/sci/ - Science & Math

No one on this board believes climate change exists.

>>8467076
this is /sci/ not /pol/

>>8467076

Fuck

Sit them down and teach them science.

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

>>8467069
Visual proofs is the only thing that will convince them. Maybe make Trump go to the Artic to talk to scientists themselves.

>>8467076
GTFO DISGUSTING PLEB

>>8467083

I've tried several times to start a discussion on /pol/ about the economic and geopolitical consequences of ignoring climate change but they weren't interested.

>>8467069
Trump will defund a few programs and the "scientific" community will stop believing it. Case closed.

>>8467089
Science will stop believing basic chemistry and physics

>>8467089

I wish ignorance was a sin.

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.

>>8467103

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

>>8467069
Some of us came to the conclusion that an Orwellian autocracy was a bigger and more immediate threat than climate change.

>>8467111

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.

>>8467111
Well, then you dun fucked up.

>>8467118

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.

>>8467069
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.

>>8467128
>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?

>>8467069
Tell them it's China's fault and we need to stop them

>>8467125

>crony capitalist schemes and tax grabs
>progress

Those sound more like costs, senpai.

>>8467133
kek

>>8467128

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

>>8467114
Read 20th century history sometime. These fags don't stop at taking your car away.

>>8467184

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

>>8467162
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.

>>8467190
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

>>8467199

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

>>8467191
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?

>>8467205
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

>>8467069
Delete this shit. This is /sci/ not /leftypol/.

>>8467209
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.

>>8467227
>People should discuss science if it doesn't align with my political views.
And yet you call us "Orwellian".

>>8467259
Don't be an idiot, OP is obviously trying to push a political agenda.

>>8467284
Correct, they're trying to push an agenda of "stop fucking up the climate before you make this disaster any worse".

>>8467284
>What does your fancy "science" know about climate?
>those liberals and their made up words like ozone layer and greenhouse gasses

>>8467069
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

>>8467069
shoot their children

>>8467343
They already do that themselves pretty well.

>>8467069
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.

>>8467340
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.

>>8467069
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.

>>8467376
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.

>>8467376
What do we do with the Nuclear Waste?

>>8467386
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.

>>8467368
>Force them to live in China
>>8467371
>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.

>>8467069
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)")

>>8467069

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.

>>8467103
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

>>8467396
Which I posted like 4 hours ago and nobody paid attention to.
>>8467082

Need another?
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/

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


Not enough for you?
https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-7.html
http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/global-warming/science-and-impacts/global-warming-science
https://www.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?

>>8467199
>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

>>8467406

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.

>>8467406

>>8467284
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?

>>8467406
>>Produce a single package of credible and convincing direct evidence
>Which I posted like 4 hours ago and nobody paid attention to.
>>8467082
This is not a package of evidence at all. It is a package of basic theory.

>http://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.

>>8467398
These are the technocrats that presided over the Obama administration, watching the welcoming of Trump by Obama.

>>8467391
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.

>>8467428
Sorry, here is better picture.

>>8467432
They do.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/10/bizarre-leaked-pentagon-video-is-a-science-fiction-story-about-the-future-of-cities/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEPdOZbyzbw

>>8467426
>it's a "popsci retard from /pol/ conflates the meanings of the words theory and hypothesis" episode
getting real sick of reruns boys

>>8467436
Here is what they think of our future.

>>8467418
>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.

>>8467437
Anon 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.

>>8467437
Trolling, or actually this stupid?

>>8467446
I want to take the time to thank you for you are post

>>8467428

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.

>>8467069
Kill yourselves.

>>8467418
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.

>>8467398
But where will all these scientists get money for living and their expensive ass experiments?

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

>>8467488
You didn't actually read that article did you? You're the reason we're still up shit creek.

>>8467408
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.

>>8467426
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?
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/modern_isotopes.html
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/outreach/isotopes/stable.html
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/smoking_gun_humans_climate_change.html
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/global-warming-human.html#.WCVIDuY2uM8
https://thinkprogress.org/eight-great-figures-summarizing-the-evidence-for-a-human-fingerprint-on-recent-climate-change-f0a85795a4eb#.o5lg7lpou


I can do this for hours.

>>8467531
>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.

>>8467069
>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?


/sci/ truly is the most cucked board

>>8467596
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.

>>8467082

>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.

>>8467602
>cucked
I yearn for the day that meme dies and the word wallows back to obscurity

>>8467069
>Redneck Trump supporters
>Science & Math
My sides

>>8467612
dont you have some cars to burn jamal?

>>8467102
It is, but... you know, ignorants don't know that.

>>8467611
>wallows back to obscurity

2deep4mepoetry

>>8467103
Let Florida disappear under the sea. Maybe then they start to believe climate change is a real issue. A little late.

>>8467612
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.

>>8467069
Hurr durr. Climate change is a lie, but WWE is totally real.

>>8467111
Are you talking about Giuliani's Police State?

>>8467132
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.

>>8467625
California will have the same, if not worse, situation.

>>8467238
Good arguments to convince "UN black helicopters want to slave me" "zombie apocalypse" rednecks.

>>8467650
>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?

>>8467664
>"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.

>>8467284
Hur dur. Trump University rules! You fancy Harvard liberals.

>>8467386
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.

>>8467398
Kudos to this.

>>8467594
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.

>>8467428
I seek advice from President Obama.
D. Trump

>>8467691
>The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.

