Donald Trump is a scientist and the best environmental plan

He's made one or two remarks that could put him into her boat. Although that doesn't say much. He's thrown so much crazy shit on the wall in the past its hard to find a crazy train he hasn't ridden at least once.

And Trump

Some people are saying you need to put a little bit of CLEAN AIR into the chamber of the syringe before you administer the shot, and then you don't have to worry about autism. I don't know. That's what they are saying. You tell me.

If they shoot air into your veins, autism will be the last thing to worry about.

Not true. Shooting up air into your veins actually isnt that harmful, even if it were a full 100cc syringe. Your lungs have a natural defense mechanisms for "popping" air bubbles in your veins.
Source: Used to shoot up a lot. Shot up a lot of air once and freaked out, researched it, and came to find out even a highly large amount of air in your veins would cause very little damage.

The greens match the republicans pound for pound on scientific illiteracy.
Postdocs' Junta when??

>"G-global warming is a liberal hoax"
>yfw he will still fund ways to prevent it because we'll be fucked otherwise

Isn't it colder from the cold water going into the oceans

>let bangladesh drown

Why can't everyone just git gud like the Dutch?

this

My hope is that he realizes how important it is after the pentagon sits him down and gives him some real talk from this sort of angle:

defense.gov/News/Article/Article/612710

Given who he selected to head the EPA, I'm not feeling optimistic though.

No, he won't. You guys need to organise now and retake the congress in 2018 and make Trump a lame duck. And then take the presidency in 2020. The damage he will cause can still be very much contained if you people start to organize. I'm really not sure if your country will survive another Dubya-tier shit presidency.

Also, Trump really shows how ultimately unimportant your country has become. The whole world including China and Russia is agreeing to take steps against global warming. If the USA doesn't, that's sad, but at the end of the day it will not stop the rest of the world from saving the planet. Trump is really accelerating your downfall. By a lot.

this

>The damage
Pls. Have you seen the markets? A new golden age is being ushered in. Our private benefactors just DOUBLED our research grants and I work in fucking clean pipelord energy (solar shift reactors).

Just the promise of tax cuts and cutting of welfare babies and Chemical Engineering is on track to create a petroleum free plastics and maybe even energy economy. Cutting petro and shale prematurely is just stupid, we need it until the technology is there for real clean energy and not just high entropy memeshit with pretty green frontend in a stock photo.

Good times ahead for all (unless you're a NEETscum liberal arts major).

>the next president tweets like pic related
Gonna be an interesting time for sure.

>anecdotal "evidence"
>how can there be global warming if it's snowing right now?!

Typical leftard liberal art major NEET confusing me with righttard trailer trash.

I'm more aware on climate change science than you. Of course it's happening. I'm just also aware of the studies on how high entropy and indirectly polluting """green""" technologies are, they are even worse than coal and petro. The companies that are investing the most into clean, sustainable (and realistic) energy technologies than anyone else, far more than public sector.

Pls update your worldview to one that isn't based of off a fake news show. People that are smarter than both of us are fixing the climate change issue in a way that doesn't destroy the economy while starving billions of people and not actually helping to reduce net GH gasses.

no, a lame duck would be worse than trump.
and trump isn't even that bad, you're just cucked by the liberal owned media

come up for air out of that fishbowl sometime

> clean air
> oregon votes against him

wew lads

you're reacting to the political weather of the day, instead of the climate

the climate is good, gays have rights, trump cant' take them away.

but if you burned the flag in protest, you can get fucked.

I love how Euros are still holding on to their leftard eco chamber without realizing how their elections are going to turn out next year.

Trump is a pro-choice, pro-gay rights, atheist. People should stop watching CNN, selectively showing clips is just as dishonest as outright lying and fabrication. Even RT is better at this point.

That was just an exampleof how you didn't really deliever an argument, you just spit out some trivial anecdote (my company is doing good and investing in green energy, so every company is doing good and investing in green energy).

You can't complain about unwanted immigration and then immigrate to a board where you are not wanted.

You have to go back.

Because I am just spouting shit.

It's as if you believe I'm trying to convince you of anything.

I'm not. People like you have no power over anything important and never will. I don't care what you think and I don't care how you vote.

