Trump picks science-denialist to head the EPA

Trump's administration is centered around nepotism, cronyism, lies and demagoguery. Don't expect any positive change or anything that makes sense, really

Flat-earther? Wow Libtards just can't help themselves with their own arrogance.

Oh no,we will all sink in to the sea in 50 years and Grenland will melt. Oh no....

>>91205
>does not believe in science.

nice try OP
"climate change" is NOT a science, it's pseudoscience

so Pruitt doesn't believe in pseudoscience, which is good

>>91219
>>91235
Even petrochemical companies have acknowledged anthropogenic climate change as real and their scientists were the first to bring the issue to the attention of the public

Pruitt is a twit and a shill. His office was caught distributing memos written by large companies in Oklahoma which he passed off as official.

>>91219
How is comparing one type of science-denying idiot to another type of science-denying idiot "arrogant"?

>>91235
>Science is not science
Yes it is. The fact that you're too dumb to research it doesn't magically make it not exist

According to Gore we were all supposed to be underwater by now.

Go bitch at China, we aren't the ones who need gas masks for pedestrians.

>>91251
Gore isn't a climate scientist and he never said everywhere would be underwater, just those places less than a meter above sea level.

At some point, I think many people who voted for trump will be disappointed by him, but I'm certain he'll get a second term

>>91251
Is this why people deny global warming? Because they're getting all their info about it from politicians who don't know anything about science?

You should stop listening to them and start listening to actual scientists. You know, the people who have dedicated their lives to educating themselves on the subject.

>>91263
I don't know man. If meme magic got Trump in, then I have the feeling that ethier Joe Biden will win in 2020 also because of meme magic or Kanye West wins.

>>91260
>under one meter
...and that didn't happen either.

http://eae.sagepub.com/content/21/8/969.abstract
http://eae.sagepub.com/content/21/8/969.abstract
http://eae.sagepub.com/content/21/8/969.abstract
http://eae.sagepub.com/content/21/8/969.abstract

>>91265
>actual scientists

They point to the Sun as the main source of heat for our planet and the main cause of climate changes over the millennia.

>>91290
Yes, over many previous millenia, but the scientific consensus right now is that current temperatures are rising due to human activity, particularly the burning of fossil fuels. This isn't the belief of one or two rogue climatologists. This is the currently accepted position for nearly ALL climatologists, save one or two who literally work in PR for petrol companies. To say that current climate change is "natural" or caused by the sun is literally, totally, 100% retarded. Like, let me put it to you this way: the current climate of our planet has been quite stable for over a millenia. The climate of our planet takes thousands of years, sometimes hundreds of thousands of years to change. YET SOMEHOW shifting trends over the past 100 years are totally natural, nope no reason at all to think they might somehow be caused by the rise of industrialization which has occurred exactly parallel to the rate that climate change has increased. Nope, all those scientists who have spent years studying the effect of greenhouse gases on the atmosphere are just a bunch of kooky welfare-grabbing jerkoffs who wouldn't know a damn thing about the subject they have a doctorates in. It's all natural guys! Nothing to fear, just burn burn burn, don't worry it's all natural, no reason to change anything, not when we're making all this money!!!!!! After all who gives a fuck really about desertification or loss of habitat or anything really, as long as I've got my millions the rest of you can live in a fucking wasteland, not my problem, no-sir, I've got the EPA in my pocket, the DEC is underfunded and the whole world is gonna be nice and toasty while I ride my ticket to Mars.

>>91287
Well I guess they will just have to take away Gore's degree in climate sciences.

Oh wait, he never had one to begin with.

>>91260
>a meter

http://notrickszone.com/2016/12/05/3-new-papers-global-seas-now-rising-about-2-inches-per-century-claims-of-1-meter-rise-by-2100-sheer-nonsense/

>>91300
>notrickszone
kek

Global warming is as real as pizzagate

>>91358
Except the majority of the scientific community finds climate change exists, while pizza gate is a conspiracy theory started on an anime forum site and reddit

>>91359
No, just because you say something on the internet doesn't make it true. Most scientists don't believe in this shit scam.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/08/most-geoscientists-reject-global-warming-theory.php

http://notrickszone.com/2016/10/06/only-53-of-climatologists-meteorologists-36-of-engineers-geoscientists-19-of-agronomists-are-climate-consensus-believers/#sthash.jUP5yk8S.dpbs

>>91362
Oh inb4 you say shit news source... what do you want CNN? FOX? yea cause they tell the truth...

>>91362
The survey, which s published on a conservative biased blog (powerline), finds that most scientists agree climate change exists. Read your own sources

>>91362
Also, "agronomist" is a pretty damn broad term. Anyone from a farmer to dirt scientist can be called an agronomist. Most of the farmers I know believe climate change is a hoax, so I'd say that skews the results of the poll a wee bit.

>>91368
>>91370
To summarize, both surveys have different results and are published on conservative blogs. Keep trying though.

>>91371
Sidenote, the second source's poll was of US adults. The writer says climatologists, and such, but the poll itself is of US adults

>>91297
>he current climate of our planet has been quite stable for over a millenia.
Top fucking lel

This is where you guys trip up and I can't take you seriously. The last Ice Age was about 10,000 years ago, so much so that Britain and France were part of the same continent, joined pretty much on the entirety of the south and east English coast. IIRC it might have even connected to Norway.

How's that for changing water levels?

>>91377
Serious question, do you know how long a millenium is?

>>91205
this pic is about as informative and scientific as an acne cream ad

>>91397
yup, looks like the problem is on the east coast. Good thing I'm on the other side.

>>91205
florida can go drown fuck red florida

>>91377

https://xkcd.com/1732/

Here, this graph may help.

if you start a car in a closed room, the air will soon be unbreathable. now yes the room is very big and very large; but also the number of cars is insane and many are very big.
do you think the pollution magically dissapears?
go in your garage and start your US burger pickup truck, stay inside for an hour while the motor is running, and perhaps you'll learn something. or you'll die. any of the two would make me much happy.