>>8467691
>We can't let this happen. We should march on Washington and stop this travesty. Our nation is totally divided!

>>8467691
>Lets fight like hell and stop this great and disgusting injustice! The world is laughing at us.

>>8467398
why would you specifically need to build a city for this

>>8467691
>This election is a total sham and a travesty. We are not a democracy!

>>8467691
>Our country is now in serious and unprecedented trouble...like never before.

>>8467691
>November 7

>>8467691
>2012

>>8467428
>>8467436
>technocrats
source? I find it odd that leading administrators would all gather into a group just to witness an announcement

>>8467691
Guess this last part.

>>8467691
>D. Trump

>>8467190
>how much damage and destabilization climate change is causing right now
Less than power grabs designed to look like regulatory schemes?

>>8467079
No board on 4chan believes in retarded garbage like that
except for >>>/x/

>ITT 30 posts about how stupid climate change deniers are for every 1 post about ways to actually try and convince them.

No wonder there are so many climate change deniers. People who believe in climate change care more about feeling smugly superior than actually trying to find effective ways to persuade people.

>Senior about to graduate with environmental science degree
>All those years of hard work
>wanted to get a job at the EPA to help the environment
>TRUMPED

Geez guys Trump really cucked me out of a job

>>8467069
If it is real then how do the scientists explain the 18 year period where the satellite data showed there was no demonstrable warming

>>8467762
Are you talking about this?

And BTW, when you make claim, make sure to cite yours sources.

>>8467739
It's hard to argue with a wall anon, that's what this thread it. You want to explain it to them in way they'll listen, be my guest.

>>8467406
Pure bullshit, no Trump University research.

>>8467446
And the animals who God commands us to take care? Fuck them.
And Florida?

>>8467788
Well fuck Florida for sure, after this election. But let me get out of it first.

>>8467461
>techno-monks
Jodorowsky stuff?

>>8467596
Right, because Shell, exxon and stuff aren't corrupt and his lobbyists aren't stuffing all that "climate change isn't real" shit in your head

>>8467749
>Gainful employment can only come from a government agency.

>>8467069
>real issue
In what regards?

There's no debate it's happening, but do you mean in terms of man-caused climate change?

Further, are the effects of climate change even particularly bad? (exluding shit like muh penguins)

>>8467805
>his lobbyists
I don't think Trump has lobbyists....

>>8467703
Yes it is.

>>8467811
>There's no debate it's happening
>>>8467762

>but do you mean in terms of man-caused climate change?
Do you deny the Greenhouse Effect? Or do you deny that androgenic creation scale of Greenhouse gasses?

>Further, are the effects of climate change even particularly bad? (exluding shit like muh penguins)
Do you deny Sea Level Rise? Or do you think they have no meaningful effect?

>>8467125
And what progress is that? Throwing money at it?

>>8467818
Welp, I think, most people in this country, would probably agree right about now, with what mister Trump said then.

>>8467821
>androgenic
anthropogenic*

>>8467069
Don't believe anyone, /sci/bros.

Both sides are wrecked and _don't bother to prevent anything_. One side you all know, oil companies blah-blah. But what's important is another side, Goldman Sachs guys with their quotas which have nothing to do with the solution, only with their money. As you see no one bothers to LIMIT fossil fuel mining so the whole thing now is only about money, no one cares about our planet except for scientists.

>>8467811
>>8467788

>>8467069
Pay them larger bribes than the fossil fuel industry

>>8467069

Just convince him that he can make lots of money out of it. And he could.

>>8467864
Unfortunately real solutions of a problem only take money, not bring. If you share any working solution I'd like to hear that, but unfortunately I've thoroughly studied the subject, and I'm really pessimistic on that point.

>>8467814

Chemical technician not masters.

Fucking 9 gag memes

>>8467069
>convince Trump
Is Trump religious?

>>8467446
>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.

Oh man, how exactly do I break this to you..

>>8467086
Try to tell them how climate change makes the world a more suitable place for nigger reproduction, that may work

>>8467771
Are you familiar with the term "the Pause"?

>>8467969
Yes. Essentially it is a slowing of climate change during the 40s.

>>8467398
Nice preaching, but:
>Medicines to fight, and even exterminate, the most virulent of ailments.
Ever heard of iatrogenics? See "Why we get sick" as one example.

Also 'programs' that can regulate anything. Sure...

We need neither scientism nor anti-science.

>>8467762
>>8467969

Don't think of it as you pet theory getting BTFO, think of it as the next baseline for your new pet theory.

>>8467968
kek

>>8467398
Before we start another TRC movement on /sci/...are you older than 16?

>>8467350
>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

this is a satirical website, not a serious one

>>8467828
I think that speaks a lot more about you and your ideals than it does the country

I can't believe /sci/ is this retarded.
The reason why climate change is in full swing is because manufacturing is all done in countries like China and India who are extremely inefficient, spewing disgustingly huge amounts of toxic pollution.
Trump will bring back manufacturing to America, where fossil fuel consumption is extremely efficient and absolute minimum required greenhouse gas emission occurs.
It's ironic how the climate change denying President-elect will rapidly decrease greenhouse gas emissions far more than any Dem or neocon Rep could dream of.

>>8467103
The challenge is that by the time every argumentative idiot is convinced, there'll be no time left.