Take your gay ass debate shit and "muh logical fallacies xD" fedora shit back to .

I rarely consume media, and especially not your low-quality bullshit american media. I simply looked at Trump's webpage. Trump is not propsing anything new. He will just implement Bush-style shit policies, minus the free trade, which will fuck you up even more.

The US is not that stable. You are owing around 4 trillion dollars to foreign government. Trumps policies are going to increase the american debt even more. He is the worst possible president for your social peace. He has an unfavorability rating of 60% or so. Most people hate him. Everything that is wrong with America will just become even wronger with him. There is no reason for optimism.

This.

/thread

Don't like immigrants? Don't immigrate your low IQ ass here.

go away you homophobic SJWtard

samefag

don't make me find all of your posts on Veeky Forums faggot

Please do. I wanna see if your low IQ assumption skills that predicted bernies and clintons victory still holds.

oh wait...

>AUTISM. Many such cases!
Veeky Forums in a nutshell

i am 100% supporting his statement
even if there is a global warming effect, i don't see a problem becouse it is fucking cold here and a more warming earth would be good.

Also global warming myth was created by atom industry to label nuclear energy as green energy.

Call it whatever you want, package it however you want. We all benefit from a cleaner planet, and if it delays or prevents climate change, that's a nice byproduct.

We'd all benefit from free schooling for life and free everything else. The realistic question is whether something warrants what we give up for it (i.e. opportunity cost)
Denying climate change outright as a means of opposing climate -legislation- is irresponsible and confuses the issue though.

except he is going to gut the EPA

Topkek

climate change denying anti-nuke environmentalist

Were the Left and the Right not stupid enough for you? Did you really have to pick the worst elements of both?

look at this man america
look at him and despair

>Not posting the original

I came to Veeky Forums to learn about climate change and this was the first thread in the catalog. What are the chances?

Okay Veeky Forums, I know basically nothing about climate change, can you explain to me how CO2 emissions are causing simultaneous
>drought
>flood
and why an increase of 2 degrees globally is something that scientists are terrified of?

Like, so I've heard higher temperatures will make more water evaporate, so we will have drier land, but then won't it also evaporate the water in the ocean so the sea level doesn't rise? And how will local temperatures shoot up if we have all this new cloud cover from all the water that stays up in the air?

I get that 2 degrees average is distributed over a huge area so that's probably more crazy than it sounds, but where would be the "best" place to be? Am I going to notice climate change the least at the poles or the equator, is what I'm asking. I get that somewhere has to be dragging this average down so that 2 degrees doesn't seem so bad, and I'm guessing just based on landmass it must be the equator, right? So the temperature there might not change at all, and averaged with a massive change at the comparatively smaller poles it would average out to a small number. Is that right or is this folk pseudoscience bullshit?

>Yet another moron who doesnt realise that global warming causes extremes of temperature, not just generally warmer weather all the time

To his credit first it was "global warming", then "global cooling", then finally they just started calling it "climate change".

If they would have made up their fucking minds the first time around maybe there wouldn't be such skepticism surrounding the entire industry.

It has always been global warming, "global cooling" was never a serious theory and "climate change" as it's used today is synonymous with "global warming".

> You guys need to organise now and retake the congress in 2018
The third of the senate that is up for reelection in 2018 is very favorable to the republicans, so that's not happening.

Aside from that, the senate by its very nature favors the republicans, since there are more red states than blue states and every state gets equal representation in the senate regardless of population. The house of representatives normally would be easier to flip because it's by population and all reelected at once, but currently the way that the lines are drawn means that republicans simply cannot lose in the house regardless of how the vote turns out. Even though more people vote for democrats than republicans, republicans have a very solid majority in the house and will retain that at least until the 2020 census when the lines are redrawn (though their control of almost all the state governments means that even then those lines will likely favor the republicans).

Additionally, in January the republicans will have total control of all branches of the federal government, and most of the states. The US is essentially a one-party state now. That will make it easy for them to pass voting laws that will prevent those who might vote against them from voting, cementing their victory for the next several decades.

ipcc.ch/

> but then won't it also evaporate the water in the ocean so the sea level doesn't rise

Evaporated water will eventually fall as rain and flow in rivers back into the oceans. Accelerating the process isn't going to change the amount of water going through the cycle. What will change it is melting a ton of glaciers that have normally been sitting on the sidelines for thousands of years. That will dump a bunch more water into circulation.