>>91443
so you're selling your car right?

>>91445
i don't own a car, i run, i bike, i take the train. i don't want to pollute YOUR breath, anon.

>>91290
Sun is the main source of heat. Greenhouse gases are what keeps the heat here though.
There are no changes in solar intensity which can explain the current warming
Milankovitch cycles are the cause of the longer-term warming and cooling such as the last ice age, however those happen on scales of tens of thousands of years so they don't explain the current warming

Furthermore, the lower atmosphere is warming but the upper atmosphere is cooling which means the only explanation is changing in atmospheric composition, and the only plausible cause for that is human emissions of GHGs

>>91446
nice meme

>>91434
[After setting your car on fire] Listen, your car's temperature has changed before.

>>91205
>science denialist
Fuck off.
>posting an outdated model of "greenhouse effect"
double fuck off.
Climate change is real and non-anthropogenic.

>>91359
Actually the overwhelming majority of scientists have no opinion on anthropogenic climate change because it doesn't concern them.
The rest are self righteous climate scientists who would say anything as long as they keep getting that delicious grant money.

>>91507
t. ExxonMobil

>>91509
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Can someone explain this to me like I'm 5: Why is it hotter on the right pic, shouldn't less solar radiation pass through?

>>91540
Yeah the image doesn't explain it very well. But, most of the radiation from the sun is in the visible light spectrum (and some UV). When visible light hits the surface of the earth, it loses energy and drops to a lower frequency, ie infrared. This infrared light is then reflected back into space.
Visible light passes through GHGs, but infrared light does not. So the sunlight coming to the earth doesn't get blocked by GHGs but once it gets reflected back as infrared radiation, it gets trapped by GHGs

You dipshits think co2 is a pollutant. It's plant food! Volcanoes do more than we ever have. Putting a man in office than knows this is a great idea.

>>91235
>"climate change" is NOT a science, it's pseudoscience
ebin lel, so something that the vast majority of scientists agree is real is ``pesudoscience"?

>>91363
They're subject to public scrutiny, and if found making blatant lies they will become called out on it and lose their reputation. Whereas realnews4nonsheeple.com can publish articles saying the leader of ISIS is a hyper-intelligent cheese wheel from Saturn and you guys will gobble it up.

>>91620
Lol retard. Volcanos put out a lot at once, but man-made pollution is continous, so even at a lower intensity, it adds up. And yes, CO2 is consumed by plants, but you know what happens when we're putting it out faster than plants can eat it up?

>>91620
>Trump supporters are literally retarded
CO2 is a GHG. Plants breathe it in, but that's irrelevant. Increasing concentrations of GHGs increases the greenhouse effect.
>Volcanoes
emit a fraction of the CO2 humans do and actually have a cooling effect due to SO2 emissions. Stop getting your """facts""" from /pol/

>>91205
Warmer is better retard. Cold kills. Where is the most biodiversity? In the warmth or in the cold?

>>91297
Scientific consensus has ALWAYS been wrong over time. Wrong this time too. The consensus was the exact opposite less than 50 years ago.

>>91359
The level of discussion is pathetic. "Climate" implies change. There is no one that doesn't believe it changes, but dishonest losers prefer to pretend that is the case instead of discussing the real effects humans have and IF IF IF they are actually negative.

Keep the conversation retarded brother.

>>91690
It sounds like you are copypasting that from The Luntz Memo.

related
>>91688

>>91685
Plants breathing it in is not irrelevant. That's why people don't take you alarmists seriously. You say stupid shit instead of addressing the concern.

Plants breath it in as a NEGATIVE FEEDBACK. We end up with MORE PLANTS, capable of breathing in MORE CO2.

This is an actual consideration. We need plants, we need them for food, for oxygen, for the habitats of endangered species, etc.

If you were serious you'd actually look into these issues instead of sloughing them off.

You aren't serious though, you just want to be "right" and look down on people. Good luck saving the world that way.

>>91691
Never heard of it.

>>91696
Frank Luntz recommended to Bush's 2004 re-election campaign that they popularize the term 'Climate Change' because polls at the time showed people had more doubt about "climate change" than they do about "global warming".

https://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2013/03/19/the-story-of-the-frank-luntz-memo/

>>91698
For good reason sounds like. "Climate change" is nonsense, so no wonder people had more doubt about it.

If you all think CO2 leads to some disastrous warming then you should keep to the term "global warming."

If you think it can lead to ANY changes in the baseline of climate (which we don't know what is anyways), then that means you believe in negative feedbacks and should really start studying them more before doing anything else.

But it's about money we know, so...

>>91699
CO2 is the least of the gasses we have to worry about. Methane and other greenhouse gasses (besides water of course) are the real culprits behind sea level rise due to melting arctic ice.

http://phys.org/news/2016-12-surge-methane-emissions-threatens-efforts.html

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/world/article61804767.html

>>91251
>we aren't the ones who need gas masks for pedestrians

We will be if Trump succeeds in bringing back manufacturing to America, part of which will involve eliminating pesky environmental regulations to create a more favorable business environment.

>>91700
Then educate people about that instead of ignoring them or belittling people that bring up what are OBVIOUSLY good counter points.

When legitimate concerns or objections are ridiculed instead of explained or discussed, it's no wonder people don't take ANY of the stuff seriously.

Basically all the "alarmists" seem like weasels all the time because all they do is name call and downplay information that is clearly contradictory to what they claim.

>>91701
If your concern is the world, then the US will do teh producing far cleaner than China. The producing WILL BE DONE somewhere.

If you are only concerned with your neighborhood, then by all means ship all manufacturing to China.

