Scientists are frantically copying U.S. climate data, fearing

>>91688
>big scary trump is coming to take your spreadsheets away

This liberal hysteria only gets funnier with every incident

>>91688

>libshits

>>91729
As much as I also tire of seeing people on Facebook go full panic mode with everything, in all fairness Trump and his crew do openly deny scientific facts here.

>>91735
man-made global warming has never been proven outside of biased reports. "Scientific facts" is buzzword stuff.

Now I'm not saying the climate isn't changing. Winters where I live are getting different the last few years, but things change normally too.

Also, where I live, global warming hasn't raised th sea level at all like they said it would, and over 20 years have passed. 20 fucking years.

>>91688
>>91729

It's not unheard of for some quantity of data to be lost when the executive completely shuts down an entire sector of research. This happened previously during the stem cell and cloning research ban of the early WBush years. Because entire avenues of research were cut off virtually overnight, there was no coordination among, say, lab administrators, IT people, budget managers, building maintenance, etc. Before you know it, for one administrative/managerial/maintenance/my-son-needs-more-RAM reason or another, server towers are moved out and hard drives are removed without people being informed and thousands of hours of research data are lost.

>>91738
>Reality is biased

Kek

>>91738
CO2 doesn't normally increase 100ppm in a century, that's pretty fucking abnormal. Things don't just "change" for arbitrary reasons, global temperatures have changed due to things like changes in axial tilt or solar intensity. None of those factors are causing the current warming though.
The only way you can say man-made global warming hasn't been "proven" is by going the douchey "well technically we don't know anything for certain so nothing is proven" in which case I guess the we might as well just throw germ theory out the window too since it technically hasn't been proven 1000% factual

>>91738
>Also, where I live, global warming hasn't raised th sea level at all like they said it would, and over 20 years have passed. 20 fucking years.
The sea level change that's expected to occur over 20 years isn't really something you'd notice unless you had a large amount of flat coastal land at sea level.

>>91731
>>91729
Yes comrade, is truly great day to be proud American, no?

>>91738
>reality has a well-known liberal bias

Wise decision from researcher end. Climate change deniers in the government are puppets of interest groups and are willing to destroy valid research

>>91739
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-13/energy-department-rejects-trump-request-for-climate-change-names

Trump sounds like he's about to launch a witch hunt on the scientific community.

>>91729
It happened under Harper in Canada.

>>91738
>"I don't understand something, so it must be made up."

>>91853
hardly

>>91738
>Also, where I live, global warming hasn't raised th sea level at all like they said it would, and over 20 years have passed. 20 fucking years.

Move to southern Florida and say that.

>Trump is going to take our climate data away!
>Obama is going to take our guns away!

One of these things is -exactly- like the other, one of these things is sensationalism.

The last time I did any read up on Climate Change before 2010. I hear we're close to imminent destruction, like < 20 years away and already certain areas need to be prepared or even vacated. Where can I read up on this?

>>91863
no that's exactly what's going on, you don't understand science so you deny that science is real.

>>92225
That's the only thing they can actually do well, isn't it?

>>91729
Hey, someone is denying pizzagate in /pol/ you better correct the record, hurry!

but that data was destroyed ten years ago,

does anyone else remember when all they digitized all the historical meteorological data from the late 1800s early 1900's

they took all the old logs and recordings, digitized them, then destroyed the original records.

but I must be crazy

>>92234
NASA website

Don't see anything wrong with this. It's always good to back up your data.

Thank God they aren't researching something that would put the government in a bad light, or else they'd be told their research was based on fake Russian hacking leaks.

>>92447
>dah gubment bad!
>Trump did nuffin wrong!
>Putin dindu nuffin! He a good boi!
Thank god partisan anti-intellectual, anti-government ignoramuses aren't in charge of the scien--- oh wait, they will be on January 20th.

>>92496
>Thank god partisan anti-intellectual, anti-government ignoramuses aren't in charge of the scien--- oh wait, they will be on January 20th.
As opposed to the ones we have now.

Cry more, your local water table might be depleted.

>>92496
$0.02 has been deposited to your account.

>>91738
the climate doesn't just magically change. all the climate cycles in the past had causes too, like the evolution of aerobic organisms, or volcanic eruptions

>>91688
Delete it all. We need to get rid of the EPA, NOAA, and DoE and drain that swamp!

>>92496
Nice try. Scientist are the ones who have contributed the most to the fall of Western Civilization. Most of the feminine little men who started the biggest mistake in history, the Enlightenment and anti-monarchy movements, were scientist. Scientist have traditionally been ultra liberal too, so society would be better without them and their lies.

>>92840
>muh Dark Enlightenment

I thought you guys had all hopped on board the Alt-Right meme train.

>>92839
Fuck off Schlomo

>>92850
>calls me a Jew
Wooow

Is anti intellectualism really that popular. If so stop using the internet and computers you disgusting fucks. If you get sick do all of us a favor and dont go to the DR.

>>92852
I'm sorry, I'm being a real schlong, let me go open an account with goldman sachs and invest in exxon to make it up, I'll be a good goy and even pray to the Goy emperor himself.

>>92859
Fuck you science nerd, your kind don't contribute anything to society

>>92862
Donate to israel friend and dont be anti-zionistic in Britain in 2017 or we will literally put you in chains just like Stalin did in the prime gulag years with people who expressed even the slightest anti-semitism

>LONDON (Reuters) – Britain said on Monday it would become one of the first countries to adopt an international definition of anti-Semitism to clamp down on hate crime after an increase in the number of reported incidents targeting Jews.
>Adopting the definition formulated in May by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) is meant to make it harder for people to get away with discriminatory or prejudiced behaviour due to unclear or differing definitions of what anti-Semitism actually is.

>“It means there will be one definition of anti-Semitism – in essence, language or behaviour that displays hatred towards Jews because they are Jews – and anyone guilty of that will be called out on it,” Prime Minister Theresa May said in pre-released extracts from a speech she was due to deliver.

>>92914
Didn't Stalin fucking hate the Jews though?

>>92965
He offered them a part of the country to build their own homeland but nothing ever materialized from it

>>92965
>>92995

Not mutually exclusive. Politics is weird -- sometimes it makes bad people do decent things.

>>92914
The definition is restricted to "hating X for being X", and British judges and public are in general anti-Israel enough (like the EU) that they wouldn't tolerate if someone tried to use said law to punish someone for anti-Zionism.

In effect, the law's purpose is as much to have cases like prosecuting a "Fuck Israel" protester for Hate Speech dismissed off-hand (since it'd no longer be a gray area) as it is to make it clear that "anti-Semitism will not be tolerated."

So really everyone but the people who actually truly hate Jews for being Jews (that is regardless of politics, philosophy, etc.) should be in favor of this definition.

Honestly, who really gives a shit about this garbage anymore?

There is LITERALLY LITERALLY nothing you can do about it, and unless the US is willing to exterminate Africa, India, and China, then their roach-like populations will continue to crank out CO2 and various other pollutants until technology somehow stops this probably 100 years after it's hilariously too late to do so.

Just give up and stop caring, because it's futile. Go plant a tree or something.

>>93018
China is taking it seriously and is ironically leading the world on green tech funding, spending more then anyone else.

India is also taking it seriously. The whole world is except for the US because we're a bunch of corporate stooges. When Trump takes office, he'll be the only national leader on Earth who denies climate change. Even Best Korea believes that it's a thing.

>>91738
>Now I'm not saying the climate isn't changing.
well a lot of people still are, that's part of the problem
Trump himself has said before that's it's not happening at all

>>93018
>their roach-like populations will continue to crank out CO2 and various other pollutants until technology somehow stops this

We're the ones demanding the products that they manufacture there -- said manufacturing is producing said pollutants.If we exterminate the roaches then we have to go back to the pre-Globalization industrial society when we were the roaches.

>>93023
Absolutely delusional.

The US leads every single other country in lowering carbon monoxide emissions.

>>93027
http://www.publicfinanceinternational.org/news/2016/03/china-worlds-largest-investor-renewable-energy

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jackperkowski/2014/06/17/china-leads-in-renewable-investment-again/#4afa1d3646a9

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2015/11/china-s-investment-in-renewable-energy-surpasses-europe-u-s-combined.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-renewables-investment-idUSKCN0WQ1IU

>>93018
This is entirely correct. Few people even understand what I'm telling them when we discuss this kind of thing. They just can't accept it.

>source: I studied environmental science for 4 years

>>92234
depends what you mean by "we"
Denver is going to be fine
the Netherlands will deal with it
Mali, Bangladesh, and coastal Florida are all fucked
>>92445
source?
>>93018
>one vote can't make a difference
>one state can't make a difference
>one country can't make a difference
When will you defeatists stop?

>>93026
The US, at least, has come far enough where we would never go back to 20th century levels of polluting and such, if not thanks to technology than because of public demand. Green production is good for marketing and public relations, which is good for the bottom line, and now there's too much transparency to get away with nearly as much.

>>93030
China can invest all it wants in green tech but it's not going to amount to much when their population is so enormous given the hilarious level of damage they've already incurred on their territory.

You'd have to wish cars away to have even a small hope of reversing China's disgusting environmental quality in even the medium term future.

>>93032
You are naive. You may as well be a fairy princess in a magical castle, that's how connected you are to reality.

>>93031
>source: I studied environmental science for 4 years

Prove it or shut the fuck up.

>>93034
>The US, at least, has come far enough where we would never go back to 20th century levels of polluting and such, if not thanks to technology than because of public demand. Green production is good for marketing and public relations, which is good for the bottom line, and now there's too much transparency to get away with nearly as much.

