Donald Trump

this

If there's anything years of Veeky Forums has taught me, it's that humanity isn't worth preserving.

You should just find another religion, maybe earth worship just isn't for you. The prophecies are even that doomish, hordes of climate migrants from the depths of Mordor and some biblical flooding? Pffft.

go back to /pol/

your minority views are no longer accepted and society at large will no longer have to conform to ridiculous theories created by ignorant hateful yuppie liberals. its over, go back to mexico, go back to africa. we are making america great again.

It was the furries that pushed you past the brink?

>minority views
what, 98% of anyone working in anything climate/earth science related?
Fuck, i took the bait

Furfags made me want to nuke the planet from orbit
/v/ has convinced me that it deserves a slow roasting instead

Kek
i like you. We share similar views.
Not that I hang much on /v/ though.

>what, 98% of anyone working in anything propaganda related?
fix'd

the majority of society has not accepted your arguments, you just dont get it. you say people cant see whats obvious but obviously you cant either. the us government is doubling down on what is important, just like the rest of the non-declining world, china.

Well I suppose they are contrarians with the rest of the world.

China is heavily investing in alternative energies. They're expanding their solar, wind and nuclear capacities like mad.

kek

I've got to agree with this point even though the poster is a climate change denier

democracy is a large impediment to solving this issue
having to convince the science illiterate masses first makes the challenge so much greater

65% of Americans agree global warming is occurring and is caused by human activities. Increasing amounts also agree it will pose serious consequences to their life.

gallup.com/poll/190010/concern-global-warming-eight-year-high.aspx

Too bad the DNC put forth the most unlikeable cunt in political history. She couldn't even beat a reality TV show host who got fewer votes than Romney.

DOE is scrambling to save as much climate data as they can before it gets tampered with AND told the Trump administration to fuck off in regards to giving him a hit list.

God bless the DOE.

well she did manage to get over 2.8 million more votes than trump got
so, if they had been playing anything other than the game of American politics she'd have won convincingly

they want to wait out the storm so they can get back to doing what they're doing as soon as Trump is out

it's a smart move but it's why the office of president is such a shitty useless position; you have less job security than the bureaucrats that you employ

the same game that allows millions of illegals to vote

>yfw you realise the 20th century will be an anomaly in history

>Anomally

We fall for the same bullshit as a species every century

[citation needed]

>Donald Trump is anti sci-

Polls dont matter in science.

Kek, this is gonna piss Veeky Forums of to an insane amount.
Aaaand the Musketeers will be fucking unbearable

>Trump might allow Elon Musk to be in the same room as him on a few occasions, perhaps
Wow! This is sure to sway all those anti-trump millennials!

He's going to go all-in on SpaceX just to piss off Jeff Bezos

The funny thing is Musk was like "Yeah I like Hillary" but Bezos went full "FASCIST DRUMPF GET OUT REEEEEEEEEE"

Can you imagine Musk having to sit in on a meeting with Alex Jones?
>We want to go back to the Moon and then to Mars
>pfff...:"back"...

he wouldn't be allowed to do that because supporting musk is supporting alternative energy

The correct reply to shut Alex up is
>implying the pharaohs of Atlantis didn't build pyramids on the moon 10,000 years ago

This

>Trump staff calls on Department of Energy to name all their staff that believe in Global Warming so that they can be purged

>Scientists urgently coming all their climate data and uploading it to other servers because they believe Trump will destroy it

Dark times.

Fucking christians

see

Lel nope, turns out the US is irrelevant:
realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/11/trump-carbon-and-the-paris-agreement/#more-19725

Trump is gonna fuck over science in the US though, the effects of that will be felt for years

Science doesn't matter in polls either, judging by all the denial that's still around.

>Rex Tillerson future secretary of state.
>fucking CEO of ExxonMobil

Nice cherry picking there. Showing the quotes of everyone who doesn't believe in climate change but deciding NOT to show quotes of the one guy who believe in climate change.

Still, you are right. You are just being intellectually dishonest. Hopefully it doesn't get too terrible,

Yes, Chinas exports of inefficient 'alternatives' have never been better thanks to enormous tax payer financed subsidies from the first world. They build these trinkets and baubles that placate the ignorant AGW cultist in the first world with a lot of fossil fuel energy while actually adding more toxic compounds, plastics, battery waste and who knows what into the environment. It's a bit of Jevon's Paradox.

>Dark times
Keep begging global draconian energy police state bureaucracies to take your energy away without a reasonable alternative strategy and they certainly will be.

>Start with the assumption that man is destroying the earth
>Latch onto an unproven scientific theory that fits this preconception
>Extrapolate wildly from half-formed theories and short-term trends to predict a future apocalypse
>Get the media to broadcast it with even less nuance and get a bunch of Hollywood celebrities to adopt it as their pet cause
>Quietly drop the whole thing when it doesn’t pan out—and move on with undiminished enthusiasm to the next environmental doomsday scenario.