>>91689
>The consensus was the exact opposite less than 50 years ago.
No it wasn't, stop believing #FakeNews from /pol/

>>91251
>Go bitch at China, we aren't the ones who need gas masks for pedestrians.
so many retarded things wrong with this one sentence
First of all, China is taking global warming seriously
Second, China's per-capita emissions are much less than the US
Third, what China does or doesn't do is irrelevant to having somebody in charge of the EPA that thinks science isn't real. This isn't a question of policy or what we should do about global warming, it's literally just "is science real" and Trump's EPA pick says "No, science is not real." That's not the same as saying "Science is real but let China deal with it"
Fourth, gas masks for pedestrians is for emissions like SO2 and has absolutely nothing to do with GHGs

It's amazing how much stupidity you can fit into one sentence

>>91699
Both terms are used because they refer to separate phenomena. Are you trying to say that a warming atmosphere will not cause the climate to change?

>>91695
Plants breathing is not directly relevant to warming, it's only relevant to CO2 levels. Since CO2 levels are rising with all of the plants breathing, that means the breathing of the plants is not providing nearly enough negative feedback to keep CO2 levels under control
I guess you don't understand math any better than you understand science though

>>91705
So there were not entire books written on the coming ice age and global cooling in the 70's?

Stuff I have seen with my own eyes doesn't exist?

Or do you speak for all of the scientific community as so many alarmists love to do?

>>91705
>Thinks CO2 will destory planet.
>Thinks feedbacks that reduce the amount of CO2 are "not directly related to warming"

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

>>91708
>thinks jumping from 300ppm to 400ppm means that plants are preventing CO2 levels from increasing
Again, it sounds like you don't understand math. But 400>300, so no, plants are not absorbing nearly enough CO2 to offset the human emissions

>>91706
I have no idea what books were written by individual authors but there was no scientific consensus about a coming ice age. Do you even know what caused the cooling? Silly question of course you don't! You're just another /pol/tard who can be bothered to ever research anything
The cooling was caused by aerosol emissions, especially SO2, which have the opposite effect of GHGs (visible light is blocked while infrared light passes through). After the CAA in the US and similar legislation in other countries, these emissions dropped significantly which ended the cooling. However, even without this legislation the scientific consensus was that warming would overtake cooling. This is because SO2 has an atmospheric halflife of only a couple of years, compared to 20 years for methane and 100 years for CO2. So scientists knew that even without the CAA, cumulative GHG emissions would overtake SO2 emissions due to the fact that GHGs stayed in tehe atmosphere much longer

Pro-tip: Before you decide to go against the opinion of everybody who has researched this, you might want to try researching it in the future

>>91710
You are assuming many things I never said.

I am telling you that if you want to be taken seriously, then you need to stop sloughing off stuff like this. It makes you seem like weasels.

So you admit that increased plant coverage and greening will be a MITIGATING factor? Right?

But you just don't think it's enough to stop it?

See, that is a legitimate answer if you are saying that. But you don't say that, you just act high and mighty and assume to know everything about me based on AN OBVIOUSLY TRUE COMMENT.

Instead of arguing with me (when you actually agree), expand and have a discussion.

I'm trying to show you how to actually convince people.

However, I know it's not really about that. You'd much rather be snide than help the planet which is another reason people don't listen to you.

>>91711
CO2 has jumped from 300ppm to 400ppm. That is with plants absorbing it. The fact that without plants breathing it might be 420ppm is irrelevant to the fact that it is currently 400ppm

>which is another reason people don't listen to you
Literally the only people who still don't believe in global warming are idiots and the willfully ignorant. Everybody who is scientifically literate and has any desire to learn about global warming doesn't need any convincing. Somebody who thinks that more CO2 emissions are a good thing because plants need CO2, and who believes that volcanoes are emitting more CO2 than humans do without bothering to do a quick fact-check to see if it's true, isn't somebody that needs to be reasoned with because they aren't capable of reason and have no interest in learning about AGW

>>91710
Also, I find it interesting how I'm a /pol/tard when you know nothing about me.

A lot of you "science" guys have a REAL problem dealing with what people actually say. You are quite the emotional group for being "science" guys.

Ad hominem and other such attacks aren't really serving any purpose.

So again, do you want your message to be received? Or do you just enjoy calling people names and living in a bubble where no one challenges your BELIEFS?

>>91713
You and many others in the "alarmist" community have little room to speak about "science." Not much of what you and many others say is "scientific" at all.

You make broad sweeping generalizations every other sentence. I'll go back to the science board where people are more concerned with their rhetoric standing up to scrutiny.

You even use the word "literally" incorrectly like a middle schooler might do.

Words mean things. Address people based on what they are saying and not based on a sweeping generalization you have fabricated in your mind. Your leaps of "logic" are far from it.

I never said ANYTHING you rambled about. You attributed it all to me based on a rather innocuous statement I made about how to address and convince people.

I'll just leave this here:
http://www.noaa.gov/media-release/unprecedented-arctic-warmth-in-2016-triggers-massive-decline-in-sea-ice-snow

>>91714
I know that your parroting the same disproven things /pol/tards do. If you say that there used to be a scientific consensus that we were headed to an ice age, you are not somebody who wants to be reasoned with and you are not somebody who wants to be informed. You are somebody who reads Fake News and shuts your ears to anything that contradicts your bullshit worldview.
I stated that you can't be bothered to research anything. This is an objective fact based on your ridiculous claims that would be disproven with a quick search. If you don't want people calling you an idiot try acting like less of an idiot

>aren't really serving any purpose
You spreading fake news propaganda isn't serving any purpose. You deciding to dive head first into a discussion about a topic that you know damn well you've never researched doesn't serve a purpose. You deserve to be insulted for refusing to research this topic before discussing it, and for basing your opinions off of what you read on /pol/ or some bullshit conservative blog somewhere

If you don't want to get called names try doing research next time

>>91715
My initial reply was to >>91620
I don't know at what point you decided to jump in since we're all anonymous, but that person is an idiot who did not want to be informed and prefers to remain ignorant. I treated them as such. If you decide to defend an idiot who says stupid things that are easily proven false, then I will treat you like that too

>>91695
>IF WE DON'T VOMIT MILLIONS OF TONS OF POLLUTANTS INTO THE ATMOSPHERE THEN ALL PLAN LIFE ON EARTH WILL GO EXTINCT

ITT: Stupid people saying stupid things then getting offended when somebody calls them stupid

>>91717
People who "discuss" like you are usually very unsure of their position. So they "discuss" ANYTHING but what the other person is actually saying.