>>8467219
>Thinking small.
Fish didn't build fishtanks to roll up on the beach.
They changed over time and some of the mutations found the beach more agreeable.
The huiman genome has been a body of information and control with a time-lock on it. We need to change into space travellers and leave.
All the smoke, the destruction of the 'environment', it's just the eggshell cracking. You don't repair the shell and stay there forever, you hatch and fly away.
Can anyone smart really see another 100 thousand years of internecine feudal strife over resources? That game is long over.

>>8468011
>Trump can shut down factories in China by virtue of reducing American demand for Chinese goods
You know that China has a large growing middle class, right?

And being a state capitalist country, do you really think they won't find a way to intervene to keep their economy stable if Trump actually does threaten their industrial output?

China isn't scared of Trump at all senpai, if anything China is only going to get stronger because of a buffoon leader like Trump.

But being a Trumpcuck, I'm sure you will perform the necessary mental gymnastics to justify how Trump is actually a 4D interdimensional chess grandmaster and continue to suck his dick. Pathetic.

>>8467812
I'm talking about Shell, Exxon, BP lobbyists. Cough, the Bushs, cough.
Maybe Trump believe the shit of oil cos just because "they are rich farts like me" and can't change his mind with all the new evidence just because he is Trump (remember the 4 of Central Park affair).

>>8467850
>Goldman Sachs
The good buddies of Trump.

I thought the new republican stance was "climate change is real but not caused by humans" Maybe since its already too late.

>>8468023
This, China is actually excited for a Trump Presidency.

>>8467990
I'm sure he's only homaging Asimov.

>>8467082
>Sit them down and teach them science.

Nigga are you proposing we take the time to teach a bunch of brainlets our degrees? Even if we had the abundance of the time and energy required to do that, we would first have to deal with the issue that /pol/ doesn't want to spend any time learning since they've become accustomed to the much quicker art of googling for clickbait news articles that support their crony beliefs.

>climatoloJUSTs
http://www.aei.org/publication/18-spectacularly-wrong-apocalyptic-predictions-made-around-the-time-of-the-first-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year-2/

Here are 18 examples of the spectacularly wrong predictions made around 1970 when the “green holy day” (aka Earth Day) started:

1. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”

2. “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment.

3. The day after the first Earth Day, the New York Times editorial page warned, “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”

4. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 Mademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”

5. “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” wrote Paul Ehrlich in a 1969 essay titled “Eco-Catastrophe! “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”

6. Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.”

>>8468069
7. “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” declared Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, in the Spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness.

8. Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”

9. In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”

10. Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”

11. Barry Commoner predicted that decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate.

12. Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in his 1970 that “air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles.

>>8468071
12. Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in his 1970 that “air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles.

13. Paul Ehrlich warned in the May 1970 issue of Audubon that DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons “may have substantially reduced the life expectancy of people born since 1945.” Ehrlich warned that Americans born since 1946…now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and he predicted that if current patterns continued this expectancy would reach 42 years by 1980, when it might level out.

14. Ecologist Kenneth Watt declared, “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.'”

15. Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves and estimated the humanity would totally run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would be gone before 1990.

16. Sen. Gaylord Nelson wrote in Look that, “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

17. In 1975, Paul Ehrlich predicted that “since more than nine-tenths of the original tropical rainforests will be removed in most areas within the next 30 years or so, it is expected that half of the organisms in these areas will vanish with it.”

>>8468069
>>8468071
>the state of scientific research is the same now as it was then

Brainlet, please murder yourself.

>>8468073
18. Kenneth Watt warned about a pending Ice Age in a speech. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he declared. “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

>B-but THIS time it's definitely happening! Y-you just have to believe the experts! They won't make such mistakes again!

>>8468023
If Trump's America becomes in an isolationist country, China are going to become the largest exporting potency in the world.

>>8467069
there is massive money behind denying human caused global warming.

why would a rich cunt like trump who only cares about himself and his money give a fuck if he's wrecking the planet for the next few thousands of years?

he'll be dead in 30 years top, as if he cares what happens after, lol

>>8467440
Yeah, because combating climate change was working so well under Obama.

>>8468076
This.

How can Trumpfags always claim to know a lot about economics but fail to grasp basic shit like comparative advantage.

>>8468074
what makes that shit really unconvincing is that it is a few scientists here, a few there.

human caused global warming is an UNDISPUTED SCIENTIFIC FACT at this point. like evolution.

but that doesnt stop burgers with no education whatsoever watching fox news all day to be "sceptics"

*sigh*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laudato_si%27

>>8468085
>How can Trumpfags always claim to know a lot about economics but fail to grasp basic shit like comparative advantage.
is that a rhetorical question? do I really need to answer this? ....
because they're idiots

>>8468076
A nation that prides itself to 'pee on everybody's tree' in the world will not become isolationist.

>>8468074
>In January, 2006 — when promoting his Oscar-winning (yes, Oscar-winning) documentary, An Inconvenient Truth — Gore declared that unless we took “drastic measures” to reduce greenhouse gasses, the world would reach a “point of no return” in a mere ten years. He called it a “true planetary emergency.”

>When Laurent Fabius met with Secretary of State John Kerry on May 13, 2014 to talk about world issues he said “we have 500 days to avoid climate chaos.”

>Even before that, then-National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Space Flight Center head James Hansen warned in 2009 that Obama only “has four years to save Earth.” I wonder what they now think about their predictions?

