Climate Change and Trump

For there to be a massive heat wave in the United States. I'm starting to realize that Americans only start believing things if they're really really obvious. Whenever there's a cold winter, people start going "Hey, snow still exists! Shows you climate "scientists" heh, heh." Even though there's fucking more to it than that. So on the flip side the only way they might believe in it is "It feels hot to me" even though that, alone, wouldn't actually be proof of the global trends Scientists are already seeing in climate.

What you're saying is that Americans need to feel the burn?

Some of us came to the conclusion that an Orwellian autocracy was a bigger and more immediate threat than climate change.

Immediate? Yes.

Bigger? lol no

Nothing. We like seeing you pretentious freshmen throw a tantrum at not being listened to from here on out. Settling the science doesn't mean your policies will acheive desirable outcomes.

Well, then you dun fucked up.

So we let Trump reverse all of the progress we've made trying to fight climate change? Okay.

Is there some chance Trump and the Republican Congress don't actually go through with withdrawing from the international effort to delay climate change?

Will other countries follow - I suspect India, China, Russia don't really need much of a nudge in that direction.

To actually answer the thread question the best way to convince people to support policies that combat climate change is to give them a reason to support those policies regardless of whether climate change is real or not. For example talk about rising CO2 levels in terms of how they will affect people's health. Even Trump himself has said we need "cleaner air". So even he can be probably convinced to support something like emission limits if they presented to him in that context rather than a "we need to stop climate change" context.

So if you are pragmatic and actually care about getting people to support the right policies you will be able to persuade them. You just have to accept the fact that they won't be persuaded by what you want them to be persuaded by.

>For example talk about rising CO2 levels in terms of how they will affect people's health. Even Trump himself has said we need "cleaner air".

So you're saying people should be lied to?

Tell them it's China's fault and we need to stop them

>crony capitalist schemes and tax grabs
>progress

Those sound more like costs, senpai.

kek

How would you apply this to other things besides rising CO2?

Read 20th century history sometime. These fags don't stop at taking your car away.

Read up on how much damage and destabilization climate change is causing right now. It doesn't stop at increasing the average global temperature.

I think the main takeaway is that what you want people to be convinced by is not necessarily what will convince them. So if you think X is the most important reason to support Y but the other person strongly doesn't believe in X then you will need to find a different reason for them to support Y in order to convince them.

Right. Let's make a policy that stops countries from burning a fuel, while allowing the government workers to burn that fuel. Innovation is the absolute only way to combat climate change without becoming government slaves.. How about we first talk to the countries that actually contribute heavily to climate change first? The ones without regulations.

We could have a massive virus evolve at any time and kill all of us I think we should elect democrat next time around this is pretty scary they'll be able to stop the virus if it begins in China

Let the virus kill a couple million first, gotta keep that population density low amirite?

I understand the concept, I was asking if you have any other "reasons to support Y" for other climate related issues that Trump supporters might support?

Hopefully it kills off all of the whites. It will finally let the brown scientists and doctors save humanity and get the credit they deserve.

Nothing, extinction is inevitable friendo.

I only hope the squids who inherit our Earth will do better.

Or we could invest everything into space travel and try again on Mars, I dunno

Delete this shit. This is Veeky Forums not /leftypol/.

For alternative energy, talking about how researching ways to make solar or wind power cheaper and more efficient will make it easier for people to be able to own a personal source of power generation to live off the grid or support themselves and their community if a natural disaster happens.

There are also environmental issues that haven't received as much attention as rising CO2 levels like ground water depletion and strip mining. For ground water depletion the threat of rising water and food prices will make research into graphene filters seem cheap in comparison. For strip mining the alternative of only allowing underground mining will provide a lot of jobs since that is more labor intensive while also preserving a lot of beautiful forests. None of these require accept climate change in order to support.

>People should discuss science if it doesn't align with my political views.
And yet you call us "Orwellian".

Don't be an idiot, OP is obviously trying to push a political agenda.

Correct, they're trying to push an agenda of "stop fucking up the climate before you make this disaster any worse".