I believe it's been said that the mark of an intelligent mind is being able to entertain ideas without accepting them...

You are not very good at that it appears...

>>91719
Who said that?

I love how the real "science" guys are always the ones misstating others opinions and viewpoints so that they can argue with a strawman.

Very luls.

>>91727
>incoherent rambling without making a point
BRAVO ANON YOU SURE SHOWED ME THAT SPREADING FAKE NEWS IS A GOOD THING
I'm going to go make some facebook posts about chemtrails and how vaccines cause autism now!

>>91265
No, you've about hit the nail on the head. People get their understanding of the world from the politicians they like, and pick politicians they say things they agree with. Then the downfall of journalism made it all worse.

>>91749
How is it fake news that plants will mitigate CO2?

You aren't even using the regimes propaganda terminology correctly.

>>91719
its not humans that pollute the most its rotting plant and animal matter were less than 10 percent shoudnt we conbat global; warming by eating more salads and burgers?

I like how the anti-climate crowd here is literally calling people who are backing up everything they say with facts and sources and even called out another anon's bullshit stuff like "weasels" and "alarmists" and dismissing them as "science guys" and then get offended that they're called idiots.

Get over it girls. Reals > feels.

>>91771
Dude, if you already think they're part of a regime why even bother arguing with them? You never wanted to learn, you just want to look good.

>>91786
Comprehension is lacking on this board...

I said he was using the regime's terminology. That doesn't mean he's part of the regime. It just means he is so fucking retarded that he picks up on obvious propaganda terms and uses them.

>>91783
I've been the one doing that.

I actually agree with you guys. I'm pointing out why you make no progress whatsoever convincing people.

It's because you are weasels and an echo chamber. You never actually address any of their arguments or agree with the parts they have correct. You just weasel around and invent strawman arguments.

More plants OBVIOUSLY mitigate CO2 build up. Yet no one here will admit it or discuss it without calling you names or deflecting the point.

It's a very piss poor way to convince anyone.

That's why I keep repeating that you all would prefer to be condescending than to actually save the planet.

>>91792
>I'm going to back pedal because that anon pointed out a flaw in my assertion

10/10 trolling I enjoyed reading your idiocy.

Comprehension isn't lacking. You just suck at getting your point across and when someone points it out, you need another paragraph and a half to explain your flawed position.

>>91804
It's not back pedaling, it's what actually happened.

But again, no comprehension and straw man arguments...Lord.

>>91783
Second response by me...

There were absolutely ZERO responses with facts. Only repeated comments saying that plant reabsorption of CO2 was "irrelevant."

It's not irrelevant, clearly. There was no evidence whatsoever put forward to back the claim that it's irrelevant.

There was no attempt to show with ANY data or study how plants actually do effect CO2 levels.

All there were was claims that it made no difference. This is why you guys get nowhere.

Your heads explode at any contradictory information or ideas to the point that you won't even discuss them with someone that might be actually curious as to the effects.

When something clearly has an effect, and one brings it up and is told by "experts" that it has ZERO effect, that person is never going to listen to you again.

How hard is this to understand?

>>91706

Who the fuck cares if "there were books written" about global cooling in the 70's? The majority of the scientific literature of the time suggested and accepted warming. What the media reported and what idiot authors wrote doesn't mean dick.

Fuck off back to /pol/ please

>>91793

>You guys should really be nicer if you want to convince anyone!

You fucking nigger faggot, you're on 4chan. This is how we communicate. Of course we aren't this rude in person

>>91793
Whether or not plants mitigate some amount is irrelevant, since we know how much we have and how much it's increased. We went from 300ppm to 400ppm, it doesn't matter whether or not plants mitigated an extra 20 or 100 or fucking 1000000ppm, because all that's relevant is that with whatever amount they're mitigating we've seen a 33% increase in a little over a century, which is way outside the normal rate of change.

>>91214
We don't "know" anything. Everyones data and research comes from other entities. You have faith that you're not being lied to.

I'll say this: every generation science has an apocalyptic calamity looming on the horizon. Giant earthquakes, massive volcanoes, in the 70s and 80s it was global cooling and in 2000s it was global warming. And when the models shift it's climate change. These fears (stimulated by media and scientific sources) bring in cash, research dollars, job security, authority, and can even help in the pushing of laws and regulations that assist in the efforts of the user.

Perhaps co2 is rising and the temperature as well. I do agree in the need to curb pollution and advance green tech. But theres so much conflicting and over reaching evidence that it should beg skepticism on the part of any reasonable person. Don't swallow everything your told, be mindful of gambits like this that have played out over and over again in history.

>>91874
>Conflicting evidence

Such as?

>>91874

Yeah no you're right, nothing is true except what you believe. And coincidentally what your political side believes.

>>91855
I didn't say nicer. I said use actual evidence.

This board is shit. Everyone simply reads what they want and not what is actually typed. Far worse than /pol/. The level of discussion here is bottom dwelling.

>>91868
Sources? Evidence? Data? Projections on future plant growth and CO2 absorption?

No...nothing. You are a know nothing faggot.

>>91263
Id rather be dissapointed than have seen Hillary take office.