>2009 was a bad year for global warming predictions. That year Brown warned there was only “50 days to save the world from global warming,” the BBC reported. According to Brown there was “no plan B.”

>Rajendra Pachauri, the former head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in 2007 that if “there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late.”

>>8468084
Well, he did kill the Kentucky's main industry causing hundreds of thousands of people to lose their jobs. I'm sure you're happy.

>>8468083
There's even more money behind making global warming up and getting those precious government funds, amirite, NASA?

>>8468086
>human caused global warming is an UNDISPUTED SCIENTIFIC FACT at this point. like evolution.
If you write it in Caps, it totally makes it a fact! Try writing a whole sentence like this next time!

>but that doesnt stop burgers with no education whatsoever watching fox news all day to be "sceptics"
I am a Russian undergrad in CompSci&Math, btw.

>*sigh*
*shrug*

>>8468087
>>>/pol/ >>>/leftypol/

>>8468103
>There's even more money behind making global warming up and getting those precious government funds, amirite
no, you are wrong. selling oil and coal dwarves any government funding for renewable energy sources by several orders of magnitude.

how you could fail to notice this is beyond me

>>8468103
>There's even more money behind making global warming up and getting those precious government funds
>>8468043
>I'm talking about Shell, Exxon, BP lobbyists. Cough, the Bushs, cough.
>Maybe Trump believe the shit of oil cos just because "they are rich farts like me"

>>8467069
>What should we do to convince Trump and his supporters that climate change is a real issue?
Conservatives believe in climate change, they just don't care very much.

They say that they don't believe it because 'respect my beliefs' is a better thing to say than 'fuck you, I want to make money now'

>>8468114
NASA annual budget (2016): $19.3 billion
NASA total budget (2016): about $4 trillion
Exxonmobil net income (2015): $21.96 billion
Exxonmobil total assets (2015): $349.49 billion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil

>>8468120
>Conservatives believe in climate change, they just don't care very much.
That's a far stretch, conservatives are a largely divided faction. Some believe in climate change, some believe CIA did 9/11, some are sane people. I guess a general consensus would be that it is indeed happening, but it's a natural process and nothing can nor should be done about it. Like in Middle Ages they used to grow grapes and make wine in England because it was so warm. Then climate changed, nobody died.

Trump: Professional protesters, incited by the media, are protesting. Very unfair!

>Spoiled crybaby.

>>8468103
>In January, 2006 when promoting An Inconvenient Truth Gore declared that unless we took “drastic measures” to reduce greenhouse gasses, the world would reach a “point of no return” in a mere ten years. He called it a “true planetary emergency.”
Oh shut up already. No-one but you cares about Al Gore.

>When Laurent Fabius met with Secretary of State John Kerry on May 13, 2014 to talk about world issues he said “we have 500 days to avoid climate chaos.”
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurent_Fabius
>Laurent Fabius is a French Socialist politician who served as Prime Minister of France from 17 July 1984 to 20 March 1986.
So what? He sounds just as irrelevant as Al Gore.

>NASA Goddard Space Flight Center head James Hansen warned in 2009 that Obama only “has four years to save Earth.” I wonder what they now think about their predictions?
That we've the point where we could turn this around without suffering severe consequences. Which is basically what he said would happen.

>in 2009 Brown warned there was only “50 days to save the world from global warming,” the BBC reported. According to Brown there was “no plan B.”
Who the fuck is Brown?
Why should anyone care what he said?

>Rajendra Pachauri, the former head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in 2007 that if “there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late.”
I haven't heard of this quote before. It's not really important though, given there has been action since then - just not enough.

>There's even more money behind making global warming up and getting those precious government funds, amirite, NASA?
Jesus fucking Christ. You're not satisfied with being just slightly wrong, are you?
NASA budget for 2016: $19.3B
ExxonMobil revenue for 2015: $268.9B

>human caused global warming is an UNDISPUTED SCIENTIFIC FACT at this point
>If you write it in Caps, it totally makes it a fact!
It's a fact regardless. At least accept you're a conspiracy theorist.

>>8468138
And research about climate change is all Nasa does. That guy is literally delusional, lol.

>>8467821
>Do you deny Sea Level Rise? Or do you think they have no meaningful effect?
>Florida will be completely gone
Sounds good

>>8468138
Climate alarmists have been making retarded forecasts for decades. None of these came true, so I don't see why should I believe the last ABSOLUTELY TRUE forecast that "in 20 years icecaps will melt, gibe moni plox so we can prevent it"? Doesn't error record like that tell you anything?

>NASA budget
>ExxonMobil revenue
I've had a suspicion that economic illiteracy would come up at some point during this argument.

>global warming not being caused by humans is an UNDISPUTED SCIENTIFIC FACT at this point
It's a fact regardless. At least accept you're a conspiracy theorist.

Also, ok, let's assume that global warming is real and can be prevented. And you are a POTUS. What would you do? That's a question for everybody in this thread.

>>8468160
Won't Commiefornia be the first one to sink? Not like I'm happy about it, these fuckers will just run to red states and vote them down to shitholes like they already did in Colorado and Nevada.

>>8468172
>Climate alarmists have been making retarded forecasts for decades.
It's not my fault that you're listening to politicians rather than scientists.
The actual claims made by (say) the IPCC have been fairly consistent.

