Dangerous thinking of the alt-right

Damn those republicans, everytime we have a republican president technology stagnates.

Stop pretending you don't understand what OP is talking about.

Trump's actions in regards to pollution are going to have extremely severe consequences.

Within every scientific field there are always some people who disagree and come up with different conclusions.

However when it comes to global warming, over 99% of peer reviewed studies suggest that it's real and man made.

Most years in this century are in the top 20 hottest years on record. the trend couldn't be more clear

Oh, do you mean when the media unilaterally decided we were headed for another ice age without looking at the evidence or cultivating the barest amount of scientific literacy to responsibly report on the subject?
This reeks of people-thought-galileo-was-wrong-too-ism

nice spacing

>Literally armchair scientist
Kek

shut up faggot. im not even the guy you're replying to but only redditors call out "reddit spacing". guess what, if you actually had a stem job you'd know that that's how people type professional emails

>He fell for the further education meme

Post-scarcity or damn well near it.

Everytime we have a Democrat President:
the Military Technology stagnates.
the Nuclear Technology stagnates
the Oil Industry stagnates
the Steel manufacture which depends on Coal mining stagnates.
the Coal Mining stagnates.
Energy production stagnates.
Mineral Extraction stagnates.
Letting China, Mexico & India Pajeets steal our Jobs.

It was sarcasm

education is a good thing. i don't know how dumb you'd have to be to think otherwise. it's honestly pretty sad

What im gettin at, is youre a retard for going to college

>Veeky Forums is a professional email imageboard

>Within every scientific field there are always some people who disagree and come up with different conclusions.
>However when it comes to global warming, over 99% of peer reviewed studies suggest that it's real and man made.

There are two possibilities for that.

This is norpthink if I ever saw it.
Try to mock a norpy chick for her indecipherable text. It doesn't matter how flawlessly you rip into her, she will ALWAYS respond like this and she will ALWAYS be backed by three white knights and a turbo-chad.

yep, definetly reddit

Education is a good thing. That doesn't mean the college you went to provides robust, functional education.

...

I wasn't him. I browsed this site while you were still breastfeeding. I've seen a lot of newfaggetry in my time but "reddit spacing" is the most asperged tripe you millenial wimps have come up with to justify yourselves.

>>>/arstechnica/

You browsed the site in 1916-1919?

Either he walks around dressed like that all day pretending he has a real job, or else he got dressed up for a youtube video. I don't know which possibility is worse.

He keeps looking to the upper left (from our perspective). That must be where his cue cards are.

I wonder how many times he practiced for this video.

Not him, but you breastfed for 3 years? Nice

>1916-1919
GET OUT HUNDIES REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

The holy trinity of retarded bullshit people spout off when somebody doesn't agree with them on Veeky Forums:
>you are reddit
>you are /pol/
>you are SJW

(((predictions)))
(((simulations)))
(((facts)))
(((data)))

I just trust my gut, at least I know that it doesn't have an agenda.

The reddit thing is particularly confusing. Recently I heard someone explain that most people who say that on Veeky Forums are actually frequent reddit users themselves, and that's the only reason why they recognize behavior that is common on reddit.

Take Rick and Morty for example. I made some reference to the show and someone called me reddit, and I didn't understand. Weeks later I found out that people on reddit really like the show too, which I did not know previously because I'm never on reddit. So basically I've never been to reddit and the person who called me "reddit" is on reddit all the time and that's the only reason why they know that Rick and Morty is popular on reddit. Meanwhile I just enjoy the show.

Yes goyim, feed me nutrients mwuhahahaha!!!!

Listen here faggots
/pol/ users don't exist in a vacuum.
/pol/ users like things.
When they go to discuss things they like on a board dedicated to the things they like, they don't shed their political opinions at the door.
When a poster brings up a political topic and a /pol/ user sees it and gives his 2cents, you see it and you get butthurt.
After making a couple posts adding nothing to the discussion other than You then go to /qa/ and whine for hirohito to delete /pol/
But you're not asking him to delete /pol/, you're asking him to ban opinions you don't agree with.
This is the problem with leftism. It can only exist in a heavily moderated space.
It can't hold it's own in a space with total free speech .
This is why /pol/ belongs on Veeky Forums and you don't.

cool story bro

i never said that. i said that's where people get these typing habbits

wtf is norp?

it does though

exactly

So anyways, Ive figured out that getting your sub toasted should only be for warm fillings, cold cuts should be non toasted.

what did he mean by this. you must be the norp guy cause you talking crazy. Anyway I prefer the cold cuts toasted, just not the tomatoes

When you're the OP posts replying to you keep the (OP) tag, they don't change to the (You)

No you fucking newfag politics belong on the politics board is it really that hard to understand. Stop pretending that you're being attacked.

he just pressed f12 and changed the text

The REAL dangerous thinking happens with the regressive Left

>Youtube implementing Orwellian Censorship on content with AI
>Shadowbans on Twitter, Facebook, as a means to censor public dialogue without triggering the Streisand Effect
>Big brother surveillance is okay because you shouldn't have anything to hide

I don't think there is a reasonable person above a certain IQ who could deny that mankind-driven climate change was possible.