We can always decentivize it like we attempted to do in the 80's while incentivizing the oil industries.

>>93032
Hey anon, I'm not saying that you can't make a difference, I'm just saying you need to become Super Hitler around this time next week to do so.

Barring an unquenchable lust for genocide the likes humanity has ever known, you're more likely to have an impact just improving your local environment and keeping your own country either as shit as it is right now, which would be a relative net gain globally, or actually trying to improve it somehow.

>>93038
Prove what? I'm not posting personal information online just to satisfy your autism.

Accept it or fuck off.

I don't really care if it's real or not, I'm anti-environmental just because it pisses off those libtards. If it happens or doesn't happen, those salty liberal tears will be enough for me.

>>93039
One of the problems is that green energies basically suck ass compared to oil right now, so that's fairly useless until technology catches up.

It's a nice gesture and I'm sure a lot of people would feel good about making the switch, but then you have to pay the bill at the end of the month, and that won't fly as of yet.

Logically our best option would be to just dump money into research instead of a sub-par product, and to get energy companies to do the same when the next administration inevitably opens up the US to expanded production, since energy independence looks to be pretty high on the agenda for Trump, at least I think so.

>>93043
>Not being a strict conservationist

Laughing_Roosevelt.wav

>>93045
The only currently viable alternative power source is nuclear. All """""green""""" tech is far too inefficient and ineffective at our current level of technology.

Crybaby cowards will never let us go full nuclear though. They are too scared for their empty, pussy ass lives.

>>93045
I'd be happy just so long as Trump doesn't do shit like ground NASA's earth monitoring satellites just because the science is too politicized.

Most of the bad policies decisions can be reversed in time, while the good ones are kept, but grounding those satellites would set us back tremendously, and not just on climate research.

>>93048
I would love to build up our nuclear energy sector, especially given how fucking awesome the new reactors are, but yeah all the assmad babbies who don't understand the first thing about nuclear power would never allow it, but then they'll also cry themselves to sleep over oil power, and refuse to pay the inflated costs of green power.

Best bet would be to ignore them all for being huge fags and just drop down new power plants all over the country, with desalination plants built alongside to harvest all the tears, then sell that to California and laugh yourself to sleep.

>>93045
it's a tired whore of a myth that the tech isn't good enough

>>93049
I think Trump was talking about investing a lot more in NASA, so I doubt they're going to halt any programs. Plus his kids are avid outdoorsmans, and Ivanka is big into climate change, so if anyone is having a preemptive panic over that they should really just cool themselves down because they're being ridiculous.

What will get chopped to bits by Trump is government overreach in the name of climate change though, like that near-indefensible clean water act that got rammed through a couple years ago, that even the army corps of engineers told them was basically impossible to uphold. So the moral of the story at the end of the day will probably be that you need to bother your state to do stuff you want done, because the feds suck at it and don't actually have the legal power to do most of anything they claim.

>>93056
It's not good enough until it can compete with oil for cost effectiveness. That's really all that matters because otherwise you can't sell it to people.

If the problem is that there isn't a reliable distribution framework, then that would be another nationwide cost that needs to be paid somehow.

>>93056
No, it isn't. Green energy generators are incredibly inefficient. Solar, for example, only generates a fraction of a fraction of the energy that it absorbs. Fortunately the sun is unable to complain about this incredible waste and so it goes ignored.

>>93037
which claim are you referring to?

>>93060
He's saying that he'll ground their Earth monitoring/research satellites, which I agree with. They're a waste of money and NASA should be focused on space exploration, not trying to shore up bogus climate change myths.

In any case, I'll be holding Trump to his promise to get rid of the EPA and Department of Energy. They're the very definition of wasteful government overreach.

>>93148
>get rid of the EPA and Department of Energy.

So that's a no on current and future nuclear power and hydroelectric then?

And as far as your notion that the EPA is overreach, environmental damage is the very first example in Econ 101 of an externality, long-term with distributed liability. Basically it is the definition of the necessity for the role of gov't/taxation in private enterprise.

>>93148
>preventing people from being poisoned is wasteful

>>93188
Then the companies that poison people will be sued, it's as simple as that.

>>93192
see
>>93156

cf. distributed and limited liability. If the liability isn't enough to, say, clean up the remaining poison in the lake, then who pays to clean up the rest?

And what incentive do companies have to invest in equipment that won't poison the local environment 10 years later when they know their financial liability is limited? This is where you need an extra layer to handle such externalities and the regulatory laws that have been passed as enforcement, which is the role that orgs like the EPA and DOE oversee.

>>93116
The 'one vote' bit.

>>91738
>what is science?

>>91738
>TIL Overwhelming scientific consensus = bias.
Since you seem to know so much about climate science go get a Ph.D. and prove all of these biased hacks wrong. Oh wait they don't accept the mentally handicapped though. Silly me.

>>93192
that doesn't reverse the damage though

>>93211
one vote almost never makes a difference, fair enough, but if you add up all the people not voting because they think it doesn't matter, it's enough to swing a lot of elections

>>91738
>"Scientific facts" is buzzword stuff.

Ok this one HAS to be satire.

>>93331
Why did you post this same exact message here?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/obama-ban-offshore-drilling-arctic-atlantic-1.3905384

Obama did something good, at least by banning offshore drilling in the arctic and atlantic.

>>93603
All of that is about to go bye-bye.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3232519/Pyle-What-to-Expect-From-the-Trump-Administration.pdf

So now they'll have multiple copies to confuse things. Worse, are they downloading the databases or only data without relationships, data defs, etc.

Most data is falsified or generalized so irrelevant, worthless and worse. It's not as if climate scientists aren't "repeatedly" surprised by weather event extremes when we should be shocked we aren't seeing thousand year events every year.

>>93877
>Most data is falsified

Source? Just a reminder, feelings don't count as facts.

>>91688
>muh fake data
look, this happen more or less often in science (especially in "developing" countries like india and china but occasionally it also happen in first world countries) and it's completely irrelevant because as soon as the rest of the (academic/industrial) world repeat a certain experiment or get new, more refined, data the contradictions are going to be obvious. This is the reason the peer reviewed system, while having its disadvantages, it's still the best way to confirm the validity of certain results.

>>93927
>especially in "developing" countries like india and china

Umm the revealed cases of purposely faked data have all been from first-world countries -- US, France, South Korea, etc. -- India, China, and Russia have cases of shitty data that gets published over-optimistically, but any paper that makes major claims gets extra scrutiny, like who the PI is and what the reputation of the lab is.

In the major South Korea data fraud case involving a stem cell researcher, the guy was a highly reputed scientist at a major institution with a large lab. He got caught because gradually his data ended up looking a little *too* good -- he fell into this spiral of cheating a little to completely fabricating. But it's the combination of having a clean successful career for so long, giving a solid reputation, and then this gradual breakdown, that made his falsification so hard to catch -- that's why that particular case was so exceptional. Otherwise, falsification of any decent claim would be relatively easy to find and it results in pretty fucking severe punishment.

>>93927

As a side note, it's also why there is concerned that the current system doesn't reward peer review as much as it should: most scientists want to make the big breakthrough, not be the guy who checks the facts. Thankfully for big name research (climate change, cancer, etc) this isn't a problem because simply being in on it you get recognition (especially if you act like a contrarian), but for smaller projects there simply isn't as much reviewing going on because there is no incentive. For the time you spend reproducing someone's dental floss experiment, you could have made your own toothpaste experiment and gotten more recognition (which means more money to do more research).

So at a low level with minor shit nobody ever checks, the system encourages people to crank out as many research reports as possible. This has led to less scrupulous scientists literally making shit up under the assumption not a single person will review their paper about "the effect of dental floss flavor on the color of your urine." Again, in big topics this never happens because literally everyone reviews everything: the idealistic do it because it's an important topic, the cynical do it so they can discredit the first guy and then maybe snag the big discovery for themselves.

>>93929
I don't know the figures honestly, I suppose I was biased by the big number of articles about bad science in china I've read.

>>93934
>articles about bad science in china

Do you have any in particular revealing scientific fraud?

This one outlines the dangerous incentives the Chinese government has given for sloppy science: theguardian.com/science/small-world/2014/jan/24/chinese-science-research-development

This one is about bureaucrats stealing research funds: qz.com/179464/china-is-spending-a-fortune-on-science-and-is-getting-robbed-blind-by-corrupt-scientists/

But I couldn't find any specific labs being accused of fraud yet.

>>93940
I remember a case where an engineer doing research on DSP stole some processors from another company, scratched away its name from the device and then claimed it was some wonder he developed and manufactured during his research. I think it's the one cited here:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2891906/#R18

Well maybe this will help liberals realize the importance of privacy on the internet and with your own data. And maybe the people can collectively come together and prevent the government from taking away our digital rights (such as abolishing net neutrality).

>>93953

ffs, the only ones trying to abolish net neutrality are Republicans. People are doing what they can, but you know what would help the most? If constituents in Red districts called and mailed their representatives to tell them to stand up for freedom and not take shit from corporate lobbyists on this issue, or else you'll find a primary contender to contest their seat from the right next cycle -- that's what all the Red State representatives fear.

I mean, it goes for any representative from any party who's shilling against your interests for money in this way. But we had to go and turn net neutrality into a partisan issue when yes, we should be collectively coming together.