>What does your fancy "science" know about climate?
>those liberals and their made up words like ozone layer and greenhouse gasses

Unfortunately, the only real answer here is somehow making them care about not dying, and showing them that life can be comfortable and beautiful. good luck with that

shoot their children

They already do that themselves pretty well.

i'm a trump supporter, and i think humans could do more to slow down climate change, but more importantly, clean energy innovations will bring more jobs into the american economy.

imo, end the petrol subsidies so people have to pay the real price of gas, and naturally the market will gravitate towards cheaper (and incidentally, cleaner) energy sources

Force them to live in China, for some people it's hard to believe in climate change because they aren't feeling the immediate effects.

I imagine a few months of it would do the trick. At the very least they will appreciate the relatively clean air they have.

Despite what the trumptards and the "oh oh you're only making it worse" fags think, venomously protesting and generally being unruly seems to have made an impact. How can we make it work for stopping climate change? Good question, it's tempting to just say to go full PETA extreme on their asses, desperate measures and all that. But given the nature of the problem and """"""seeing is believing"""""", it's kinda hard to really get the point across.

Maybe force them to actually learn about climatology, I mean actually sit them down like kids and teach them about it.

Offer some real solutions; not just hurrdurr solar power and consume less. Kill all the Not In My Back Yard anti-nuclear faggots. The ONLY sources of power dense enough, reliable enough, and scalable enough to support modern society are nuclear power and fossil fuels.

I hate to admit it, but nuclear power is the best way to go.

Even Japan who despises nuclear energy knows it's our best possible choice.
>muh Chernobyl
Educate why that really doesn't mean dick and how things have advanced to avoid incidents like that. Chernobyl is the biggest fear people have when it comes to nuclear energy it's looking backwards in the worst possible way.

What do we do with the Nuclear Waste?

Bury it. If France can handle it, I think we can.

Or back Thorium power. Thorium reactors produce something like 1% of the waste of a traditional reactor. And the waste they produce is only dangerous for a few decades, not millenia.

>Force them to live in China
>Maybe force them to actually learn about climatology
Unfortunately we will not be the ones doing the forcing.

I find it so ironic that SOCOM/JSOC, the premier Special Forces commands of the US, thinks one the largest future threat US Special Forces face is climate change.

Produce a single package package of credible and convincing direct evidence which can be independently understood and verified by many, like you usually have to do to get a scientific theory accepted.

(no, not "this computer program says" or "this many people agree" or "look at this rough correlation between two curves! (disregard the demonstrable reverse causation)")

Humanity has produced a great many things.
Medicines to fight, and even exterminate, the most virulent of ailments.
Materials which can bend light, support structures a mile high, and semiconductors heralding the information age.
Programs which can regulate anything; power plants, vehicles, entire manufacturing facilities, global markets.
Art and music, the likes of which Mozart and Da Vinchi could only imagine in their wildest of dreams, and beyond.

But there is one thing which humanity has yet to DELIBERATELY create: a culture of science, focused on preservation of the human race.

I'm talking an exodus. A global invitation to scientific minds everywhere, to create a city, state, or country, which would be strictly adhered to science, its advancement, and serving as a tool to preserve and expand the survival of humanity.

At least, those who are willing to give up god, culture, themselves, in the name of a higher calling.

Our only hope at this point to fight climate change, and save humanity, is to forge The Foundation.

We are at the most critical time ever to save the environment from collapse, and the leader of the most powerful nation is somebody who thinks climate change is something you "believe" in.

Humanity did its best, and the strain of pushing in on itself is leading to collapse.
Climate change will have too much momentum to slow down let alone stop, before the chaos it will bring.

We must act.

Trump has all the subtlety of a brick, so this would probably do it.

On the flip side, severe droughts in California haven't really convinced republicucks so I'm not sure why a heatwave would

Which I posted like 4 hours ago and nobody paid attention to.
Need another?
climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/

how about more?
climate-change-guide.com/evidence-of-climate-change.html
epa.gov/climatechange/climate-change-basic-information

Not enough for you?
royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/
ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-7.html
ucsusa.org/our-work/global-warming/science-and-impacts/global-warming-science
scribd.com/document/98458016/Climate-Change-Lines-of-Evidence

How many do you need?