Here's the real problem, and why climate change deniers even exist:
>Mankind-driven climate change is science
>Mankind-driven climate change is science (political hijack) therefore we must do X

It stopped being just climate science and became a subject of ethical, moral, economic, and social consideration. Guy in Oklahoma, who is NOT a scientist, tosses a beercan and says, "why should I care about rising sea levels?" and he's RIGHT to say that. Why should he care? Science isn't going to answer that question.

So what happened next? Ever-changing climate science gets hit with a confirmation seeking attempt at ever-changing economic science so that Hollywood celeb concern trollers could tell that Oklahoma man he should be concerned. Because rising sea levels will disrupt world industry, that he has never had any control over or any say in, and thus make him poorer.

Climate change deniers wouldn't even have a platform- they'd be just as bad as flat-earthers- if the message wasn't being politically hijacked to begin with. It throws the whole SCIENCE portion into doubt.

Yes, I'm sure the dogmatists who only show up to push their narrative onto every board on this site have a driving interest in science and things like facts and evidence. It couldn't possibly be that we recognize /pol/posters based on their preference for preconceived conclusions over any real engagement with the board's actual subject matter and the methods integral to it, or their lack of basic familiarity with the same, or their exclusive, drive-by use of talking points and regurgitated arguments that seem superficially correct until you put actual effort into understanding them.
What you have to realize is that, when people say "/pol/ pls go," they're not pointing put you have /pol/ conclusions. They're referring to your very distinct """argument""" style.
We've always had popsci newfags come here who "fucking love science xD" and think that automatically qualifies them to participate in a "science enthusiast" forum, and they've always been rebuffed. /pol/ evangelists are merely the most recent and prominent example.

>adding nothing to the discussion
A little self-awareness goes a long way here
>total free speech
Which is why any remotely counter-signal threads on /pol/ get sagebombed into oblivion, right? Why the groupthink dismisses any contrary opinions as "shilling" - "you've been paid to disagree with me, and so what you say is invalid" - and why posters continually encourage each other to do this, all while a list of logical fallacies including ad hom is stickied at the top? Which the whole board has seemingly never bothered to read or understand?
Like I say, a very distinct "argument" style.

>Here's the real problem, and why climate change deniers even exist:
>>Mankind-driven climate change is science
>>Mankind-driven climate change is science (political hijack) therefore we must do X
>It stopped being just climate science and became a subject of ethical, moral, economic, and social consideration. Guy in Oklahoma, who is NOT a scientist, tosses a beercan and says, "why should I care about rising sea levels?" and he's RIGHT to say that. Why should he care? Science isn't going to answer that question.
Yeah, sure. I don't disagree, but this is much ado about the fact that you can't derive an ought from an is. "Science isn't going to tell you why you should care" isn't some limitation of science in particular, rather it's a limitation on any attempt whatsoever to determine what -is.- Ethical philosophy, which draws "ought" conclusions, is an entirely separate beast.
>Why should he care?
I mean, the standard argument is by analogy with the tragedy of the commons. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
It's in everyone's individual best interests, irrespective of others' choices, not to personally sacrifice for the good of the commons, because the disadvantages outweigh the benefits at every stage of decay and this decision does not impact the decisions of others. But left unchecked it leads to a massive collective disadvantage, which assigns each individual a greater disadvantage than they would've incurred through a shared agreement to preserve the commons. Again, yeah, science can't decide ethical questions, which are necessarily separate from it. And where the "political hijack" is necessarily only in the realm of "we should do X about the fact that Y," that's just an ethical position and not "hijacking science."

>Big brother surveillance is okay because you shouldn't have anything to hide
not sure how that's the left's fault, although they haven't done much to stop it after the right started it

"I accept the scientific consensus, but don't think we should change policy according to what it says" is a perfectly valid position. It requires some "unorthodox" ethics, I guess, but nothing counter-factual. Nothing you've said defends climate change denial as such.
Of course, this clique of people would rather not grapple in the arena of ethics, which is why they pretend the science itself is "unsettled" or "politically distorted" in the first place.
>It throws the whole SCIENCE portion into doubt.
Not really, no. That's just ad hom. You can demonstrate distorted -factual- conclusions where they exist, again by using the evidence, but merely repeating that it -would- have helped a political group if it -were- fudged does nothing to establish that it -was.- But again, you're trying to vaguely hint that's the case, without making an argument you have to defend.
Keep in mind the separateness of 'is' and 'ought.' There are other ways to sell a carbon tax, (which you guys almost inevitably bring up) or something functionally identical, besides environmental concerns.
Climate deniers also have to deal with the fact that the consensus on safety and sustainability of transgenic crops - which "the left" HATES - is equally as strong, across industry, public sector, and independently funded research. If we accept the "politically distorted facts" narrative, we have to account for why the one is fundamentally corruptible and the other fundamentally incorruptible, for why it's worth it to fight tooth and nail against massive opposition and systematically corrupt the entire scientific community to carve out a pittance of new taxes, but not to so much as allow -public opinion- to distort the science of what we eat, etc.

also
>neoliberal technocrats building their dream of free trade and a globally-integrated market on the backs of an increasingly disenfranchised proletariat are """""leftists"""""
I just want workplace democracy nigger lol

Neither side wants to surrender powers over the great unwashed