>>93958
Comcast would control what websites we view on the internet if they could though

>>93957
>the only ones trying to abolish net neutrality are Republicans.
Even among Republicans it is a contentious issue, Anon. It really has little to do with partisanship as there are powerful Republicans like Rep Greg Walden (chairman of the House telecom subcommittee) who are pro-net neutrality, but want the Congress to handle the issue and not the FCC...
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/republicans-gop-split-on-net-neutrality-115564

...and then on the other side of the coin there are democrats like Sen. Diane Feinstein who are as anti-net neutrality as Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, but they use different excuses for their justifications than the GOP.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150816/07212531971/dianne-feinstein-worries-that-net-neutrality-will-block-isps-censoring-terrorist-content-she-doesnt-like.shtml

>>91738
Back to /pol/

>>92840
Another /pol/tard

>>91729
How long will it take for you to open your eyes to the mess you created or will your right wing echo chambers shelter you from the free world as it burns to the ground ?

>>92445
>does anyone else remember when all they digitized all the historical meteorological data from the late 1800s early 1900's
Wut
We still have those charts up in the stacks at my university

>>94409
Delicious tears

Oh keep crying you liberals! Here in Wisconsin it has snowed with record cold temperatures and it managed to snow yet again today! You liberals aren't scientists, but establishment shills with George Soros' hand so far stuck up your democrass!

>>94444
I can't even tell what's parody anymore. Are you actually an idiot or just pretending to be one?

>>94446
Nice loaded question very professional of you!

>>94444
>It's snowing in my town tonight, it means the entire planet isn't warmer than last century.

>>94444
I am honestly confused by the rhetoric I now regularly see around here, it's as if several Cartman copycats have elbowed their way to the front so that everyone can hear them scream about how great they are/how shit everyone else is

>>94444
>democrass
Good one, I guess.

>>92445
>digitize data
>destroy old records
Why would you do this. original sources are always good to have.

>>92840
>science is bad
wow you really can't make this shit up

>>94447
I still can't tell whether you're an idiot or just pretending to be an idiot though

>>93018
>The problem is big, so let's not even try

>>93031
Classic post-undergrad cynicism. I did physics and for a couple years after i graded i thought that space exploration and search for extraterrestrial was a waste of time.

Doing something is better than nothing. Just because we won't accomplish the end goal in our lifetime doesn't mean the strides we take in our lifetime are a waste.

>>94629
>implying I'm the same person you are responding too
You really are an idiot.

>>94444
Go suck Koch's cock /pol/tard.

>>94653
>muh Koch boogiemen

They're just businessmen, not some sort of conspiratard's wet dream.

>>94654
Oh Really?
http://cjonline.com/blog/keri/2016-11-26/americas-conservative-road-destruction-our-last-chance
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/trump-koch-brothers-231863
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/koch-brothers
http://www.ecowatch.com/koch-brothers-donald-trump-2104864529.html

>>94654
>muh free market

A chaotic market will cause economical, Social, and environmental long term damage for the sake of the protection of one's own fortunes.

>>94640
no but really, are you an idiot or are you just pretending to be literally retarded?

scientists do not know anything ..
.If all climate changes are actually
the Earth's cycle that repeats every 100,000 years ...if the Noah story is true ... He said .. was water everywhere ... right?

also there are too many mega company with interests ..
.and have too much money ..
You've ever seen scientists
demonstrating what they want ... ha ha ha

>fear of trump actually promotes greater efforts in climate change research and saves the world.

/pol/ needs to stop invading /new/.

>>94750
You ever... Considered.... Not typing like a psychopath? These habits... Make you look.... Retarded....

>>94750
>>94752
>>>/pol/

>>94775
As long as they post and comment on /news/ they are fine when they start off topic shit posting then I have a problem with them all views are welcome here as long as they are civil.

>>91688
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/05/28/rebutting-climate-alarmism-simple-facts/

>>94937
>BreitBart

Nice source you alt-right fascist.

>>94940
>you

>>94940
Not him but you're only stifling debate by adopting this stance that you seem to have. Where any evidence or argument from your opposition isn't worth the time of day. Do yourself and the whole world a favour by broadening your horizons.

In this case of this Breitbart article you would do better to at least read it and take the spark notes before dismissing it as drivel

Here's a summary for you all

>solar activity is what's causing global warming
Although changes in solar intensity is a critical factor influencing climate, particularly ice ages, changes in the last century cannot account for the magnitude and distribution of the rise in global mean temperature and there is no convincing evidence for significant indirect influences on our climate due to twentieth century changes in solar output.
Schiermeier, Q. (2007) No Solar Hiding Place for Climate Skeptics. Nature 448, 8-9.

>man made emissions don't cause global warming
Man made co2, more than any other cf driver has made the biggest contribution to global warming since the industrial revolution
Various authors, 2007: Observations: Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change. In:Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

>there's no consensus among the scientific community
Survey here J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis ofconsensus estimateson human-caused global warming,"Environmental Research LettersVol. 11No. 4, (13 April 2016)

Plus a mixture of nonsense and self contradictory arguments

>>95328
>changes in the last century cannot account for the magnitude and distribution of the rise in global mean temperature
oh ok.

>Man made co2, more than any other cf driver has made the biggest contribution to global warming since the industrial revolution
oh ok.
>a synthesis ofconsensus estimateson human-caused global warming
oh ok.

great posy. learned a lot. global waking science is my favorite.

unlike biology, where I had to learn how and why shit is the way it is.

with global warming science you never get annoyed with facts and details.

"humans co2 is killing polar bears"
so cool.

>>95330
I honestly can't understand what you're trying to say with your post, but I encourage you not to take my word for it and at the very least read the articles I've referenced, they are easily accessible, and will lead you to more interesting stuff about climate change

>>95332
anybody can post quotes and links to articles supporting either side.

the global warming scientists were WRONG buddy. I no longer care what their predictions are.

call me when you want to pull trash out of the ocean, or do anything for the environment really. until then I'm going to burn co2 without a fuck.

from where I'm standing nobody understands what's really going on. and proponents of global warming are just virtue signaling do nothings.

>>95334
From your post, I can tell that you are quite the authority on the matter, at least in your head you are, so rock on, buddy

>>94407
Actual /pol/lack here please ignore this dense fuck most of us aren't that bad.

>>95365
Yes we are, fuck off kike

>>95365
>>95383
Keep /pol/ in /pol/

If this data was so important, it should have been backed up years ago. Now it's only because of the Trump boogeyman that it's an issue. Please.

>>95395
They have a right to be afraid. Trump is going to throw out their phony "science," ground all of NASA's climate hoax satellites, and destroy all the records he can to save money and troll the libtards.

>>95397
People like you are exactly why the scientists are taking their data outside of America.

>This thread
I wonder what the fuck must happen in someone's life to become this retarded

>>95395
Given Trump's anti climate stuff theres an actual reason to back it all up offshore, there wasn't a reason to do so beforehand, and don't for a second think that there weren't already backups, every research institute has a file server

>>95401
Liberalism.

>>95400
No, it's because they got together and decided to politicize science. We want scientist, not a bunch of political activists.

>>95405
What is wrong with you alt-righters?

>>95405
You don't want scientists, you want men in white coats that will tell you everything is okay

>>95400
>People like you are exactly why the scientists are taking their data outside of America.

Americans don't really like scientist all that much. They get placed into the same category of distrust/respect as politicians and lawyers. They'd much rather have engineers or careers that have a direct application.

>>91764
>reality has a not-so-well-known reality bias
faggot libtard

>>92753
>aerobic organisms

Your grandmother is one

>>91853
thats a pretty big inference buddy

>>95405

Oil companies invest billions through dark money conduits to influence political outcomes from grassroots level because they have come to understand before anyone else that their business empires, worth trillions, are fundamentally fucked when people realize the potential of renewable energy technology.

For the simple reason that solar, hydro, wind companies don't extract and sell fuel; they sell technology.Technology that's necessary no matter what resource you leverage for energy. Once you have the technology, the fuel is ever abundant and virtually free. They're rightly afraid that once the technology becomes sophisticated enough, it will totally own them, and we've not even considered the hazard of climate change. Now they wanna smother it in its crib.

Russia too is an oil dependent economy and it has realized it too is fucked if it's isolated and looses its only resource of significant value besides its military technology for which its edge is rapidly diminishing with its shrinking economy.

The ultimate culmination of this is we now have a POTUS friendly to Putin, and the CEO of Exxon Mobil, a 400B USD valued oil company as Secretary of State and most of Congress is to sheepish to ask him to furnish tax returns. What are they afraid of finding out?

The right wing media is projecting its own glaringly obvious conspiracy upon the left.

>>95446
If one were to pull the oil plug the world would be completely fucked. It's so worked into the global economy that it's almost impossible to stop without people starving.

We can fume about the oil emperors all we want, but there is more that depends on oil than the people who reap the most from it.

>>91738
Their logic is:
>Temperature is increasing
>CO2 levels are increasing
>Therefore let's ignore solar spots and blame humans

>>95562
yes, that's exactly right.
Climatologists that have dedicated their lives to producing decades of research across the world have never taken solar activity into consideration in any of their models and data algorithms. Now this one random dude on 4chan has totally shown them the folly of their ways.

>>95461
Like what ?

>>95568
Lol

>>95574
Russia like you mentioned entirely depends on oil to survive, as does Norway atleast in it's EU free form.

But that's just them, the USD has long since become a global reserve currency because countries can not buy Saudi oil without USD.

Oil dependency is both artificial and actual in it's existence. Of course they engineered oil dependency through political influence and patent systems but more than one country on planet earth has adapted to forming their economy around oil in which they would not survive without.

The only way for humanity to move past oil dependency at this point would have to be a global initiative.