I think overall the same woyldve happened with Hillary winning though.
I believe she would backpeddle just as hard and her supporters would defend her in the same manner Trump supporters defend him.

>>91966
Just being optimistic. Trump is not president.

It is not possible for him to have back pedaled on anything yet.

Will he? Surely. Has he yet? Not at all.

Hypothetically if you are trying to save the country, you'd need to lie to the snakes in the media and other government positions pretty much all day long just to keep them off your back til you get in office.

I'll just save my bitching about Trump until he's actually in power. Then I'll bitch away incessantly I'm sure.

>still pushing the global warming meme in 2016

>>91718
You can't prove global warming is man made. You do know we are in an ice age, don't you? This is the warm spell between glaciers. Of course it's getting warm. When the time comes it will change to year round winter. And it will get warmer until it doesn't . Nothing man can do about it.

>>91967
Which is fine, I hate this seemingly absolute rule that if you support 1 od 2 candidates you have to defend or support them through everything. Im willing and have criticized for things i think arent goIng to help.

Then you just get people saying, "Ha! Thats what you get" and act superior wHem they can never prove that Hillary would have been better

>>91982

Nobody is trying to prove that the earth is warming solely because of humans. We know where we are in the cycle.

What scientists are proving is that human activity is causing the earth to warm at a higher rate than it normally would, which could lead to catastrophic changes to the planet.

>>91966
To be honest if I were American I couldn't have voted for Hillary, you guys got to choose between the two worst candidates I've ever seen, worse than bush/Kerry even

>>92010
I still don't see how anyone could vote for her.
>OMG TRUMP WILL START WW3
>says candidate actively trying to start a war with russia
jesus fucking christ

>>91263
>but I'm certain he'll get a second term
If he keeps up the symbolic victories like with carrier throughout his term that's a 100% sure thing.

>>92010
I voted third party. Was really hoping there would be enough third-party support to make at least one of the parties change in the future, and possibly start a push to get rid of FPTP so we don't get stuck in this situation again
Both sides were so terrible. Both were bigots pandering to other bigots. Both relied on a lot of #FakeNews and fear-mongering.

>>91263
>>92019
The problem is the left isn't learning their lesson very well. Trump won in part because of the SJW bigotry on the left. And yet they just doubled down on it after the election, talking about how much they hate white people and men. A lot of people are criticizing his cabinet picks for their race/gender more than the lack of qualifications.
At least Bernie seems to get it, along with his Bernie Bros, but that's just causing more division on the left. Mainstream Dems are back to calling Bernie a misogynistic white supremacist now. I just don't know if the left can abandon identity politics enough to beat Trump in 2020, let alone take Congress in 2018

>>91263
>>92019

Thing is, I don't think he wants a second term. Hell, I'm not sure he wanted a FIRST term. For him, it was just about the thrill of the chase, the big crowds, the glory. You can see a huge change in his attitude once he won and was forced to do the actual work. Without those crowds to feed energy from he simple doesn't seem to want the pressure of being leader of the free world (which is probably why he went on that victory tour, he needs that energy burst). Hell despite saying he was only going to be president because it was "that bad," he sure doesn't want to give up his business interests (and while I am aware that the president is legally exempt from conflict of interest rules with the exception of the vague "foreign gifts without congressional approval," this doesn't make it ethically right) and put 100% of his time and energy to make America great again. He doesn't even want to leave Trump tower, using his youngest kid as an excuse (never mind that previous presidential children made that transition without problem).

He might actually be the first part-time president.

>>92021
>>92022
I still think it started out first as a bid to get more cash out of NBC, and then revenge, and then he had to see it through after he realized he could actually win and he saw that people at his rallies genuinely believed he could help them.

It was (likely) never about actually being president for him. Ironically he'll either be the best one America has had in a while or one of the worst, for exactly that reason.

>>92021
Identity politics actually does work though. Leftists get over 90% of the nog vote and 30%+ of the wetback vote every single time.

The only reason they're losing is because they went full anti-white when whites are still the majority of the electorate.

Trump won because he realized that there are a LOT of white working class voters, and he tailored his message to them.

>>92031

>The only reason they're losing is because they went full anti-white when whites are still the majority of the electorate.

I think having one of the least popular candidates right after one of the most popular had something to do with it as well. There was very little enthusiastic support for Clinton due to all the controversies (both real and manufactured) which followed probably one of the hypest campaigns in US History (Obama). The let down and depression of this would undoubtedly suppress turnout, especially with Obama unable to accomplish many of his promises.

That, and complacency to pair with disgust of the Democratic candidate. Anecdotal, but I heard lots of stories of "she'll win anyway, so I don't need to vote."

>>92031
They get those votes because so many conservatives are racist as hell. See, e.g., referring to blacks and hispanics as "nogs" and "wetbacks." If anything this is just proof that the conservative identity politics fuck them over too
Dems lost because white people and men, and especially white males, finally got sick of the Dems shitting on them. Trump still lost the popular vote, because blacks and hispanics are wary of the neo-Nazi following he had and because he lost the LGBT vote in a landslide thanks to Mike "Two Girls One Chair" Pence as his running mate

>>91964
They gave data right there in the post, but like most deniers, you keep on doing this: http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/001/098/113/33d

>>92084
There are many people who voted for Trump because the alternatives were 1 a corrupt liar or 2 too much of a longshot to waste a vote on
I believe in fiscally conservative ideals however I am socially liberal, So who do think I voted for?

>>91235
>climate change is pseudoscience
you're one of those people who believe in the intelligent design too, I presume

>>91874
>i don't trust science
wow kill yourself

>>91465
>actual response
>ignored
never change 4chan

this is barely /news/
stop posting this shit-flinging bait on /news/
keep it on /sci/ or /pol/ depending on which you want the discussion to be focused on

>>91874
This. Muh global warming is the new hipster money sucking machine.