Examples include: Global cooling, global warming, running out of room for landfills, acid rain, deforestation, destructive effects of DDT, holes in the ozone layer, mass extinction, resource depletion or "peak oil", mass starvation, and perhaps the most destructive myth of all, overpopulation.

I think they're being just a tad hysterical

>Global cooling
Never had much traction in scientific journals, stop reading pop sci.
>acid rain
There was acid rain and successful policy aimed at stopping it
>global warming
>deforestation
>destructive effects of DDT
>holes in the ozone layer
All true. A couple where policy was successful at stopping it.
>mass extinction
You mean the mass extinctions that have happened in geological scale? All true.
You mean the one that will happen because of global warming? there's still not the same consensus as in global warming and the time scale would be much longer. stop reading pop sci.
>mass starvation, and perhaps the most destructive myth of all, overpopulation.
Not scientific theories.

Now fuck off.

/pol/ isnt going to change. You cant reason with them or have an intelligent conversation about politics. They are incapable of seeing the other side of the issue. They'll just shower you in memes and call you a cuck. Best to leave the mongoloids to their containment board and try to forget about them

>You mean the mass extinctions that have happened in geological scale? All true.

By "geological scale" do you mean the isolated pacific islands where most extinctions take place?

>The island conservationist Josh Donlan estimates that islands, which are just 3 per cent of the Earth’s surface, have been the site of 95 per cent of all bird extinctions since 1600, 90 per cent of reptile extinctions, and 60 per cent of mammal extinctions. Those are horrifying numbers, but the losses are extremely local. They have no effect on the biodiversity and ecological health of the continents and oceans that make up 97 per cent of the Earth.

No
>since 1600
That's not geological scale
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event

There is no consensus that global warming is a man-made phenomenon that requires "urgent" action. One of the most common talking points used by global warming alarmists is that 97 percent of scientists agree that it's man-made and unless action is taken, armageddon will ensue. This is patently false, as Joseph Bast and Dr. Roy Spencer explain in The Wall Street Journal, this number comes from three sources and they're all riddled with errors

wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

>In 2009, a University of Illinois student conducted a two-question survey for her master's thesis that asked respondents if "global temperatures have risen and that humans are a significant contributing factor." Skeptics and proponents typically answer yes to both questions, so unsurprisingly 97 percent said yes. Additionally, only 79 scientists responded to the survey.

>A student at Stanford found in 2010 that 97 percent or 98 percent of "the most prolific climate change writers" believed that "anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for 'most' of the 'unequivocal' warming." No mention on how serious the problem was, and he only found the views of 200 researchers when the number of climate change researchers are in the "thousands."

>Blogger John Cook determined in 2013 that 97 percent of "abstracts of peer-reviewed papers" believed that "human activity is responsible for some warming," but a more exhaustive study of Cook's work determined that only 0.3 percent of the 11,944 papers reviewed by Cook concluded that "human activity is causing most of the current warming."

The PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency conducted a survey in 2015 that found that only 43 percent of scientists believe in man-made climate change, which is far from the 97 consensus that leftists like to spout.

pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/publicaties/pbl-2015-climate-science-survey-questions-and-responses_01731.pdf

> and unless action is taken, armageddon will ensue
False. Quote the climatologist who said that.
Go read the stern review.

But the containment is leaking. Constantly.

>One of the most common talking points used by global warming alarmists

Do you know what this means?

Gooooo

Baaaaaack

Tooooooo

/pooooooool/

If that's what "climate alarmist" say, then they're wrong. Stick to the science please. Global warming doesn't have to bring the armageddon to justify measures against it.

Perhaps you should learn to read so you don't get so easily triggered

Perhaps, you should see why having people in charge of government policy who refuse to accept the science of climatology with amateurish speculation might put me on edge.

>global warming
we've been through this

That's pretty good. If he has the chance, maybe musk can properly tell him about global warming.

>who refuse to accept the science of climatology

It's very telling that you get more angry at them than you do the scientists that have been busted manipulating data in order to support their preconceived conclusions on climate change. If the science is established and widely accepted then why does NASA need to lie?

Musk should never tell him about global warming.

Musk should just tell him "The Chinese are robbing us blind with their solar panels and batteries, we need to get Americans to work building better solar panels and batteries than them"

I can't wait until environmentalists figure out exactly what goes into those solar panels and what it takes to maintain them. They're going to be so disappointed.

> that have been busted manipulating data
I don't know what you're referring to.
If you're thinking of the email "scandal" the independent commission tasked with investigating it found nothing. Am I supposed to not be angry at such smear tactics?

The ultimate real Red Pill
>Algebraic proof
>Alg((h))ebraic
>hebraic

Have you swallowed the hardest red pill yet? So called ((science)) and ((mathematics)) are a jewish creation, an instrument to subjugate and destroy the white man.
>create ((science))
>build a whole structure around it to make it look logical and reasonable
>attribute every invention the white man achieved through his intuition to ((science))
>foster ((science)) to religious status and use it to subvert centuries long traditions and supplant Christianity
>use ((science)) to push sexual perversion and loathing of the white man
>use ((((scientific consensus))) to create the global warming hoax
>use ((global warming)) to create the perfect tool of white genocide: carbon tax

WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!!!