The only way you could achieve this is a one world government or a country managing to crash the global economy by releasing superior energy tech and trying to force the hand of the free market to need it to compete.

The former is loaded with problems and will be denied given human nature, the later would mean a war.

This is why it's pretty much a joke to believe that any political party has a reasonable means to stop global warming, which is why the right has gone so far as to deny it exists. They know in the end it's a political tactic because nobody, not even america can remove oil dependency without fucking the world up.

>>95562
No solar hiding place for greenhouse sceptics, Q Schiermeier, Nature 448, 8-9 (5 July 2007) | doi:10.1038/448008a; Published online 4 July 2007

actually you're almost ten years late to the party, you should probably read more before posting

>>95581
All we have to do is stop working with Saudi fags.

America is about to be best bros with Russia, anyways. We can buy oil from them instead. That way we can all collectively tell Jihadists to go fuck themselves.

China, the Middle East, and Africa can do their own thing. Maybe they can reform their shit religions together.

>>95608

While the Saudi's have a lot of power from their oil and do influence geopolitics, they're really just pawns for the USD reserve currency. Their role is to simply provide oil and give the USD a global value.

The US wouldn't cut ties because they established the relationship. In fact most western powers wouldn't because they're all a part of it.

This is sort of beyond any one country, it's a big internationalist convention, born out of everything, from greed to necessity.

I think the best we can do to reverse the effects of oil dependency is to engineer counterweights.

>>95616
>I think the best we can do to reverse the effects of oil dependency is to engineer counterweights.
>>89501
Oil lobbies are still trying to kill electric power in its crib, it's been going on for decades.

>>95663
That's not what I mean by counterweight. Of course they'll try to end anything that threatens the international sphere of the oil economy. The west has started proxy wars for the sake of preventing oil owning countries from going to a gold standard, just to protect the value of the USD.

Imagine what they would do if a country said "fuck it we're switching to a oil free economy using alternative power"? WWIII would probably happen.

What I mean by counterweight is something that could nullify the negative environmental effects caused by oil consumption. Because that's the only way you're going to stop the oil issue without violent bloody war.
There is nothing you can feasibly do to stop people from using oil without the entire international covenant sparking a world war. So the only logical means of preventing the negative impact of burning fossil fuels is to seek ways to nullify those effects while still utilizing them.

>>95446
Plus it would also lead to more anti-trust laws for corporations, which would further put them into tougher regulations.

But thank god we have a honest and well thought out argument on the Policy of Energy: all that's missing is the list of sites detailing on how Koch Industries fits into all of this:

http://cjonline.com/blog/keri/2016-11-26/americas-conservative-road-destruction-our-last-chance
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/trump-koch-brothers-231863
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/koch-brothers
http://www.ecowatch.com/koch-brothers-donald-trump-2104864529.html

>>95668
Oh, well, that's not possible. Or not feasible outside of science fiction tier plans, like sending planet-sided shades in space and somehow maintaining it between the sun and earth.
WWIII would be cheaper.

>>95405
>Do science
>Find out asteroid is coming towards earth
>Tell people that we need to build a big laser to kill asteroid
>People complain that scientists are politicizing science

>>95688
>WWIII would be cheaper

Yes because massive world wars are good for the environment.

>That's not feasible
>brings up some asinine plan about building a shade screen
The problem is green house gases, so we find a way to get rid of them or utilize them so they aren't simply released into the environment.

>>95707
>Do Science
>Discover asteroid is coming towards earth
>Political party steps up claiming it's the only one who can fix the problem
>Their solution is to impose a gravity tax.

>>95709
which would make sense if there existed a feasible alternative to gravity

>>92206
Not him, but I live in north FL directly next to the coast and have for like 20 years, no problems here.

>>95568
>models
are you serious my man the models were wrong. this honestly sounds like a fuggin religion>>95714
>feasible alternative
what is the alternative, and is it easier than planting more trees?

>>95714
>a tax is a feasible option of solving an environmental crisis.

And you wonder why republicans have claimed the left has politicized science?

>>95721

Well the alternative is spending money on green research or providing tax incentives to do so, and we all know how much fiscal conservatives enjoy increasing spending without increasing revenue so as you can imagine that will get nowhere. Any technology or methods that result from that would also need wide adoption, which would require government mandates to force it, and we all know how much libertarians love government mandates so that will get nowhere either.

Therefore, the only method left that could get any bipartisan traction is increased taxes, because they increase revenue (fiscal conservatives) and encourages the free market to create new solutions to avoid taxes (libertarians).

It's like the healthcare business, logically you'd just switch to single-payer and everyone (but the insurance companies) would be better off, but that shit would never fly because SOCIALISM, so here we are today.

>>95725
None of that matters

The issue itself is not only global, the simplest answer to fixing it is also directly linked to the global oil economy as stated earlier in the thread. Not one country is able to fix the issue itself.

Therefore it's a joke that a single political party claims itself to have the solution, hence why the right is quick to point out that the democratic fixation on climate change is a marketing scheme.

In fact the idea of the left being upholders of environmentalism is just as much as a joke as believing capitalists are solely responsible for all transgressions against the environment.
the false idea of altruism and a worship of post-modern.

The left isn't, they pretend to be for votes, they adopted it because it seemed altruistic but they don't actually care enough to dig knee deep into providing actual solutions that aren't dismantling industry and claiming socialism is the answer.

>>95729

>it is also directly linked to the global oil economy as stated earlier in the thread. Not one country is able to fix the issue itself.

That is why we tried to have a treaty that set hard regulation all countries were to abide by, 190 countries were prepared to be party to the treaty. But it was the Republicans who had an absolute condition that there be no requirements that the US would be obligated to follow.


>dismantling industry and claiming socialism is the answer.

You say it as though that is because they don't care. But economic regulation and phasing out of certain industries for others is the most feasible apparent solution. If not, what would you suggest be done?

It is not possible to produce meaningful top-down reform without some people losing out at least in the short term.
And if there was a grassroots solution, we wouldn't need to be having this conversation. Obviously not enough people care enough to have something like that. But we can't have them dictate how the rest of us should live when it's not unreasonable to expect those working in the petroleum industry to find employment elsewhere, and when the stakes of inaction are so high.

I might sound like an edgy tenn for this but actually im 25...

Let it burn i say. Fuck the enviroment. Humanity will figure out a way to survive with its favorite pets and flowers. bio domes or some such sci-fi shit. It will have to be an epic project at the 11th hour i think. It will simply become a scenario of a slow but steady spiral of poverty and chaos in some areas of the globe and ever tighter control, totalitarian even, of others to keep some control on the limited resources.

War for resources? prehaps. not among the major nations however. proxy wars at most to secure energy (bloody wars mind, in africa, the middle east, eastern europe and south america.)

Oh and all the smart countriies will make the nuclear reactors/hydrogen reactors to stay afloat. these countries will be the best both for social liberities and developmen/prosperity.

Essentially, enclaves of civilisations will thrive whilst outside these city states will be wild-west at best, mass starvation deadland at worst.


This is the path of humanity, my only regret is ill probably be too old to witness the real shit hitting the fan. be the first to die proabably unless i get a gun and a gang of fellow old anons to live in the wilderness with, robbing food convoys.

>>95731

Were those regulations the complete abandonment of fossil fuels for alternative energy sources? The internationalist "head of the snake" types made the US petrodollar for a reason, the USA would not be giving up oil and neither would any of the Saudi clients.

>Phasing out of industries

The left can not feasibly dismantle the ring of oil dependency, especially not in the united states. This was never their goal to begin with, their goal was simply to claim they were the altruistic environmentalists and that they would fix the problem through research and taxes which would have accomplished nothing.

Other super powers such as Russia are almost entirely dependent on the substance as an export to maintain economic competitiveness (and thus greater freedom from foreign influence).

The oil industry isn't simply "oil capitalists trying to stay relevant and being meanies", it's a combination of the fat cats everyone hates combined with global powers depending on it's value you stay a float.

Black is the new gold, it's value was engineered and forced by powers you couldn't even begin to face. But the bait and switch has long since gone off and the world is dependent on it to keep itself together.

And this, is precisely why the right sees the faux environmentalism of the left as nothing more than altruistic preaching to work in their shitty ideals.

The only reason the right never mantled it is because they literally weren't idealists until the Bush Years, the Left got to it first and the grim facts of environmentalism are a powerful stressors to industry and thus to enact on them would be to lose favor with industry, ignorant and short thinking as some might be (I.E you invent some chemical that studies show does nothing wrong and then 30 years later you discover it's a carcinogen for an endangered species after years of use led to it slowly accumulating in them so now you're satan incarnate)

>>91688
extrapolating the dialogue, the only solution to this problem if real remains mass slaughter or enslavement.
which is why i'm inclined to believe it manufactured, so that enslavement or slaughter could take place.

the Aztecs controlled their population with stories about the sun not returning after an eclipse if the priests were not obeyed.

this is that.

>>95744
>It's too difficult to lower the risk annihilating our biosphere
>because there's lots of very powerful and rich people looking to obstruct any such effort
>so we should join them and make the best of the fact that we're helpless
>if you don't join them, you're just being preachy
>nobody likes a self-righteous person!

The idea that big oil is impenetrable is highly suspect in the first place, but even if we grant that, what happened to fighting for what's right for its own sake? Is it really so important to slander environmentalism because some environmentalists are annoying? Maybe those priorities are a bit fucked up?