A fool and his money are soon parted.

>>91465
It probably is CO2 in the atmosphere that's causing it, but blaming human pollution when we account for 3-7% of C02 emissions is fucking ludicrous, especially since c02 parts are twice as high as they have been since recording has begun.

Where is all that extra c02 coming from, because it isn't from us.

>>92277
dead algae in polluted seas can't photosynthesise once they are dead

>>92004
Then why must they falsify the data in order to make their clsims?

>>92277
Yes. It is coming from us you dumbass, what fake news site are you getting 3-7% from?

>>92272
>science is just a hipster money sucking machine
>people who believe in science are the fools
W E W

>>92332
Who's saying they are?

>>91235

climate change is a science, man made climate change is a hoax and pseudoscience,

otherwise /thread

>>91235
The same people who deny climate change will also check the weather report to see if they should pack an umbrella.

Bunch of suckers, the lot of you.

>>92444
>man made climate change is a hoax and pseudoscience
Then please, tell us what is causing the current warming? Give me one explanation that hasn't been disproven and that isn't just "well God controls the climate don'tcha know?"

>>92410
I've read several reports of climate scientists changing previously gathered data to make it more like the danger they are warning of.

Look up "hide the decline" on youtube. Great video telling who did what.

>>92626
I don't know specifically what you're talking about, but I know what you're saying must be true, yet it still isn't significant. We have overwhelming consensus built on data from decades of independent research carried out worldwide to judge from.
When you have researchers numbering in the millions, the fact that some climatologists (or any sort of scientist studying any subject) you will find scientists that have fudged data with some ulterior motive.
That doesn't need to be a conspiracy on the part of big oil or big climate change or whatever; it's just inevitable. But when you have such a body of corroborating evidence from ideologically neutral and independent research organizations, exceptions don't say anything meaningful regarding the general quality of data and conclusions drawn.

>>92081
>Obama unable to accomplish many of his promises

He actually got most of them done. He's really really really trying to get the last prisoners out of Gitmo now -- that was the hardest-that-should-have-been-easiest one.

>>92449

day to day weather differs from climate

well if you know know the DARPA created a Weather Wep back in the 80's then thats why your falling for the indoctrinated ignorance.

* well if you dont know that DARPA created a Weather Wep back in the 80's then thats why your falling for the indoctrinated ignorance. *

>>92626
Here's some articles on "climategate", the actual origin behind the phrase "hide the decline".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Climategate

Basically, it's just a case of normies being retarded and making assumptions about the meaning of scientific terminology they didn't understand. "Hiding the decline" actually entailed replacing projections with actual solid data, exactly the opposite of what people wrongly interpreted the phrase to mean.

>>92722
>rationalwiki.org
I don't care what point you're trying to make, never cite that bullshit SJW hellhole again
btw for some better sources
>https://www.skepticalscience.com/Mikes-Nature-trick-hide-the-decline.htm
>https://skepticalscience.com/Climategate-hide-the-decline.html

>>92682
Day to day weather is actually less predictable than climate, if you start looking a few days ahead

1. Scott Pruitt is a lawyer of Corporate entities that use their own fortunes to protect their business; he was hired by both the drug and fossil fuel industries to protect their business against actions toward health and environment (namely, Climate Change and medical marijuana).

2. Any objections toward science that goes against the interest of corporate elites, along with religious entrepreneurs, are considered morons at best, and shills at worst.

3. Anyone who cited far right sites (such as Breitbart) are considered as tools at best and fascists at worst.

4. go back to /pol/.

>>94397
Note that Mike Pence is in charge ofbthe transition, not Trump.

>>91205

Big Oil Government > Wallstreet Government

At least Big Oil makes something even if it is pollution. Big oil also needs a functioning economy where as the Wallstree cronies who dominated Hilldog's funding can rake in money from an economic collapse.

>>94677
I really hope you're just shitposting, but /pol/ drones have no integrity so I wouldn't be surprised if you've all backpedaled this far. Good goys, the lot of you.

>>94677

If it turns out you're wrong, I'm sure conservatives as yourself will stand by your iron-clad convictions and willingly accept a proportion of climate refugees equivalent to your region's total contribution to hydrocarbon pollution across history, at least until runaway warming sterilizes northern ecosystems as well.

>>91205
>implying water vapor is not a greenhouse gas

>>91238
>Even petrochemical companies have acknowledged anthropogenic climate change as real
Acknowledging doesn't turn theories into facts.

>>95560
>>95563
you should read more

>>95563
>I don't actually know what a scientific theory is

You can say it, it's okay.

>>95563
You have a high school knowledge of science and are unable to offer an explaination for why the earth is warming. Quiet down subhuman garbage I'm trying to hear the experts talking.

Don't liberals think there are 31 genders?
Why do liberals deny science

>>96395
You have no idea what "liberals" think. The 20 year old twitter SJWs you think represent the views of all liberals are actually about 10%. That's like saying callers to Rush Limbaugh's radio show represent the entire right.

>>96396
I mean to be fair, Hillary was a corpratis economically but was basically a tumblr SJW on social issues. Even Obama was getting there in recent years. I'm a liberal and anti-SJW, but the SJW crowd has grown more mainstream on the left

Of course with Trump getting elected, /pol/ is basically representative of conservatives now

>>95847
His comprehension is lower than the standard high school level actually.

>>91874
To add to this:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/11/24/john-lott-climate-change-emails-copenhagen.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/#4a411c7d988d

I'm skeptical of the whole "community" itself

>>91219
>>91235
Oh shit, didn't expect /news/ to be this bad.

>>92464
>bringing up religion out of nowhere
holy shit dat butthurt

>>94681
>muh pol

>>94685
>muh conservatards

>>91511
>wikipedia

>>92257
>he doesn't know a variety of current biologists believe in creation

When did /new/ get flooded with shitposters?