Is climate change a threat to literally everyone or could a few million reclusive people who don't care about observing a ton of nature live indoor in places which today are like Siberia and Canada with artificially grown crops and be basically fine?

>trump supporter
>random non-sequitor about viruses
>no punctuation, run-on sentence
>nonsensical attempt at parodying democrat voters that doesn't even align with reality
checks out

Zero, because he's probably not going to read a single one.

He's probably a soviet who thinks USA never beat the Russians to the moon.

...

My bad, I forgot that "try to keep humanity sustainable so that the planet isn't an unbearable hellhole for your great-grandchildren in 100 years" is only a goal that left-wingers want.

Right-wingers are fine with ruining the planet for their children, the only important thing is that those children stay white and don't racemix amirite?

>>Produce a single package of credible and convincing direct evidence
>Which I posted like 4 hours ago and nobody paid attention to.
This is not a package of evidence at all. It is a package of basic theory.

>climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
>Scientific Consensus
>Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree
>Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
>- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Stopped reading the site, and stopped reading your post.

These are the technocrats that presided over the Obama administration, watching the welcoming of Trump by Obama.

Just because jingoistic republicans love to pretend they're soldiers when they're not (see; donald trump's claim of "always feeling like i was in the military") doesn't mean that the defense community is full of idiot science-denying republicans.

In fact, I think the military is almost as aware of climate change's impact as academia is, if not more.

They've probably run simulations 10s of thousands of times on supercomputers to see how climate change scenarios play out and how that'll impact global security.

Sorry, here is better picture.

They do.
arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/10/bizarre-leaked-pentagon-video-is-a-science-fiction-story-about-the-future-of-cities/

youtube.com/watch?v=gEPdOZbyzbw

>it's a "popsci retard from /pol/ conflates the meanings of the words theory and hypothesis" episode
getting real sick of reruns boys

Here is what they think of our future.

>so that the planet isn't an unbearable hellhole for your great-grandchildren in 100 years
No credible scientist thinks Earth will become an unbearable hellhole in 100 years. The worst case warming scenario is a planet with a consistently tropical climate from equator to pole and little to no extreme weather, like the steamy dinosaur days, and that would take far longer than 100 years.

As it gets that hot, lots of water vapor ends up in the air. That causes the atmosphere to have a high heat capacity, so it stops getting cold at night. It also means that air can carry heat over long distances, which means heat gets equalized globally. No more Death Valley or Gnome, just hot and muggy everywhere: food would grow like mad, and we probably wouldn't forget how to build air conditioners.

Earth only gets hellish in its cold periods. It can't do a Venus (at least, not in less than a billion years) because of the water, life, and distance from the sun.

The plausible climate alarmism is mostly about sea level rise and areas of good farmland moving (while being expanded). In these scenarios, the comfortably livable territory and carrying capacity of Earth for human life would be increased, but there would be temporary local disruption, as shorelines move inland.

user it is time to stop memeing. That shit is the reason we find yourself in this shit. The people that you argue with will just think it's all fun and games.

Trolling, or actually this stupid?

I want to take the time to thank you for you are post

No, those are political party members.

Even "technocrats" are not what it is required.

I am talking the foundation.
We are talking about the possibility of simultaneous global famine.
World wide collapse. Everywhere, people turning on people.
Back to an age where fire is again a real resource.
And we will be at natures mercy more than ever experienced in human knowledge, while we are eating one another.

Besides, techno-monks would be closer.

Kill yourselves.

Try to come up with an idea to fight ''''global warming'''' that won't cause today's people die in a course of a fucking year.

But where will all these scientists get money for living and their expensive ass experiments?

telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/10/07/experts-said-arctic-sea-ice-would-melt-entirely-by-september-201/
>climatoloJUSTs

You didn't actually read that article did you? You're the reason we're still up shit creek.

The threat in temperate climates isn't that your place becomes uninhabitable, it's that a billion angry and desperate refugees will come beating down your door.

Physics and chemistry is hardly 'theory'. And if you have a problem with nasa's explanation than try one of the half a dozen more.