>>95765
big oil this, big oil that,
how much money does big oil make ?
why is it that the most wealthy man is either gates, buffet or the mexican ?

come man , they are conning you,

the elites own 95% of the wealth, if climate change threatened them they would make a move first and fast. shit just out of their own pockets for their own incentive,

shits like you will make us all slaves in a generation or too

>>95765
https://www.rt.com/news/223963-oxfam-wealth-davos-report/
they have half,
and we have half

do you think it would be easier for the few of them to move to help climate,
or is it easier for the massive number of people scrimping to get the other half of the money?

if climate change was real they would be dummping their money like stones to get to safety.

>>95766
>how much money does big oil make ?
Big oil makes over $1,000,000 dollars per year.

Source
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/01/28/the-oil-bottom-is-not-in-citgroups-morse.html

>>95770
oil represents around 3% of world GDP, mainly because it so freaking cheap. if you really want to see control, let the elites sell you solar.

you will have enough energy to get to work. do your job, not die.
and thats it.

>>95765
It's not just the rich, nations depend on it for survival not unlike the poppy fields in the middle east. The dependency is mainly artificial, but again the trap has been placed and countries with oil don't have much else.

Big oil is impenetrable, because the most powerful nation on the planet uses endless fake monopoly money that's given true value via black goo that the sum of international trade has made an essential life giving resource.

There is no way to get out of that unless one country commits suicide by trying to free market the fuck out of petroless technology (I.E cars that run on water). But then there would be war, death and famine caused by power upheavals and countries trying to survive due to the drastic change. Ending oil is like ending gold, essentially.


>If you don't join them, you're just being preachy

My point is that the left is not actually a spearhead for environmentalism, just as the right isn't actually a spearhead for the anti-thesis of that.

Environmentalism takes so much sacrifice, that incidentally neither side is willing to truly contribute, not even the green parties of Europe. You are not helping to end oil by voting for the left, you're just voting for an altruistic preach by people who are more concerned with post-modern ideas of society.

>>95774
Best Political Argument of all time.

>>95774
>just as the right isn't actually a spearhead for the anti-thesis of that.

The POTUS appointing CEO of exxon mobile to seccy state and then republicna congress refusing request of his tax returns certainly doesn't help.
>Environmentalism takes so much sacrifice, that incidentally neither side is willing to truly contribute, not even the green parties of Europe.

What's your definition of "contribute"? Subsidizing more energy efficient and clean technologies increases their competitiveness. Taxing carbon emissions increases cost and reduces some demand. Extractive fuels won't going to be supplanted tomorrow with these tactics but I'm not certain that's feasible or the aim.

There is a spectrum of possible action from immediately completely disavowing fossil fuels to doing nothing, and the right answer will likely fall somewhere on the gradient between either. The point that is chosen is for climatologists and economists to develop scientific-data driven models to establish the long-term risks and associated hazards with any given position.

>>95777
>appointing the CEO of exxon mobile
>tax returns

Has to do what with environmentalism again?
>Subsidizing more energy efficient technologies increases their competitiveness

Yet they haven't ended oil, because they'll never let them end oil. It's a fake contribution.

>Taxing carbon emissions increases cost
Yes, and that's all it does. Nothing is actually reduced or prevented. It's a tax with a pretty name.

These are the "facebook likes" of politics.

>>95776
too bad nobody's going to read all that shit lmao samefag

>>95780

You can't end oil dependency overnight, your only real option is to prop up alternatives to increase adoption or fuel research to make them the better option without need for said tax incentives. You can also make oil less appealing by increasing costs (hell, oil is already subsidized by the government, it's the resulting pollution of industry that's being taxed). These are both "soft" solutions, because they provide incentives to make more efficient products to avoid taxes. Obviously you can ignore it and continue as before with increased costs, but that's the cost of being the most "free market" solution available outside of hoping that consumers suddenly will only purchase green products, forcing a market shift.

The idea here is to wean the economy off oil, because any harsher method is either unrealistic or would cause a political shitstorm. You could mandate nuclear and suddenly remove the need for oil outside of transportation, but that's a shitstorm. You could mandate 100% renewables, but that's unrealistic. You could mandate that all cars become electric, but that's unrealistic and a shitstorm.

The US has already shifted dependency away from foreign oil because it makes good sense in terms of national security, and it will eventually shift what it can away from oil altogether for the same reasons because oil, along with coal and natural gas, are finite. Even the Saudis are investing in alternative energy sources and economy solutions because they know that the oil money will run out. The oil industry is not some unassailable titan, and smart nations know that in the long run oil prices will skyrocket once the wells start to run dry and have begun investing in a post-oil future. Only nations that are too shortsighted or lack the resources to find alternative means will stick to oil as their primary industry.

>>95818
>The idea here is to ween the population off of oil
Which will not happen under the INTERNATIONAL oil dependency. The suites already scour to try and kill serious and threatening alternatives and the foreign countries would fight tooth and nail to maintain the value of their life-line.

There is nothing the left is proposing that would even act as a true soft solution, it's intentionally made pointless because the dollar in of itself is backed by oil.

>The US shifted away from from foreign oil
We don't need it, the only point of the saudi deal was to give the US dollar a global value.

We can use other sources, even our own while the saudis maintain the value of the USD

>>95765
1) We don't know if man-made climate change is real or not (I'm inclined to say no since scientists and liberals are known bullshitters).

2) Even if it were, we don't know if it would be as bad as they say it is (people who preach apocalypse are almost always morons).

3) We'd destroy our job creators with environmental regulations/laws (we can bounce back from the poor class being destroyed, we can't if our brightest and most brilliant lose their wealth).

4) Even if all of that was true, we conservatives would still fight it because liberal tears are just that addictive.

>>95832
>Even if all of that was true, we conservatives would still fight it because liberal tears are just that addictive.

Are conservatives in the United States really this infantile?

>>95832
>1) We don't know if man-made climate change is real or not
"We" do know that it's real, there's no debate among people who understand science

>2) Even if it were, we don't know if it would be as bad as they say it is
there is some debate, but we know it will have some adverse effects and we should take reasonable steps to mitigate it

>>95709
>I don't understand science OR economics OR politics but I want to share my opinion anyway
why?

>>95562
no, logic is
>Temperature is increasing in the lower atmosphere while decreasing in the upper atmosphere
>this rules out anything aside from the atmosphere, such as solar radiation or changes in orbit
>in addition changes in solar intensity or orbit or tilt do not coincide with the warming
>warming must be caused by changes in the atmosphere, such as increased levels of GHGs or changes in volcanic activity
>we aren't seeing changes in volcanic activity, we are seeing a lot of changes in GHG levels, so common sense says that's what it is

Also, the logic came even before temps started rising. Global warming theory is 120 years old. Svante Arrhenius realized that if GHGs are what traps heat in the atmosphere (which was shown in the early 19th century) then more GHGs = more heat trapped

I really don't get why so many people ITT like you feel the need to shitpost about something you know damn well you don't understand, instead of just doing simple research. Like "hey, maybe the scientists have already ruled out solar radiation for a variety of reasons, let me look into that before I say something really fucking stupid"

>>95709
oh right, because the conservatives are REALLY proposing a solution too

>>95717
>>95717
>the models are wrong
[citation needed]

>>95900
I don't need to give sources on common knowledge.

go fuck yourself

Literally Hitler!!!

>>95915
So you have no way of demonstrating the models are faulty?

Than why should I even believe you?

>>93148
>he'll ground their Earth monitoring/research satellites, which I agree w
ya who needs to know about the planet we live on

those eggheads at NASA and at every other climate research institute on the planet all have the exact same agenda and not one person in any of those organizations from ESA to whatever the Chinese equivalent is called don't want to make a name for themselves by exposing it

Jesus you people are fucking stupid.

>>93192
the average, or even above average citizen doesn't have the financial resources to go after large corporations

>>93192
>Company gets sued.
>Takes 30 years.
>When company gets charged, they instantly dissolve with all liabilities.
>New company buys them out.
>It's own by the same people who owned the last company.

The legal system is pretty much nullified if you know what you're doing.

>>91780
Don't worry, his transition team claims that was sent out "by mistake", same with the other incident too.
You can trust papa trump and all the people he's appointing :^)

>>93030
>invest in renewable energy
>need to make tons of pollution to do so destroying environment
>sell stupid Americans solar panels
>skin another panda alive and eat its brain, great success Mr. Chen!

>>94763
lol true liberals loved to do absolutely shit all for anyone and just feel morally superior but now that they have a cause I could really see actual change being done because they have to actually go against Trump.

See, having conflict is actually good you safe space pussies. It gets good things done.

>>95734
You are an edgy 25 year old but thats okay you could be right about this. The Jehovah's Witnesses believe that 125000 people will be saved only in Armageddon and almost everyone dies. Maybe we just need say 200K of the best and brightest people to survive utter destruction and rebuild but utilizing all of our current technologies to achieve "heaven".

>>95834
You guys are fucking assholes who literally cannot go 12 words without insulting people who don't agree with you, this is our time to shine now and your time to understand what happens to assholes, they get fucked by dicks.

>>96292
Liberals just say mean words, like bleating little sheep. We conservatives are men of action willing to draw blood for our cause, willing to visit violence upon our enemies, like wolves on the prowl.