I can't even tell when /pol/ is baiting on science anymore

There are multiple examples of it, here's a couple:

>The Washington Times reported in 2009: "Under pressure in 2007, NASA recalculated its data and found that 1934, not 1998, was the hottest year in its records for the contiguous 48 states. NASA later changed that data again, and now 1998 and 2006 are tied for first, with 1934 slightly cooler."

>Since this occurred at around the same time as the Climategate scandal, Chris Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute filed a lawsuit to get NASA to release their relevant data sets on this issue and was able to expose emails from NASA that revealed a disturbing fact: the agency admitted "that its own climate findings were inferior to those maintained by both the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit," reported Fox News in 2010 – meaning NASA climate change data sets were less accurate than the organization embattled with manipulating data sets.

>NASA declared 2014 to be the hottest year on record – despite the fact that they were only 38 percent sure about it. The latter fact was left out of their press release at the time, as well as the fact that 2014 was supposedly hotter than the previous hottest year, 2010, by 0.02C – well within the margin of error of 0.1C that scientists tend to adhere by. The Washington Post attempted to spin in favor of NASA by arguing that NASA simply said that 2014 was the most likely hottest year on record – but their press release unequivocally stated that "2014 was the warmest year on record" and leaving out the aforementioned key facts makes such a declaration seem misleading, as it's clearly not a guarantee that 2014 was even likely the hottest year on record.

Show me the reports. Fraud is an extremely serious accusation in the scientific community, I expect a full ethics investigation was conducted on these claims, including article retractions.
Your washerwoman gossip leaves me wholly unimpressed.

Do you need help Googling the 2014 NASA press release? It's completely unchanged. You're just looking for a reason to dismiss what I'm saying. Did I rock your world?

>If you're thinking of the email "scandal" the independent commission tasked with investigating it found nothing.

The police investigated themselves and found no wrongdoing.

>Did I rock your world?
Are you stupid?
Flinging extremely serious accusations towards well respected scientists from which no scientific paper retraction followed is supposed to rock my world?
I can play that too, did you know that Trump has raped and murdered 73 children over a span of 20 years. Clearly the lunatic is not fit for office.

Note the ever increasing amount of evidence that it would take to convince you that NASA scientists aren't infallible.

I think focusing on 'hottest years on record' is a meme in itself. The northern hemisphere was smothered in ice only 20k years ago, like the blink of an eye in geological time, any warming could and very well would be natural, relates to muh shrinking glaciers! This infantile 'climate science' rife with bias from the get go has only one driver behind it, global taxation of fossil fuels yet offers no plausible alternatives and in fact starts subsiding questionable alternatives with wealth is pilfers through its relentless fear mongering campaigns. It just wants to affix itself to the fossil fuel industry like a global fascist parasite. I think resistance to such parasites is a natural and healthy response from any population of free thinking people.

One scientific paper retraction is not a mount of evidence.

Why can't pol stay in their contamant board. They keep getting worse every year.

>implying they haven't been baiting so hard they drink their own coolaid

You shouldn't need a scientific paper to recognize that in a 2014 press release which is still available, NASA claimed it was the hottest year in modern record despite not knowing if it was true.

>notanargument.jpg

they made it to the white house

>You shouldn't need a scientific paper
Anything outside scientific papers is not science. Pop science and press releases get things wrong all the fucking time, often written by nonscientists, you scientifically illiterate nigger.

>this /pol/ delusion

everyone i don't like is /pol/: the emotional child's guide to Veeky Forums

This brings us back to my original point. If climate science is established and well accepted then why does NASA need to mislead the public or in this specific case, lie by omission? They still haven't edited that press release and included the fact that they're only 38% sure that 2014 was the hottest year on modern record and that the data they have is well within the margin of error.

nobody likes untermensch

They don't need to be precise and so are sloppy. The scientific panel advising the government on policy is another matter.
I swear to god Trump's election encouraged ignorant armchair climatologists to spout their cranckery everywhere.

Did you even read that survey?

why are you posting fake IQ graphs on a science board?

Thanks.
Did the paper specify the specialty of the scientists answering?

Can't the mods specifically ban climate change threads? Even if it's scientific, people sure don't discuss it scientifically.

it's not fake it was on infowars and molymeme's channel

...

The marxists will continue shoving climate change hoaxes down everyone throats for as long as live, it's too easy for them to weaponize compassion for the environment through such scare tactics

Since when are right wing capitalists considered marxists?

you seem confused

that's where this election left me. its a good planet, maybe even the best, but we don't fucking deserve to continue living here. hopefully we don't kill off all the orcas so they can inherit our dead wolrd

>More than 1800 international scientists studying various aspects of climate change, including e.g. climate physics, climate impacts and mitigation, responded to the questionnaire.