CO2, you say?

https://youtu.be/Oc2JNZiB_Lo

>>91205
You dare question God Emperor Trump? He will lead us into the future, for better or for worse

>>91238
This.

>>91284
Meme magic alone did not win Trump the election.

>>91205
It's like he's picking these dept candidate solely based on the fact that they hate the dept they are going to head.

>>97061
>t, science denialist

>>97061
>t. Kremlin Shill

If Scott Pruitt doesn't believe in science, in what does he believe then? He a creationist?

>>91434
Oh Randell, I don't know if I can trust you anymore but the sexy graphs make me want to believe

>>97061
Shoo shoo

>>91728
every time

>>91793
Good post here too. I'm one of these "science deniers"

People should realize that wr debate because deep down we want to be challenged and learn.

With the way anthropocentric climate change proponents I am usually left with the feeling that nobody really understands it.

>>98056
Nobody gives a shit about you. Nobody cares if you get to learn or not. You're a fucking moron and that's the way you'll always be. It is not anyone's responsibility to teach your retarded ass how shit works. You don't deserve learning, you are too stupid and too blind.

Keep believing whatever nonsense you want, it won't change a damn thing. You will die as stupid and arrogant as you lived.

>>98065
>Nobody gives a shit about you
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

I'll try to explain what happened here.

You believe in global warming because your peers do, but don't have facts to back up that up.

So when your beliefs are challenged, you feel confused. This is painful.

So then your brain protects itself (as always) and you rationalize that your opponent is bad (or a fucking moron).

This your precious little mind is safe from the danger or change.

This is the basic function of the human brain. Pretty cool. You can do this in any situation no matter how poor the rationalization really is.

>>91205
This is a board for news, not news with your flavor of spin applied.

>>98066
Wrong. I know the truth, I have the evidence, you're just so worthless that this meagre post is the absolute limit of what I'm willing to do for you.

>>98071
It's not wrong at all. Don't be so ashamed of being a human.

>>98068
?
what "spin" are you talking about?
Trump's pick to head the EPA doesn't believe in science. Since the EPA is supposed to be a science-based agency, this is a pretty big news story. Like the OP said this would be like Trump naming a flat-earther to be the head of NASA, I don't see how you don't think this is an important news story

>>98066
No, let us explain what happened here:
We believe in AGW because we have done a lot of actual legitimate research. You don't believe in AGW because you're a fucking idiot who forms opinions before you bother to do even the most basic fucking research on the topic
This is why nobody bothers explaining anything to you, because you don't actually want to learn.

>>98066
You got any good sources to support climate sceptism?

I've never actually bothered to look at both sides of the argument, I want to see for myself.

I think I'd still support a switch to low carbon technologies irrespective of whether climate change is occurring or not for environmental and health benefits, as well as green energy increasingly becoming cheaper.

>>91205
>A Surgeon General that thinks smoking doesn't cause cancer?

Nah, that's the VP

>>95563
Gravity is a theory.

>>91687
Truly, the Saharan Desert is such a prosperous, rich, biodiverse habitat.
You brainless fuckwit.

>>98079
don't samefag. you already said that anyway.

>>98081
tons

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

>1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism

>>91205

Don't liberals think there are something like 31 different ""genders""

Skepticism is never a bad thing

>>98328
They also think giving sex changes to children is a perfectly scientific form of treatment

Where are the scientists speaking out against this?

...

WELP I guess trannys are legit now according to science

>>98081
Today's temperature in NYC is below the average. Just look at the data, over 60 years ago the average temperature for this date was over 50 degrees F and the monthly average for January during that time was 70 degrees F. If global warming caused by the greenhouse effect was real, why isnt it 60 degrees F today? It is just a front to funnel money into the deep pockets of environmental agencies.

>>98079
>Since the EPA is supposed to be a science-based agency
Where does it say that in the Constitution?

Didn't think so.

>>96395
>>98328
samefag

>>98332
Got a single source saying that doctors are calling for giving sex changes to children? Calling every form of gender transition ``sex changes" is fake news on par with calling a spoon a thermonuclear weapon.

>>98341
nice meme

I guess ISIS isn't real either because there haven't been any terrorist attacks in my area.

The guy above me is too stupid too reply too

>>91219
Add the US Military with those "Libtards" they also believe in Global Warming.

>>98332
Straw man...

>>98848
>another person pretending child sex-changes doesn't real

>>96402
It's grown in popularity because underneath the fake outrage, there are some valid concerns. It's just a shame that grandstanders, on both sides of aisle, argue about them for the sake of arguing. If say climate change or gay rights or whatever weren't big issues right now, they would find something else to hype up or scream about.

>>98788
>Where does it say that in the Constitution?
the EPA isn't even in the constitution you retarded fuck. I used to think people like you were trolling but I've finally realized that the avergae Trump supporter is just that dumb

>>98956
LOL

You are too emotional to understand words

>>91205
I think Trump is brain-dead and anything comes out his mouth. Sometimes it seems reasonable but there is still no intelligence behind it; only one's naive perception of intelligence.

>>99028
okay now I might be leaning towards troll again. Still hard to tell though, there are certainly a lot of idiot trump supporters

>>99055
Yes it couldn't POSSIBLY be that you misunderstood something lmao

>>99128
wait, wait now I think we're back into idiot territory

>>99381
You made a mistake several posts ago. Still haven't figured it out?

>>99444
confirmed idiot, got it.

>>99450
Why are you even monitoring this thread? You've done nothing but express your misunderstandings repeatedly.

>>98803
Not an argument.

>>98923
Care to provide some evidence of these ``child sex changes"? Kim Petras is commonly said to be the youngest person to have a sex change, at the age of 16, but she's an atypical case, it's normally not done until adulthood.

