTIONALLY causing the same thing to happen again. If anything, Earth's history should be a gigantic "OH SHIT WHAT ARE YOU DOING" warning in this case.

>>127062
>Trump stated that the debt has decreased in his first month
>politifact said that the numbers check out
>politifact still said that the fact was mostly false

>>127066
>500 million years ago the world was 80% covered in water and a supercontinent was breaking up.
So what?

There are ways they can determine past temperatures. They look at old dead plant fossils and shit and say "oh look africa doesn't have any trees right now it must be fucking cold"

Thats how we know that millions of years ago c02 was off the charts, but the temperature was fine. Even COLDER than now.

>>127072
See
>>126863
You people are so ignorant

This isn't even controversial

>>127075
>implying that's what actually happened
Post a link or GTFO

>>127108
You keep speaking as though you weren't the one going against scientific convention.