Or do you need more?
cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/modern_isotopes.html
esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/outreach/isotopes/stable.html
www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/smoking_gun_humans_climate_change.html
ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/global-warming-human.html#.WCVIDuY2uM8
thinkprogress.org/eight-great-figures-summarizing-the-evidence-for-a-human-fingerprint-on-recent-climate-change-f0a85795a4eb#.o5lg7lpou

I can do this for hours.

>I can do this for hours
This is exactly what a priest does when they get hold of their mountains of their bible. It's all projection buddy. Saying super computers and climate 'scientists' can accurately predict the effects of every CO2 molecule in our world on climate is ludicrous on the face of it. You people are as bad as the priests of the 16th century trying to pin down the creation the date of earth some 6,000 years ago. It's just an exercise in mental masturbation and you want everyone to join your circle jerk. Some day you will look back on your life and get a serious case of indigestion because no matter how much of that crap you consume it changes nothing.

Want to repent and give up your carbon to some enormous bureaucratic machine to save earth? Go ahead but you will meet resistance when you attempt to convert others to your ways and this is a healthy thing, don't take is personally.

>climate change is real
>so let's spend billions giving money to the most corrupted worldwide organization to play with
yeah, no, fuck the UN

Would you really prefer that Trump gives billions of dollars to the UN to spend on efforts that may not offer any meaningful solutions rather than using it to rebuild your country's infrastructure?

Veeky Forums truly is the most cucked board

agreed

The UN accomplishes nothing other than fattening the pocketbooks of bureaucrats and the politically connected businessmen that are their orbiters.

It is a joke, a charade. No meaningful action will ever come from an inclusive organization.

>implying they would be willing to spent 30 minutes listening to technical lecture. They would rather you speak how they can create jobs with new green technologies instead; this is assuming whoever you are trying to lecture is a "good" and honest leader.

>cucked
I yearn for the day that meme dies and the word wallows back to obscurity

>Redneck Trump supporters
>Science & Math
My sides

dont you have some cars to burn jamal?

It is, but... you know, ignorants don't know that.

>wallows back to obscurity

2deep4mepoetry

Let Florida disappear under the sea. Maybe then they start to believe climate change is a real issue. A little late.

Yup. There is no hope in convincing these people. You just have to force them to accept the changes that must be made to avoid further exacerbating our predicament. This will never happen as long as they have a voice in government policy on the matter however. You would probably need to create a board of unelected climate scientists to really start making the necessary changes in policy.

Hurr durr. Climate change is a lie, but WWE is totally real.

Are you talking about Giuliani's Police State?

Amazing reading comprehension.

Nothing. If the markets start running out of carbon fuel, we will start revamping our industrial energy acquisition. Until then, i welcome hot summers.

Climate change isn't really a concern, it will economically impact the US, but it won't do substantial damage to us. Its projected to actually increase arable land in the United States in the worst case scenarios. Cities on the coast will either adapt new building codes, become copies of the netherlands, or move further inland.

No one is going to suffocate and the atmosphere isn't going to accidentally a venus. That is fear mongering.

California will have the same, if not worse, situation.

Good arguments to convince "UN black helicopters want to slave me" "zombie apocalypse" rednecks.

>not a concern
>false equivalency
>mah economy
>liberal fear mongering
You're exactly the kind of person most of this thread is talking about. But hey who am I judge people wanting the environment to become less hospitable and harder to exist?

>"zombie apocalypse" was among some of the legitimate concerns for American citizens
I swear it's like there's an unknown source of lead that got into the drinking water for the entire country.

Hur dur. Trump University rules! You fancy Harvard liberals.

Send it to the sun. Superman knows better.

Obviously not enough legitimate evidence to state it as fact that we're going to severely suffer anytime in our foreseeable future.

Should we work toward cleaner and more efficient energy sources? It doesn't hurt us. But the doomsayers shitposting irl "beliv this or u die in 10yrs" is a little retarded.

Kudos to this.

Can you explain what you're saying in a way that makes sense? Because I don't get what you're saying at all.

I think you just threw out all the evidence because you don't want to look at it, but I just want to make sure.