>I've had a suspicion that economic illiteracy would come up at some point during this argument.
No-one is stopping you from actually making an argument, rather than just insulting people.

>Also, ok, let's assume that global warming is real and can be prevented. And you are a POTUS. What would you do?
I'm not in the USA, so you'll have to excuse my unfamiliarity with US shit.
Phase out the oldest and crappiest coal plants. Defend NOAA and get them some actual funding. Use wind farm construction to cover job losses in coal mining areas. Fix the national grid. Start moving towards a national ETS. Start channelling serious money towards grid-scale storage tech. Look into barriers preventing EV adoption and see what can be done about them. Maybe something with non-PV solar?
Basically, the traditional emissions trading + green industry approach.

>>8468137
Kek

>>8468138
It's also funny how most of you believe that evil bankers and oil corporations secretly control U.S. government, but I'm a conspiracy theorist here.
>inb4 "but you think scientists conspired"
No, I don't. I think that a bunch of frauds did what they always do - found a way to get government funds. Like they did with refugees and animal protection - they invented or expanded a problem and now fight against it, demanding money for that. Like Elon Musk who couldn't make Tesla profitable for like 13 years managed to sell it to government. Climate alarmists are obviously supported by misguided scientists and ''''scientists'''' who are actually TV show stars. If you think that they can't be wrong, keep in mind that we're talking about the world where gender studies, queer theory and Keynesian economics (if you actually believe in them, replace them with Austrian school) all exist and are being taught in universities.

>>8468075
>Some people have been wrong therefore all people are wrong
Mind explaining what you do on the science board? Or maybe you didnt even read the /po/ sticky?

>>8467510
Honestly if you started telling people this they'd take climate change more seriously.

>>8468189
>It's also funny how most of you believe that evil bankers and oil corporations secretly control U.S. government, but I'm a conspiracy theorist here.
Political lobbying isn't exactly a secret conspiracy.

>climate alarmists are obviously supported by misguided scientists and ''''scientists'''' who are actually TV show stars. If you think that they can't be wrong, keep in mind that we're talking about the world where gender studies, queer theory and Keynesian economics (if you actually believe in them, replace them with Austrian school) all exist and are being taught in universities.
I don't even understand what you're trying to say here.
The vast majority of the world's climate scientists agree that AGW is an issue - not just "a few misguided scientists and some TV show stars". Not only does their pay not depend on them proving AGW, but casting doubt on it turns out to be very profitable.

If you think that they're simply mistaken, feel free to publish a paper about it. If you think they're colluding in some kind of conspiracy, then prove it. But don't just announce that all scientists are frauds and expect anyone to take you seriously.

>>8468188
The numbers and names you mentioned are fascinating, I will look them up later and respond if thread doesn't sink. I have to go right now, sorry. Everybody here is still celebrating Trump victory.

2<sub>2 3<sup>2

>>8468093
one of trumps main policies is for the US to be more self sufficient, and reducing involvement in other countries.
some people like to call that isolationist.

<math> 2<sub>2 3<sup>3 </math>

our entire executive branch is now full of climate change deniers, pic related

>>8468172
>Climate alarmists have been making retarded forecasts for decades. None of these came true, so I don't see why should I believe the last ABSOLUTELY TRUE forecast that "in 20 years icecaps will melt, gibe moni plox so we can prevent it"? Doesn't error record like that tell you anything?

I remember when Tony Heller used to mock Hansen for saying the West Side Highway will be underwater.

>>8468188
>wind farms
please don't. They're rather inefficient and therefore require huge amounts of cement to construct which accounts for about 10% of our greenhouse gases. Yes, as cement cures it unloads tons of CO2 (almost a ton of CO2 per ton of cement). It's simply how cement is formed from limestone that releases so much CO2.

A much more viable solution is solar updraft towers, which undoubtedly needs cement as well but because they can be built anywhere on Earth mitigating much of the need for more wind farms distributing electricity over such long distances from where wind farms are productive to areas where they are not that results in huge loses of energy.

We have built them, we know they work, and for less than the cost of bailing out all those banks in 2008 we could have built them across the entire US and been off coal completely.

They are by far our best chance at meeting our energy needs.

>>8467069
Mess with the heater in the white house.
After a few days of being inconveniently hot I am sure he will be persuaded that Global warming is real.

>>8467069
The main argument against climate change is that scientists are colluding and falsifying data on a massive scaleto trick the world into giving them money. I don't know how to counter this argument, aside from mentioning that there is no evidence pointing in this direction. I do find it puzzling that climate change is the only aspect of science to which this argument is applied.

>>8468393
Let's just hope Trump is very pro-nuclear and pro-GMO.

>>8468382

top kek

>>8468393
>I do find it puzzling that climate change is the only aspect of science to which this argument is applied.

A classic case of Psychological projection.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_corporate_profits_and_losses#Largest_corporate_annual_earnings_of_all_time

>>8468103

> Russian

lol

> Computer science

LOL

>>8468397
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say. Are you somehow giving examples of people applying the argument to other areas of science? I meant to say areas instead of aspects earlier.

>>8468376
This. Not to mention you have all sorts of wasted land, resources, and maintenance costs. I don't know what the numbers are like, perhaps another /sci/ anon does but I've always felt like wind farms are really only being pushed because they create jobs. I'm not totally convinced that we're actually getting more energy out of them than we're putting into making and maintaining them.