Also, the increased evaporation will result in an intensification of existing patterns. Namely, places that have little water will have even less, whereas places that get a lot of water will get even more. Both are bad. Having too little water is a draught, which sucks, and having too much all at once is a flood, which also sucks.

> ipcc
Got anything other than propaganda for fooling easily-conned normies?

>by its very nature
I hate to interject but I don't think this is the verbal flourish you were looking for. The Senate has been Democrat-controlled 34 times in the last century.

The senate CURRENTLY favors the Republicans because there are CURRENTLY more red states, but there is nothing about the nature of the senate that makes it necessarily linked to Republicanism. In fact, Republicanism didn't exist at the time of the creation of the Senate.

You might make a more convincing argument that the Senate tends to favor Antifederalists, one of the political movements present at the time of the creation of the constitution. The Antifederalists feared that power would be concentrated among high population cities in a few states and they would dictate policy for the rest of the country. The senate, where every state gets an equal say, was supposed to be a conceit to this political group.

In other words, any organization which favors States' Rights will have the advantage in the Senate. At the time of the Civil War, that was actually the Democrats! Nowadays, that's the Republicans. The nature of the Senate didn't change, the nature of the parties changed.

Yes, if you want to look at it from a historical perspective then it would be more accurate to say that by its nature the senate favors whichever side appeals more to smaller but more numerous states. Right now though, that means the republicans. Yes, I know they weren't always the party of the smaller states, but they are now and they are likely to stay that way for at least another decade or two, which means they'll have a built in advantage in the senate for that decade or two.

Right now, the nature of the senate gives the republicans a distinct edge when it comes to controlling it.

If you think modern science is propaganda, then there's nothing anyone is going to post on Veeky Forums that could help you.

> Okay Veeky Forums, I know basically nothing about climate change, can you explain to me how CO2 emissions are causing simultaneous
> drought
> flood

As you mentioned, higher heat means more evaporation. Areas that don't get a lot of rainfall will feel the impact of the increase in evaporation but won't see much more rain fall (because the water often moves somewhere else once it's in the air), leading to drought.

However, that water still has to go somewhere. It doesn't just hang around in a cloud forever (residency time in air is about 9 days), it's eventually going to come back down. While it's in the air, it will move and generally fall in a semi-predictable place (mountains tend to force the water up, where it cools and falls as rain, a low pressure area also leads to rain, etc.) Now, because there is a lot more evaporation, water gets into the air in larger amounts, and most of that extra water is going to get dumped on the same areas that it normally would have fallen on. So areas that normally see plenty of rain will instead be drenched in an immense amount of rain, which causes flooding.

As for sea level rise, evaporation in the end doesn't really change that by as much as you might think, since that evaporated water is just going to fall as rain and flow back to the ocean via rivers. Increased evaporation increases the amount that is regularly moving through the cycle, but it's a tiny amount compared to the ocean (pic related, atmospheric water is a tiny sliver compared to ocean water).

What will drive sea level rise is the fact that there are a bunch of glaciers sitting on dry land (Greenland, Antarctica, etc.). When those melt, a lot of water that wasn't "in circulation" for thousands of years will suddenly be added to the cycle. And as shown in the image, glaciers/icecaps contain a lot more water than the atmosphere. That will increase the amount of water in the ocean, which will raise sea levels.

Are you dull? His leading Sec. of Energy is a climate-change denialist. He also wants more coal jobs and doesn't want to invest in renewable energies.

You could post something that isn't tainted by a blatant conflict of interest.

> climate-change denialist
No one denies that climate changes. That's a liberal lie. The question is if humans are causing it, which is debatable, and if it's actually something to worry about, which it clearly isn't. Alarmists want to spin it as something catastrophic that we must take action on, but the reality is that it's out of our control and we have far bigger problems to tackle. Providing energy to everyone on the planet is far more important than any environmentalist fantasy.