This article
http://www.wnd.com/2016/09/child-4-worlds-youngest-ever-sex-change-patient/
claims that a 4 year old is getting a "sex change", but it doesn't provide many details, and the Yahoo article it links to only indicates "gender transition", a much broader term than sex change. It also treats Paul McHugh and the ACP as credible, when they were discredited long before the article was published.

And there's this
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/three-year-old-becomes-youngest-child-have-sex-change-treatment-1464390

But the headline doesn't seem supported by the article text, it's exaggerated to get attention.

Finally there's this
http://metro.co.uk/2015/12/07/boy-6-becomes-britains-youngest-transgender-child-after-mum-found-him-trying-to-cut-off-his-willy-5549667/

But that's some kid trying to give themselves SRS, not something the doctors are doing.

And note that "sex change" refers specifically to the genital surgery, I'm not in any way denying that the general gender transition process starts at a young age. But the actual SRS surgery is not reported to have been done to anyone under the age of 16.

>>99463
Why are YOU even monitoring this thread? You've done nothing but confirm that you're not a troll but instead just a complete fucking retard repeatedly.
>MUH MISUNDERSTANDINGS!!!
>I can't point to a single """misunderstanding""" you made but just trust me it's definitely there, you're the one who made a mistake not me becuz im a jeeyus!

>>99526
I'm monitoring this thread because eventually it will get back on track, regardless of how confused you are.
Here's where you fucked up. >>98956

At this point it is nearly impossible for you to see clearly, you're in too deep. Best to pretend you're different person.

>>99525
>I'm not in any way denying that the general gender transition process starts at a young age
Great because I wasn't referring only to genital surgery. Taking hormones is part of a sex change, and it's enough to change a person forever. "Science" absolutely supports this shit. How else do medical practices get established? This has occurred with the knowledge that adult trannies still commit suicide.

So in some ways, the scientific community is insane.

>>99637
>here's where you fucked up (links to comment sans fuckup)
see this is how I'm sure you're an idiot now, a troll would have given up this retardation a long time ago but an idiot just keeps it going
>avergae
hold on. Are you a sperg instead of an idiot? Has this entire conversation been about you not only obsessing over a simple typo, but being too autistic to actually SAY that's what you're talking about?

>>99660
>Has this entire conversation been about you not only obsessing over a simple typo
Nope. I told you it's impossible for you to see your mistake now. With every defensive post you get further from reality.

>>99663
>the irony of this shit
so you are both an idiot AND an autist, and idiot for being wrong and an autist for being too sperged out to even try to make an argument, instead just making vague comments like a teenage girl on Facebook.
So now that we've settled you're not a troll, I guess the new mystery is: Which is greater, your autism or your mental retardation? I think we need more data for this so please, keep responding so I can figure out whether you're more of a sperg than an idiot or vice-versa

>>99663
Gonna have to agree with the other anon here. Not only are you coming off like an idiot you have to be literally autistic and like 15 fucking years old to continue shitting up this thread with your "lol you're wrong but I'm not going to tell you why you're wrong :):):):)" comments.
Either stop being such an autistic faggot or just leave this thread but either way stop derailing everything with your autism k thanks

>>91205

what about axial precession? co2 is saving us from another ice age

>>99666
>>99671
Its hilarious how obsessed with this you are.

Why should I help you understand? Youre an asshole, so it's better for the world that you remain stupid too.

>>99690
>I'm literally autistic and borderline retarded, but am also a narcisist who can't realize how autistically retarded I am
I'll bet you must have a swell life anon

>>99690
actually at this point now I'm wondering if you've realized your mistake, but to save face are just continuing with this autism. I mean sure some people are pretty fucking autistic, but when it's gotten to the point that multiple anons have called you out for being a sperg, even most genuine autists would be like "hey, maybe they're right, maybe any person with a single non-autistic fiber in their being would try to make an argument here" and then would actually make a fucking argument.
But you... you keep plugging away. Which means either we're back to the original point of you being a very, very dedicated troll. OR, you've by this point caught on that you are in fact wrong, but can't just admit "oh yeah I'm a fucking moron who can't read" so instead you continue this charade

either way though, like >>99671 said you should really stop derailing threads like an autistic faggot. This thread is supposed to be about retards who don't understand science not retards who don't understand the English language and/or basic human social interaction

>>99691
>>99693
Your bait is weak, samefag.

>>99701
>point out that you're an autistic retard
>"LOLOL that must be bait!"
kys anon. There's a reason you don't have any friends

>>99709
Are you beginning to understand how powerless you are?

>>99711
>I'm literally autistic and borderline retarded, but am also a narcisist who can't realize how autistically retarded I am
are you beginning to understand why even your own parents can barely pretend to tolerate your existence and why you sit at the rejects lunch table with people you don't know?

>>99725
What?

>>99729
Whoops wrong thread

>>99637
>Great because I wasn't referring only to genital surgery
Then you shouldn't use the term "sex change", because that implies genital surgery.

> Taking hormones is part of a sex change, and it's enough to change a person forever.
Actual hormones usually don't start until 16 at the earliest, before that it's just blockers which are reversible. And natural puberty "changes a person forever" as well, yet most people don't have a doctor sign off on that.

>This has occurred with the knowledge that adult trannies still commit suicide.
At a lower rate than those who don't transition. Transition isn't chosen because it's a perfect solution, it's chosen because it's better than any of the alternatives.

>>100039
So you support child sex-changes changes because

1. Most of the time kids just get hormones, not surgery

2. Getting a Sex change lowers suicide risk.

My objections:

1. hormone blockers are not reversible. You can't go back in time and age normally. Boys and girls are vastly different even before puberty.

2. Sex changes don't improve the patients condition, sometimes it gets worse.

If you have a link to stats on the benefits of Sex changes it may change my opinion. It's moronic, but if it works then whatever.