Imo the best thing to do would be to go nuclear and properly regulate that shit.

I'm specifically talking about eliminating this shit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_waste_dumping_by_the_%27Ndrangheta

>>8468255
And the climate denying populace feels vindicated. They talk openly and proudly about it.

/pol/ use to be a fringe community within the abyss of the internet. Now they feel as though they are the majority, and have supreme power.

>>8468376
>>8468404

Wind power costs have plunged in the last decade.

http://gallery.mailchimp.com/ce17780900c3d223633ecfa59/files/Lazard_Levelized_Cost_of_Energy_v7.0.1.pdf

Hey guies so I'm on the fence about climate change just because it's become so politically charged and I don't know who to believe, but I'm willing to be convinced. Can any of you guys show me any good data that hasn't gone through any political filters? Also, are there any real arguments against the claim that the changing temperature trend is influenced by humans (as in not natural)?

>>8468423
sorry, meant to say
*the claim that the changing temperature trend is NOT influenced by humans / as in it IS natural

>>8468423

http://climate.nasa.gov/

well structured info with plenty of sources.

it's the wiki of climate change as far as i'm concerned

>>8468430
I'm a huge NASA supporter but they're barely holding on to their govt funding, I'm looking for a data source less likely to be influenced by ulterior motives...

>>8468419
The monetary cost is entirely irrelevant.

No matter how cheap it is wind power still requires huge footprints of cement to be stable which creates greenhouse gases and you need more of them because not all areas of the world can generate wind power so you'd need to transport electricity over longer distances which costs overall power requiring more wind farms to be built.

Solar updraft towers can be built anywhere on the planet so transporting the electricity is far more efficient.

Good job on the article, but it's not what's at issue.

>>8468434

is this bait?

>>8468437
no it's not bait, and I'm also not mentally handicapped, and I also don't live in a box, just to get those all out of the way

>>8468011
Oh man, the fact that you believe in all that is just plain sad.

>>8468504
prepare for America to be great again, punk

>>8467128
>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.

You're assumption is that they're all morons, which is a fucking moronic assumption.

>>8467775
how does one prove the relation about the rising CO2 level and rising temperature?

How do we know the two are connected and that a rising temperature is not just a part of the earth cycle irregardless of CO2 level?

>>8467488
>Dr Ed Hawkins, associate professor in the Department of Meterology, at the University of Reading, said: “There has been one prominent scientist who has regularly made more dramatic, and incorrect, in my view predictions suggesting that we would by now be in ice-free conditions.

>“There are very serious risks from continued climatic changes and a melting Arctic, but we do not serve the public and policy-makers well by exaggerating those risks.
So a couple of guys were wrong, mainstream scientists told them they were wrong for a while, while acknowledging there is a problem at hand, just not as much of a doomsday scenario as he said.

>>8468563
The greenhouse effect is very well understood and easily experimentally verifiable.

The earth's temperature very closely tracks changes in atmospheric CO2.

No alternative explanation can explain that relationship as well.

It's not something that can be proven, this isn't math.

>>8468134
Net income is what you have left after you've spent money on all the things you're doing. It's their profit, not their outlay.

ExxonMobil's revenue in 2015 was $268.88 billion, which means they spent $246.92 billion. So the comparison is actually:

Money spent by NASA: $19.3 billion
Money spent by ExxonMobil: $246.92 billion

Similarly, total assets are what you have left at the end of the day, not the total amount you've ever spent. ExxonMobil has spent about the same amount since 2000 as Nasa has since 1958.

We just had 8 years of Obama and absolutely nothing happened on the federal level for stopping climate change in that time; and suddenly it's "Trump's fault"?

>>8468924
The difference is that Obama doesn't deny climate change while Trump does.

>>8468939
There is no difference if neither of them do shit

Ironically, Trump may help more than Obama simply by fostering an economic environment where more people like Elon Musk can thrive

>>8468011
India and China are also doing a fucking lot to reduce ghg emissions and increase renewable energy funding, not to mention they have over a billion population each.

Given those two points, the USA per capita is still much one of the biggest emitters of ghg. You don't even know this?

>>8468966
China and India also do not have a militant greentard movement and are building nuclear plants like madmen

They will be living in a nuclear-powered paradise by 2050 while the US and Europe are still groveling, trying to get solar to be cost-effective

>>8468946
>fostering an economic environment where more people like Elon Musk can thrive
With shitty meme protectionist policies?

>>8469010
Protectionism will help american companies and Elon Musk. Americans will have more incentive to buy domestic.

It's not like trumpwin matters in this regard.

Most green parties around the world have been concentrating either on magic like the solar fucking woo or some arts&crafts stuff that has no effect. Most have been hindering actually meaningful projects like the ignorant little fucks that greenpeas consists of.

>>8467128
>how they will affect people's health.

Headlines like "Climate Change may Mean More Venereal Disease" are the least believable though.

http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_gisp2.php

>>8469077
The huge issue isn't the temperature itself, it's the acceleration.

>>8469077
>See it happened in this one place in Greenland!
Pic related, from the paper your graph was stolen from.

Also, the meme that "it was hot before therefore AGW BTFO!" is so stupid on so many levels. It doesn't show that such heat is good for us and it completely ignores that the rate of warming is more important than how warm it is.

>>8469077
kikes and their hoaxes

>>8467069
my feeling would be that even if some catastrophic things like cities being flooded happened, they would blame it on something else rather than lose face.