> doesn't want to invest in renewable energies.
"Renewable energies" are a pipe dream. If environmentalists were actually serious they would support nuclear energy, but they don't. Trump does.

>The question is if humans are causing it, which is debatable, and if it's actually something to worry about, which it clearly isn't.
Wrong
>and if it's actually something to worry about, which it clearly isn't.
Wrong
>Providing energy to everyone on the planet is far more important than any environmentalist fantasy.
This is actually more easily done with renewables than fossil fuels. Nuclear would be better for the immediate future.

>You could post something that isn't tainted by a blatant conflict of interest.
No I couldn't, because you've already assumed anyone with even half a clue is part of a global conspiracy.

>No one denies that climate changes. That's a liberal lie.
A "liberal lie"? Are you fucking serious?

>The question is if humans are causing it,
Almost all studies put human attribution between 80% and 120% of observed warming.

>which is debatable,
It's debatable in the same way that evolution is - there's a debate, but it's between scientists and the people willing to ignore science.

>and if it's actually something to worry about, which it clearly isn't.
I suppose you think all the authors of the impact studies are "in on it" too?

>Alarmists want to spin it as something catastrophic that we must take action on
That's not spin. Anything which is going to produce a long-term reduction in crop production is going to kill a lot of people.

>but the reality is that it's out of our control
No it's not. We're still causing it after all.

>"Renewable energies" are a pipe dream.
They're a pipe dream that's nearly closed the gap will coal plants in kWh/$. That's a pretty impressive pip dream.

>If environmentalists were actually serious they would support nuclear energy
Many of them do. They're not grown in pods.
Also, nuclear is outrageously expensive, and there's not really any signs it's getting significantly cheaper soon.

>Trump does.
Fuck off.

lol the "a little bit of air IV'd will kill you" meme.
Try 50 ml of air to fill the left ventricle before you die.

>buttblasted liberals without real arguments just muh feelings

ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?

Here's the undoctored science then bub:

fas.harvard.edu/~eps5/lectures_2010_F/lectures_3-4_radiation_2010_F_update.pdf

Bet you don't understand 3/4 of it.

Is he doing this for votes or is he really retarded?

Those were all before he started to run. He is actually that retarded.

gotta love those SJWtard echochamber tears.

Trumps victory was worth it just to see the retarded neoliberals jump off of their roofs. I'm loving this endless butthurt.

kek this fag gets destroyed by and doesnt even respond to the study(proof) he posted.
This is the problem, people who literally have 0 understanding of anything to do with science actually get a say in whats real and what isn't, all hes said is "causation != correlation" and posted a graph that proves the one small point, but what he doesn't realize is we all learned that shit in like 7th grade and know that its taken into consideration when studies like these are published.

t. /x/tard shitposter with zero evidence.

Thanks for playing. Now you have to go back

>scientific consens since the late 70s/early 80s
>burgers still in denial, because it could hurt economy
i am almost butthurt about it. But the 1000 facets if stupidity that rules the burgerland is always good for amusements.
Go on, someone you dont like (liberal/conservative) said that the oil reserves are not infinite! what a total sjw

Change the system to make sure the people won't have to pay carbon tax extortion charge to the government and I assure you more than half of the deniers including me will change their minds.

>zero evidence
you mean the evidence you didnt respond to?
or this?
climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Be a man and call a spade a spade!

>peak oil is real
Lol Americans....

You do realize that's a really sad thing to say, especially for someone posting on a Veeky Forums board.

>No one denies that climate changes.
I come from a rural area and a huge percentage of people here claim that climate change is a liberal hoax. It took me years to convince my parents that it's real.

>Promise that I won't have to do anything about it and then I'll believe it's a problem.
Deniers.

>the president is in charge of every medical decision

I thought this was Veeky Forums, not /pol/

> .gov
The people who stand to gain from everyone panicking about climate change and letting the government raise taxes and regulate CO2 (which means the government can regulate breathing) say that climate change is real? What a shock.