>>91688
Yes, be afraid. Your time is coming to an end lefties. HA HA HA HA

>>91753
you got climate data for that? no, you fuckin dont

Man made climate change is full of shit, you have no reference

>>96057
you stupid

>>96294
*tips fedora*

>>96338
www.nasa.gov/climate

>>96338
Climate data for what? For the fact that current CO2 levels are far outside of what is natural? Try this
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/ice_core_co2.html
TL;DR they did ice core samples for the past 800,000 years (and IIRC they later did another one going back over a million years), and our CO2 levels are 100ppm higher than at any point before the industrial revolution. So no it's not fucking natural cycles

Now, do you have any solid evidence that God is actually the reason CO2 is rising or temperatures are going up? No you fucking don't, God-made climate change is full of shit. Take your science-denialism elsewhere

>>96404
those ice core samples also showed that co2 and temperature do not correlate.


dumb fuck.

Album leak. The news. Thank you. http://www.datpiff.com/The-Alchemist-B-Eazy-onion-mixtape.821217.html

>>96412
>says a bunch of nonsense without anything to back it up
>calls other people dumb fucks
Trump supporters, everybody

If you have any data to show that the greenhouse effect doesn't actually exist, then let's see it

>>96414

Not him, but I'm more interested in the apparent link between the sunspot cycle and global temperatures.

During our period of warming, Mars has been warming at the same rate, a place little plagued by human industry.

>>96423

Read the fucking thread, or just google. See

>>95328
>>95604
>No solar hiding place for greenhouse sceptics, Q Schiermeier, Nature 448, 8-9 (5 July 2007) | doi:10.1038/448008a

which is summarized for laymen in

www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/effect-of-sun-on-climate-faq.html

>>91688
You anti-Trump morons still don't fucking get it. This guy is the ANTI-Clinton, ANTI-Obama, ANTI-politic bullshit president. Obama would tweet shit like: "Happy New Year to a proud nation of diverse people and empowered women!" You know, Trudeau shit. This guy is making it clear: The days of peak cuck are over. If you stood in his way, he's going to fuck you over.

>>96426
I hope nobody spoils your idealized, deified vision of Trump, namely Trump himself.

>>96414
you are a dumb fuck because you trust pop science like your preacher.

>>96430
>you are a dumb fuck because you trust pop science like your preacher.
Dumb scientists, what do they know!? AmIright?

>>96431
Yeah, just continue to blindly trust those "experts" and "professionals" like a lemming.

>>96423
First, the sunspot cycle hasn't correlated with current warming. Second, while the lower atmosphere is warming the upper atmosphere is cooling. This would happen if more heat is trapped in the lower atmosphere (because there are more GHGs now), but if the sun were hotter then the whole atmosphere would be heating.
Sunspots are one of many causes of previous natural warming but have been ruled out as a cause for the current warming.

>Mars has been warming
while some other planets have been cooling. Mars warming is likely due to changes in axial tile and/or orbit. Earth has these, called Milankovich Cycles, that are the cause of our ice ages. However these happen on the scale of tens of thousands of years and would also warm the upper atmosphere, so again these have been ruled out as a cause

>>96426
>believe in science
>get called a moron
WEW LAD

>>96440
>>96430
As opposed to random /pol/tards on the internet who have already been BTFO multiple times ITT?

>>96431
They know what they need to say to receive funding.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the work actual scientists have done.

But they haven't been trustworthy since they started telling us what's healthy.

Or do you abide the food pyramid?

>>96452
>BTFO multiple times

you're the one with something to prove

and you can't

all you can do is remind us that scientists believe in global warming. still not impressed. some of those idiots told me smoking was okay.

>>96487
it's simple: scientists > multinational oil companies.

>>96487
You just don't want to admit that the GOP is a bunch of fucking tools to big Oil.

>>96487
>you're the one with something to prove
actually we have offered up proof already. If you are alleging that every single climate scientist has completely invented their data and that ice core samples were never actually taken, then you are the one who should prove your delusional conspiracy theories. If you're the one claiming that the greenhouse effect doesn't exist, you're the one who needs to offer up some proof, because scientists have 200 years of proof saying that yes, the greenhouse effect is in fact real.

Science has done it's part, now it's your turn to prove that God exists, God controls the climate, and every scientist has just been publishing fake data as part of some enormous conspiracy to get people to stop burning fossil fuels

>>96555
if you've offered up "proof" then please do me a favor and link the post.

just show me that co2 make the Earth hot.

how difficult is that? it's the basis of your theory and it is highly suspect.

give us the EVIDENCE so we can stop this shit debate already.

>global warming males sense bro
>scientists agree!
>Humans are polluting so much it's bad bro
>it's settled science bro

none of these are arguments.

>>96555
>it's your turn to prove that God exists
no need to be absurd.

>and every scientist has just been publishing fake data as part of some enormous conspiracy to get people to stop burning fossil fuels

Who said they were publishing fake data? their data is real, but it's based on image models.

climate models that predicted California would be underwater by now.

this happened, and I stopped listening to this area of science.

just like the scientists telling me to eat 16+ servings of bread per day, the scientists that say fluoride/xenoestrogens in my water is great, etc.

you act like science can't corrupted.

all scientists are highly politically correct people. this includes believing in global warming.

it's no surprise to me that people go with the flow on this issue. their income and social lives depend on agreeing here.

you sheep.

>>92905
your IT slave job was created by science. Your truck was built by science. Science is an integral part of being human and if we stop doing it, you and all your friends will suffer and/or die. Have fun!

>>93018
>roach-like
back2pol

>>96784
>>96785
son, just how fresh off the boat are you

>>97081
Is this the part where you tell us that scientists know nothing and complain about how scientists receive grant money?

>>94406
Back to your boyfriend's rape dungeon

>>95568
Scientists are all guessing, in the 70s they thought it was temperature cooling heading toward a new ice age.

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

Always take politically charged hypothetical scientific claims with a grain of salt.

>>97097
>they thought
Time Magazine is not a climate science journal.

>>93031
> Few people even understand what I'm telling them when we discuss this kind of thing. They just can't accept it.

You know what's even funnier, there are many people who can understand it and don't give a fuck and you just can't accept that people are like that.

>>97097
>hey guys, I have absolutely no clue what I'm talking about, but I'm just going to parrot some fake bullshit I heard on /pol/ okay?
wow anon you sure showed us

>>91729
>This liberal hysteria only gets funnier with every incident

I know, these libcucks are so stupid.

They actually believe Trump will do what he promises.

meteorology is so innacurate why am i supposed to believe that global warming is man made yes climate changes do happen but are huans having a signifivant effect on the process and could the idea that we are just be from not having data of a precious cycle?

>>91688
Global warming is real people. Its real and your children are going to pay for your stupidity. My ignorant ass is half hoping their is a new ice age just so i can say i told you so

>>97665
>The temperature went up three degrees! How could we have prevented this?!

>>97739
Obviously, we first need to purge a couple billion people on Earth

>>94442
Care to make an argument, or do you lack the braincells needed for such an activity?

Because as of right now, you just prove what we think, Trump supporters are morons led by sensationalism, incapable of making an argument to save their lives.

So, prove the stereotype wrong, or confirm it.

>>95383
So you admit most of the people in your board honestly think science is bad.

Well, thanks for confirming my suspicions, I guess I just needed to hear it right from the source.

>>95832

4) Even if all of that was true, we conservatives would still fight it because liberal tears are just that addictive.
You know, liberals might have safe spaces, but I think conservatives still beat them in the immaturity department.

>>96292
>Says liberals are assholes
>Acts like an asshole
The hypocrisy is palpable.

>>91739just ask Hillary

According to all sources, the street's the place to go.

Too bad Hitler won WW2 and is using a simulation to mind control from outside the flat earth dome on the dark side of the moon, or i would believe in this stupid story.

>>93216
>TIL
>go get a Ph.D. and prove all of these biased hacks wrong
>they don't accept the mentally handicapped

TODAY I LEARNT REDDIT USER THINKS 4CHAN EXISTS SO THEY CAN VENT THEIR FRUSTRATIONS WITHOUT GETTING BANNED

What a fucking surprise, all spite no substance nor fun, who would have guess you are a fucking redditor

>>95330
nono, but co2 is killing whales man, please stop industrializing and lets go back to amazonian-tier living which is purer and less sinful

global warming """knowledge""" is how illiterates show off

>>98265
>Actually expected a Drumpftard to argue a point with facts

>>101021
Who needs facts when you have fancy infographics from The Heartland Institute™?

Oh wait, they can't post those here. Hahahaha

>>101057
They can post a link to the image, also don't be rude anon.

>>93877
>the data is falsified!
Have any proof? Don't forget I can just accuse you of falsifying your data and thereby nullify your argument.

>>97665
Who cares? Most of the people who starve or drown will be third world vermin that nobody with any sense should care about anyway.

This global warming thing sounds like a highly effective population control measure.

>>101581
>flash flagging in 2018

>>102099
>I mean false flagging

>>93032
>Coastal Flordia fucked
At least it won't be all bad then, huh?

>>93192
I am too lazy to look up a more specific case to the issue. But read up on all the shit that happened with the McDonald's' hot coffee lap lady.

tl:dr person was falsely made a world wide idiot to her deathbed because if she wanted even a penny of help for her treatment she had to stfu.

And that is an instance of the injured party receiving justice from a major player.

>>91753
then explain how co2 is increasing on other planets.