>>8467069
You have to convince that helping the climate will hurt black people

>>8469211
I have a feeling that this exact thing already happened.

Oh wait it did.

>>8469234
being flooded permanently I meant, but I see your point.

>>8467111
So you gave control to the Republicans? That just furthers both problems.

Does you guys really care about it?

All the solutions are not solutions just something to sell more shit.

There are people on /pol/ that deny CO2 is a greenhouse gas. No matter what you post, especially if you link them governmental data resources like NASA, NOAA, etc. they will deny AGW every single time.

I'm really afraid of what kind of moronic cabinet members / advisers Trump will have on Climate change. It's clear he knows fuck-all about the actual science and research behind the phenomenon. Just watch him appoint a bunch of denialists and libertarian "think-tank" people from denialist organizations.

>>8467111
You either made the wrong choice due to not being able to process the wealth of data at your disposal or were deluded by echo chamber rhetoric.

I don't know which is worse, but can you tell me what administration in the last 40 years has eroded the civil liberties and privacy rights guaranteed under the 4th amendment? There is one offender worse than the others, and yet you put that same party back in power with the added bonus of climate change denial and anti-science rhetoric.

This is truly the darkest timeline.

>>8467111
>>8469538

You know nothing, John Snow. Absolutely nothing. You're power level is so low you're actually spouting the two-party system meme unironically.

Just, literally go fuck your own face.

>>8467069
find some proof, aka causation to your correlations.

don't forget to sage these treehugger threads, /sci/.

>>8469667
>find some proof, aka causation to your correlations.
Carbon isotope ratios.

>>8469699
Fucking Thank You

>>8469699
What's that?

>>8469538
I think that's just buying into a dialect, I hear tell both wings are of the same bird.

AGW is really just another malformed dialect by force. Since taxes are being imposed and possibly liberties down the road the debate must be over never to opened again. Now it's just a straight up climate heretic hunt. I think Trump is controlled opposition anyway, when they show him the financials behind the AGW fraud he will jump on board fairly quickly.

>>8470891
Not that guy but maybe I can give you the simple rundown from what I've studied in chem up to this point.

Basically, you can think of an isotope as a specially marked version of an element that you can identify as it proceeds through some reaction. The idea is you know exactly where your element ends up; it can help with understanding reaction mechanisms and results.

So, if I use a carbon isotope such as Carbon-14 (which is radioactive) for a reaction, and the result is CO2 whose carbon is Carbon-14, I know where the carbon I used went.

I don't know what has been used in these experimental procedures, though, so I would refer you to people who have the real evidence handy.

>>8470891
Carbon that's been in the carbon cycle for a significant amount of time is measurably different to carbon that's been trapped underground for millennia. By measuring the isotope ratios of carbon in the air, you can find that a significant and growing percentage has only recently been released - human consumption of fossil fuels is increasing atmospheric CO2.
We can also measure the shortfall of outgoing infrared radiation from satellites, which confirms that the greenhouse effect is responsible for the current warming.

>>8469530
Rant and roar my friend
The time for pussyfooting ended, it's time to make them listen.

>>8467404
>>8467625
Tbf, the average republican voter is more likely to blame gay people and not the giant coal plant next door for that.

>>8467109
Not adequately rated post

>>8467096
Yeah that's almost as retarded as personifying science and claiming climate theories are on part with those of physics and chemistry.

>>8470929
>>8470978
Earth scientist here. Unfortunately, although you're 100% right, we can't use C-14 as an isotope fingerprint for human caused climate change because the data is tainted by atomic bomb testing in the 50s and 60s.

Until now. Only in the last few years have the atomic bomb created C-14 isotopes in the atmosphere come down enough that we can finally start using it to determine carbon sources.

A much better one to use is C-13. Carbon-13 is a stable isotope just like standard Carbon-12. But because it's slightly heavier it's more difficult for plants to use it as a source for their carbon capturing to make sugars. It's like stopping your car, it's slightly harder to stop your car if you have a passenger then if you're alone. If you're trying to manufacture sugars at the best possible energy level you need as much C-12 as you can get.

The ocean doesn't give a shit. Rocks (that use carbon such as limestone) don't give a shit. Volcanoes don't give a shit. Only plants have trouble sequestering C-13. So C-13 levels in plants are lower than they are in other reservoirs of Carbon: the ocean, the atmosphere, rock, and magma (volcanism). We know this because we can shove them into mass spectrometers.

So if you want to find a source of atmospheric carbon follow the C-13. If it's the same from day to day and year to year you know your carbon source is one of the following: the ocean, volcanoes, or rock.

If C-13 in the atmosphere is falling, despite CO2 rising. That tells you the source can only be plants, which is what coal and oil are made of, ancient plants.

And guess what?

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/modern_isotopes.html

The argument is good and settled. Humans burning fossil fuels is causing climate change.

>>8467133
This would work. Also say that using oil makes Muslims rich.

>>8471044
Huh, I didn't know that.
Thanks!

>>8471054

>>8471036
No.

If I conduct an experiment using only physics and chemistry I can say that it's as valid as physics and chemistry. We've conducted atmospheric research for decades and chugged our information through the rigors of physics and chemistry. I posted that.

If you read it you'll see the physics, such as the photoelectric effect, blackbody radiation curves, and the steffan-boltzmann constant being used alongside the chemistry of Carbon dioxide and methane that are in our atmosphere.