That's not evidence of anything other than how gullible you are.

lmao. another global warming thread, epic
>LOL ITS A HOAX
>(starves to death in 2050)
your delusions dont change reality ;) i plan on stockpiling cans of food on my lawn and shooting you and your families brains out when you try to take them. even though i'll run out and die too eventually i'll have fun putting you out of your misery

>His leading Sec. of Energy is a climate-change denialist.
In a sense this is exactly what we need right now. Because our only real options are (A) Nuclear (B) Neuter our species and return to agrarian stone age civilization (C) Be an even worse denialist and destroy both the environment and the economy with any of the green meme technologies that will probably never be efficient.

And explaining (C) to idiots was taking forever.

>He also wants more coal jobs
Excellent.
> and doesn't want to invest in renewable energies.
Good. No more free money for Musk. No more wasted free rides for dead end technologies and buzz worded research proposals. You'll have to earn your grants from actual smart people from now on, and private was always more money anyway.

See

>And explaining (C) to idiots was taking forever.

This is why it's better to have someone who doesn't ask questions than someone who is confident in their misunderstandings of science and engineering, non-/shitty second rate- engineers will never understand it. They just can't see the full picture. The true pipelines can only be seen by those trained in the art.

Does he even realize that opoosing global warming could very well topple numerous developing countries around the world?
Quota trading is very serious thing and helps development tremendously by providing source of income without the related increase in emissions. Irresponsibly endangering it is just asking for world trouble.

And why should the President of the United States care about the wellbeing of nations other than the United States? That's not his job. His job is to look out for America, no one else.

To be purely selfish, because if he doesn't the condition in those countries will deteriorate to the point where a lot of their citizens try to reach the US

So we build a wall to keep them out. And if they somehow get in, we deport them.

Being able to come to the US isn't a right, we don't have to let them in if we don't want them.

The world is a global economy now. Some third world country may only be worth 0.1% of our GDP, but it still hurts us. Plus climate change will in fact affect us directly too, and hurt us economically. And then there's fossil fuel depletion. It's simply a good economic decision to look to alternative energy for the long-term.

Long story short:
There's an unprecedented growth in CO2 and in temperature as well. It's not described by any natural cycle, because it's too fast and strong. The same data is measured by all scientists around the world.

Precise data on climate many years ago is extracted from trees, ice and rocks. So, even if we don't believe models (which CAN be wrong and it IS hard to predict biosphere) we do see something unprecedented. It's unsafe because the Earth is metastable. If you have water and ice in a cup, ice has temperature 0, you raise it by 1/1000000 degree and there's no more ice in your cup, only a water. Biosphere has a very limited capacity to adapt, and given rates it can go a very pessimistic scenario.

Now you know Goldman Sachs' guys, right? Yes, these are now citing it all and saying "yeah now let's enjoy our climate quotas!". Not reduce coal mining (sic!), not plant forests, no. Quotas. Money. Same goes for hundreds of little economically infeasible "clean" projects.

Have you ever tried to fight drug consumption without restricting production and storage? Never. And yet in climate it's precisely how they "fight".

The deal is pretty dead. I don't know how can anything be done in current system. So you better adapt yourself while you can.

> The world is a global economy now. Some third world country may only be worth 0.1% of our GDP, but it still hurts us
Another country collapsing means less competition, so it benefits the US.

> It's simply a good economic decision to look to alternative energy for the long-term.
"Alternative energy" is just a code phrase for rent seeking. It's just a way for liberals to fill the pockets of their supporters with taxpayer dollars. If they were actually serious about replacing fossil fuels, they would support nuclear power. The fact that we're even talking about wind or solar is more than enough evidence to show that this was never about energy, it's always been about using the government to enrich their friends.

A lot of us do support nuclear. Nuclear is still not a great long-term solution, but I am all for it as an interim solution.

>He also wants more coal job
fucking sweet

bump

so embolisms are a hoax then?

Yes. A hoax perpetuated by the Chinese, to cripple our chances of CLEAN AIR.

Then you should support Trump, because he favors more nuclear power.

Any source you post will be dismissed by him as propaganda or lies by "them". There are no un-biased sources for these people.
NASA? Liberal screaming to increase their funding
MIT/Harvard/similar? All reasearch payed for by scary green people in suits to push an agenda
Every single fucking climate scientist in the world? Its a world-spanning conspiracy to cash in on the gravy train.

Its no use even trying, dude. He will never stop dismissing sources.