>>93216
>TIL Overwhelming scientific consensus = bias.
idk you must agree the world was flat then

>>95832
>scientists are known bullshitters
where is that evidence, that refutes everything scienctists have proven regarding the man made climate change? who told you that or what are your sources? And why are you trusting this source more?

here is a small selection of sources either proving or confirming anthropogenic climate change. Notice, how different the scientifical methods and approaches have been and how they share a similar consens. Ask questions, read through it, I'll be waiting for a response.

https://www2.ucar.edu/global-warming-climate-change/faq#t27191n1494

“Human Impacts on Climate” http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html

“How do we know Earth is warming now?” http://www.ncar.ucar.edu/research/climate/now.php

"Attributing physical and biological impacts to anthropogenic climate change"
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7193/abs/nature06937.html
(If you can't access it, use the website sci-hub and insert this doi:10.1038/nature06937)

"Atmospheric methane between 1000 A.D. and present: Evidence of anthropogenic emissions and climatic variability"
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/98JD00923/full

"Detection of Anthropogenic Climate Change in the World's Oceans"
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/292/5515/270 (if you can't access go to sci-hub and insert the following doi: 10.1126/science.1058304)

"Detection of anthropogenic climate change in satellite records of
ocean chlorophyll and productivity"
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/sah1001.pdf

Japan Meteorological Agency “Global Warming Projection Vol.7” http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/gwp7/index-e.html

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Based in Switzerland) “Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report”
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XyyfjDHHnI

>>91738 see >>102504
alright I'll take the bait.
>Winters where I live are getting different the last few years, but things change normally too.
How are they getting different? What are the 'things' that 'proove' those changes you've observed as normal?
Also it's a unrealistic claim to suggest, that your local weather/sea level represents what is happening climatically around the world.

even if you deem them as biased at least read through them and see what they are offering. look through their methods first and then tell again why you think they're not proper enough.

>>95568
While the influence of solar activity on climate change has been indeed underestimated for a long time, science caught up on it already at least since 2009.
The sun is indeed influencing the climate on earth, but the impact is small, with "the solar contribution to the radiative driving the climate change between 1750 and 2005 being
0.12 Wm^−2, with an uncertainty between 0.06 and 0.30 Wm^−2, while the estimated total net anthropogenic contribution lies between 1.6 Wm^−2 with uncertainties of 0.6–2.4 Wm^−2"

for reference:
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/2009RG000282.pdf
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4_wg3_full_report.pdf

here you can learn about one of the models used for estimating these numbers
http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/466/2114/303#sec-9

>>101581
That's a really ignorant conclusion to make. Since there is going to be a lot of land loss, huge mass migrations will happen. Due to the reduction of water reserves, combined with the scarcity of fossile based ressources to come in approx. 2050 there will be huge tensions between the leading world powers, which might lead to war. Don't forget more hurricanes, tsunamis for coutnries already at risk. Also the economic damage as a consequence of all this, which is going to have an impact on the overall world trade. No one is safe

>>102435
Kek

>>102528
>Since there is going to be a lot of land loss, huge mass migrations will happen. Due to the reduction of water reserves, combined with the scarcity of fossile based ressources to come in approx. 2050 there will be huge tensions between the leading world powers, which might lead to war. Don't forget more hurricanes, tsunamis for coutnries already at risk. Also the economic damage as a consequence of all this, which is going to have an impact on the overall world trade. No one is safe
This right here is exactly why people dismiss anthropogenic climate change entirely. It's bullshit. Even if we increase the co2 we burn it's probably a good thing.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sun-spots-and-climate-change/

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/the-big-picture-65-million-years-of-temperature-swings/

we all know climate change is a hoax

>>102528
>>>91738 see >>102504
>alright I'll take the bait.
>>Winters where I live are getting different the last few years, but things change normally too.
>How are they getting different? What are the 'things' that 'proove' those changes you've observed as normal?
>Also it's a unrealistic claim to suggest, that your local weather/sea level represents what is happening climatically around the world.
>even if you deem them as biased at least read through them and see what they are offering. look through their methods first and then tell again why you think they're not proper enough.
>>>95568
>While the influence of solar activity on climate change has been indeed underestimated for a long time, science caught up on it already at least since 2009.
>The sun is indeed influencing the climate on earth, but the impact is small, with "the solar contribution to the radiative driving the climate change between 1750 and 2005 being
>0.12 Wm^−2, with an uncertainty between 0.06 and 0.30 Wm^−2, while the estimated total net anthropogenic contribution lies between 1.6 Wm^−2 with uncertainties of 0.6–2.4 Wm^−2"
>for reference:
>http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/2009RG000282.pdf
>https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4_wg3_full_report.pdf
>here you can learn about one of the models used for estimating these numbers
>http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/466/2114/303#sec-9
>>>101581
that study only takes account heat radiated from the sun.
Not the electrical connection between the sun and every planet

>>91688
They're wasting their time copying fake, worthless data.

>>102641
You still don't have answered any of my questions as to how you came to your statement
And yet you continue to throw wild claims into the discussion without providing any proofs
>Even if we increase the CO2 we burn, it's probably a good thing
Why? What is the positive outcome you have in mind?

I was lazy af when writing this paragraph yesterday night so I'll provide some sites, papers and corrections. Here is one of the studies with exact data, which undermine, that resources are depleting and will 'run out' if leading governments don't change policies regarding the fossil fuel consumption

https://www.munish.nl/pages/downloader?code=spc204&comcode=spc2&year=2015

Here are some studies estimating the future development of extreme weather occurances
I made a mistake though, since it's not the number of hurricanes that will increase but rather their intensity

https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/
https://opensky.ucar.edu/islandora/object/articles%3A13126

and that the rising temperature in the air and of the oceans is a cause for that

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2006EO080006/pdf
https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/knutson-et-al-nat-geo.pdf

death rates and financial costs of rebuilding the damage of past hurricanes

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5509a5.htm
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6220a1.htm

Selection of first world countries which are going to be affected by rising sea levels
https://www.climatecentral.org/news/new-analysis-global-exposure-to-sea-level-rise-flooding-18066

including
>US
>Belgium
>Netherlands
>Germany
>France
>Denmark
>UK
>Japan

https://www.climatecentral.org/news/how-2C-warming-could-reshapeus-19209

On developing countries
https://www.climatecentral.org/news/nations-megacities-face-20-feet-of-sea-level-rise-19217
Their governments will never be able to provide for all of them.

>>102662
>electrical connection between the sun and every planet

Are you actually referring to the Electric Universe theory?
Apart from few shady websites I've found no peer reviewed papers or mathematical models confirming this theory. I've searched for more than a hour now.
But I've found a site which compromised all the claims made by advocates of this theory and compares them to peer reviewed science.

http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.de/p/challenges-for-electric-universe.html

What are your sources on wether 'electrical connection between sun and every planet' have influenced climate change?

>>102735
spaceweather.Com
suspiciousobserver

>>102735
suspicious observer even has a fucking app to warn you of disasters triggered by the sun.

>>102740
>>102743
what exactly are those sites proving

>>102771
Not him but it's been widely reported (whether true or not) that scientific consensus is out on whether or not solar flares and sunspots have an effect on global warming and/or climate change.

Not that those websites prove it one way or the other, just saying...

>>102771
they prove the electrical connection between the sun and planets.

>>102799
where.

>>102805
do you want me to wipe your butt too?

>>102805
Shouldn't take the bait.

>>95774
10/10 post

>>102825
defeatist

>>102696
>You still don't have answered any of my questions as to how you came to your statement
What? Because you exaggerate.
> What is the positive outcome you have in mind?
The planet gets a bit warmer and less frozen. More animals/plants thrive.

That's what happens when the planet warms. All that shit about hurricanes and floods is fear mongering nonsense. Hurricanes and tornadoes are down in the US, and India agriculture is thriving despite heat increases.

>>102923
You don't actually quite understand the implications of climate change if you think the outcome is that things get a little warmer/more animals and plants thrive

As the temperature increases the risk of hydrological and agricultural drought increases, for example

You really need to read more literature around this, a good place to start is the NASA website which has a really good overview, plus some references to get started reading the actual literature.

>>102941
That NASA site will be purged form all references to that bullshit you called "climate change" and will be replaced by space colonization; the Trump Administration will make sure of that.

>>102941
I don't need to read any incotrect predictions. This is why I started doubting the entire theory.

What I have are facts. Tornadoes and hurricanes are down in the US, despite climate alarmists predictions. Desert is spreading throughout india, but crops are doing better. Must I repeat myself again?

These are direct refutations of your fear mongering assumptions. Just fuck off already.

>>102961
They want you to admit that fossil fuels should be abolished; that's all.

>>102923
>>102961

with the first questions I just wanted you to further elaborate on your observations, since I couldn't quite comprehend your reasoning from the little unfounded claim you left.

>That's what happens when the planet warms. All that shit about hurricanes and floods is fear mongering nonsense. Hurricanes and tornadoes are down in the US, and India agriculture is thriving despite heat increases.

Do yourself a favour and read through >>102696 first. If you have questions feel free to ask. I don't know about the predictions your government has told you, but the only safe prediction about hurricanes regarding the climate change is, that they will increase in intensity.

To your point about the information being biased;
Even the Russians have made the same observations
http://www.russia-direct.org/company-news/understanding-russias-approach-climate-change-and-global-warming
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-summit-russia-media-idUSKCN0SN1GI20151029
http://rbth.com/opinion/2015/12/09/russia-pledges-to-help-combat-climate-change_549163

Putin is acitvely participating in World Climate Conferences and debates on the same facts that I've already posted.

>>102963
Stop postin' plz

it really doesn't matter, at some point renewables will be more competitive than oil

and from there it will become highly abundant

>>102793
The solar activity has been declining, despite breaking temperature records every year

here is some collected data. you can go through this and see the decrease with your own eyes
http://www.sidc.be/silso/datafiles

As you can see here our current cycle shows the lowest recorded sunspot activity since 1750. some other sources explaining how climate and solar sun spots are connected to each other.

http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/solar-cycle-progression
http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrsp-2007-2/
https://www.nap.edu/read/11676/chapter/13#107

>>102967
the only source of energy is oil
solar panels are not a "source"
how many barrels of oil does it take to make a solar panel?

The lack of basic science understanding on this thread is scary.

There is no man made climate change

>>102982
This entire thread is bullshit.

>>102982
>>102983

had a good kek thx m8s the baiting is going strong and good itt, praised be trump

>>102981
All I know is that back in the 1960s the US government shit up the ionosphere and troposphere with high altitude nukes in ways still not fully understood today. Whole new radiation belts were apparently created with some particles becoming semi-permanently trapped.

Starting point for interesting reading:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime

>>102961
I honestly can't tell if this is bait or proud stupidity

8/10

>>102988
>I can't tell what this is so it's stupid

Huh

>>102997
m8 you literally said you won't read current literature on the subject because you already have all the facts

surely that's bait, or is it?

>>102999
I never said that. It's difficult to see clearly, isn't it?

>>103000
Oh, my mistake, I thought you were this guy >>102961

>>103002
I see your mistake now. You think the doomsday predictions made by all gore were accurate. Do you also think you are a good person for believing this?

>>103007
I don't, and no, but I do think that you should keep yourself well informed on current research on climate change

>>103009
Yeah...

Maybe, like, when there's a thread about climate science, I should, like, read it?

Useless fuck.

>>103013
That's a great place to start anon! But I would encourage you to read further about this subject. 4chan posts don't go through such a thorough peer review process as published articles, so you may find they're not the most informative and up to date source of information.

You are clearly very passionate about it so you might really enjoy reading some of the literature in this field, some good reading was kindly posted by anon here >>102504

>>103037
You are useless.

>>103068
Perhaps, but at least I don't pretend to be informed on a subject about which I seem determined not to be :^)

>>103075
You are pretending to be informed about me right now, you useless shitposter.

>>96338
>babby can't even google
Kek
Why do science deniers get butthurt so easily? When will they ever learn?

>>103080
Okay I'm going to make one last earnest post anon, I've pointed you in a direction where you can find out more about current research on climate change, what you do with that is up to you, but I implore you to read some of it if you want to meaningfully contribute to discussion about climate change

But if you're content to be called a cretin because you, as you put it
>don't need to read... What I have are facts
then rock on, buddy

>>103084
I'm not reading your post. It must be 4 posts now and you've said basically nothing.

>>103088
Go fly a kite you silly ignorant person

lol

>>102435
Is it? Source? Some planets are warming while others are cooling, due to their versions of Milankovich Cycles, but idk where you're hearing that CO2 is increasing on other planets and we already know that Milankovich Cycles aren't the cause of our current warming

>>103101
I get the feeling he made than one up

>>95734

You're going to live another 40+ years. You think your life will always be fine? Think your standard of living can't get any worse? Live another ten years, or twenty, and see what you think of saying 'fuck it!' to the future then. Not just for yourself either, for everyone.

>>103090
Kill yourself you fossil fuel killer.

>>103088
i understood his posts perfectly well
maybe you are just slow

>>103209
There was never a lack of understanding. So maybe you aren't so quick yourself?

>>103211
What no one in this thread understands is that you are being trolled.

Except the trolls, they know perfectly well.

>>103212
Saving face? Ok.

>>103213
Was my first post in the thread tbh.

You've been trolling someone else.

>>103255
You cam into this thread to insult me, only to reveal your poor reading comprehension.

If thinking me a troll makes you feel less stupid, good for you I guess.

>>103271
Good for you too.

Have fun being trolled then.

>>103273
Good for me? I never accused you of trolling in order to save face. That was you.

>Have fun being trolled then
Last post you called me a troll. Now I'm the one getting trolled?

Your shit makes no sense. I don't understand why people like you continue to post after fucking up. Just stfu.

>>95725
Socialism is a dangerous slope. You can only achieve well-running socialism when you heavily tax many aspects of life (Denmark), meaning that your population must mostly be around the same economic level and not many are actually dependent only on the system.

America could never work, as shown with how damned inefficient many aspects of Social Welfare act today. A culture of dependence has formed inside the major cities where people, sadly usually young black youths, find every possible way to take money out of the system while returning practically nothing.

A rather hurtful one was how Single Mothers realized that, without a father, they would actually earn more money AND not have another adult in their lives to worry about. This created a dangerous spiral where young boys grew up without fathers and were easily tricked into bad crowds while their moms bought weave with their welfare money. And, without any big jobs or dreams around, many of them fell further into criminality very rapidly. It KILLED black American culture.

Single Payer could only work if most people were of the same economic level and everyone supported it. Otherwise, some would see it as truly theft or a step to the cancer that is socialism and try to put an end to it.

It doesn't help that Canada sets a really bad example of Universal healthcare.

>>93032
Mali is landlocked. How will they be affected by rising sea levels?

>>91729

Well done, comrade. 10 rubles have been deposited into your account.

>>104490
>implying the Left isn't the Communist scourge
Nice on, Boris.

>>103439

It won't, but it's being affected by desertification. Timbuktu's ancient architecture used to be brightly painted and is all now sandblasted as the Sahara encroaches.

But iirc desertification is still not fully understood, so while rising temperatures will almost certainly help amplify any such processes, it is not known if they will cause them, or even if short-term climate cycles that change due to the interruption of ocean currents might halt or change directions of desertification in certain areas.

But it's also going to be important to understand desertification in full when we start shifting focus from preventing unchecked carbon emission to adapting to life in a stable-but-hotter world, because for all the shit Republicans spout about how "GW will be good bring more fertile land etc." we don't actually know if that's true -- it all depends on how water ends up circulating in various regions.

But climatologists can only fully shift that research focus when politicians fully commit to halting/stabilizing GW. Period. Otherwise they have to keep looking at 50 years at a time and trying to tell us to stop being retards.

>>104499
Implying the democrats and Republicans aren't centrists

>>104753
They're both centrists economically, but both are extremes on social issues. Trump is a /pol/tard and Hillary is an SJW

>>92445
>destroyed

I live in Montana and we still have all our data.

Apparently, Roger's Pass is the most lethal road here, and home to the greatest shift in temperature.

My hometown was once the coldest place on the planet.

>>104842
You like it better colder?

>>104773
Americans are left with nobody who actually represents them, the two party system was a mistake

>>104842
I thought Roger’s Pass was in Canada. And it’s certainly a risky highway there, too.

>>104963
And that’s why Americans had to choose between two New Yorkers to represent a nation. History sucks when it is being written . ..

>>104967
Yeah they were basically the same person

Who won again? I can barely remember.

*puts palm on face*

>>104968
To be honest they basically are the same person

>>104979
Yeah i agree. My IQ is like 50 though so I'm wrong a lot.

>>104979
you're embarrassing yourself

>>104968
They are two idiots, none is worthy of being the president of the USA.
"Two sides of the same coin" if you want.

Apparently, Muricans misunderstood this "vote for lesser evil" thing. The point was NOT to pick up the two most evil during the primaries.
Seriously, 325 million citizens and these were the two final candidates, something went very wrong.

>>104981
>>104997
I'm sorry that your understanding of politics is this shallow

>>105003
Nah not really. Trump is the best candidate I can imagine.

This is no lesser of two evils. This election was 1 in a million. A regular human beat the system with his own will and talents. He should be retiring, but instead he's risking his life and giving up 8 years for America.

>>105009
I am honestly sorry that you can't see how great things are right now. That cant feel good.

>>105025
>best candidate I can imagine
You have a pretty shit imagination if you can't even imagine a candidate that has even a very basic understanding of science. Just "God controls the temperature by waving a magic wand," that's really the best candidate you can imagine? You don't think it's theoretically possible to do even a little bit better than that?

>A regular incompetent moron beat the system by appealing to other idiots
I agree with you that he should be retiring

>>103116

Did you not understand my mood on the issue? I said right at the end i realise in this situation I and anyone i care about is fucked. But in really, its a hopeful message in away.

I dont think the future is doomed completely, I think alot of pain and suffering is coming and theres no avoiding it. I don't think humanity will end though. My whole post was my prediction what happens after the supposed apocalypse. I think it is the end of the world...for some people RIGHT NOW.

Like, they consider no electricity on par with a meteor hitting us and wiping us out. (personally i think there will be ever decreasing amounts of electricity however im confident future knowledge gatherers will be able to retain it for the new elite as a luxuary item along with in some areas at least, running water and medicine).

By 'fuck it' i am simply saying this cannot be avoided now. it is going to happen, the question is, when will it start really tipping? the answer is, its starting slowly but will simply start getting faster and faster. This does not depress me however. It is the greatest challenge individual humans will face in ours and our sons lifetimes.

Many will perish thats a given. however, if YOU, and i mean you as in the singular and small collective of friends/family/group/gang/town, get ready in practical terms in your area of the earth, you might not only make it to a ripe age (not as ripe as the generation before obviously) but your children will remember you fondly, when you tell of the old world and prepared them for this new one. If they have that, they face the harsh worlds challenges with optimism, which will be the first best step.

>>91688
>crucial climate measurements could vanish under a hostile Trump administration
Firstly it's absolutely absurd to think the president of the united states would delete scientific research documents.

Secondly true dedicated scientists would already have the data backed up. This panic is simply a bunch of crazy libs freaking out.

>>105055
Dry your tears. It's going to be okay.

>>105067
>Trump doesn't understand science
"LOLOLOLOL LIBRUL TEARS!!!"
can you people say anything else or have you just realized that Trump is such a shit President that you can't find any way to defend him?