That's all physics and chemistry, which you'd know if you've read it. This is why geophysics, geology, climatology, glaciology, hydrology, and other forms of Earth sciences are held in high regard. They are rigorously related to physics and chemistry.

The only thing which you might hold contempt for would be climate models but absolutely 0% of everything I've posted relies on models to prove man made climate change.

You would know this if you read the data.

>>8471086
>climatology
Is certainly not being held in high regard anymore, it's right in there with biblical creation date theory. Meteorology is fairly accurate with the help of satellite tech. Historical geology is showing ice ages becoming more common and who the fuck is a glacialologist?

>relies on models to prove man made climate change

Teh cancer right there. There is no way to disprove them except wait for their prophetic scenarios to not unfold. No different than biblical revelations. The sad part is like biblical revelations there is an odd physiological effect, the more they fail the more people believe! This is because religious people are constantly bombarded with that propaganda and something called sunk cost bias. You have obviously spent so much time inside the climate change gibberish machine you simply cannot back out now. Good luck with that!

>>8471105
And you didn't read the data

>>8471105
Why are American people this dumb?

http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/10/trumps-space-policy-boils-down-to-going-to-mars/

Trump is going to make space great again. This planet is fucked, move on lads.

>>8471133
Inferior education system.

>>8469176
>made up heating trends using fake station data

Lets see: Trillions in higher taxes, makework, and other stupidity now

Or a couple billion in dikes and irrigation decades from now..

Which makes more economic sense?

>>8471133
This.
>>8471156
So much this.

>>8471131
Well obviously no one is checking the data because the climate doom model outputs are not jiving with the real world. It's not my data and I certainly don't vouch for it but the question is why do I still pay a carbon tax? Because of the AGW cult enablers like yourself! Thanks!

>>8471282
You don't like climate models. So what? What part of the proof of climate change which I've already posted requires the use of climate models?

How does the photoelectric effect rely on climate models? How does Planck's equation rely on climate models? How does the Steffan-Boltzmann energy balance equation rely on climate models? How do carbon isotopes rely on climate models?

What exactly do you have a problem with? Solar flux? The inverse square law? Blackbody radiation? Albedo? Conservation of energy?

Please explain.

>>8471133
>>8471156
>>8471170

Just kill me. I don't want my future kids growing up here.

>>8471291
You come off sounding like a climate priest of the highest order and sound like a true believer!

Don't you suspect something is amiss with these extremely complex equations involving the entire earth and every molecule on it with how they effect climate when the models are so far inaccurate?

More importantly isn't something even larger amiss when these ridiculously large computations appear to have one agenda attached, scare people into accepting a global carbon tax?

>So what?
You really are missing the point here. Without those models - the prophecies of climate doom - these taxes never would have been imposed. Without some common threat or need to collectively act on something people wouldn't have supported it. Bottom line it is a theory that is being proven wrong on the very basis of the models because that is all there is to prove such an extraordinary theory so you and the other priests really need to sit back down and take a look at the data and see why the theory doesn't jive with the computer simulations instead of proselytizing on this Mongolian finger painting board. But of course you don't do that, you are fed your dogma and regurgitate it here trying to sound educated and clever but deep down you know its just little pieces of real science cobbled into a mountain bullshit.

Don't even worry about this shit. "We need to convince people such and such-" lol, no. The only hope for us now is strong AI coming along and establishing full control, you won't have a say in how or what is done about climate change no matter what your opinion on it happens to be.

>>8471339
You sound just like a creationist.

> What should we do to convince Trump and his supporters that climate change is a real issue?

It isn't. Get out from under whatever rock you've been living under and google "climategate". It's a con, we've known it's a con for years now. It's old news that has only been kept alive because governments love another excuse to tax people.

>>8467416
Wow. Its nothing.jpg

If you saw a diagram of the temperature in the thousands of years you would realise that 1,5 degree of change is a small fluctuation in the Nature climate change of the earth, which happens normally. Man is too small to make any measurably significant difference to the climate of the planet.

Why am I even posting in this bait thread? You won OP. 5,314/10

>>8471580
>an is too small to make any measurably significant difference to the climate of the planet.
Even a fucking microbe can change the climate if you put enough of them together, you fucking mongoloid?

>>8469226
/thread

>>8471580
>Man is too small to make any measurably significant difference to the climate

>>8471583
...you do realise that even 100billion humans are not even nearly enough, right? Calculate the percentage of human+humanmade structures' mass to earth mass and youll understand that, brainlet.

>>8471590
We've already done it before, retard.
-> >>8471589

>>8468023
Holy you actually blown him to pieces.

This. If any Trump supporters have even just an ounce of doubt in Trump's presidency listen to this anon. Trump's isolationist policy (conditional support of NATO, pulling from East Asia) is the best thing that ever happened to China. China will expand into East Asia.

>>8469667
hidden.

fuck you nigger.

>>8471589
If anything else less ozone would result in less radiation shielding, more uv bouncing back into space, less greenhouse effect and a thus a temperature drop (if the only thing that mattered to climate change was the ozone layer).

Shove the fucking 1979-2016 diagrams up your ass and open a book you brainlet vegan redditor. Sci is dead. Im outta this thread.

>>8471597
You're missing the point entirely. We as a species caused widespread change in the makeup of our atmosphere. So fucking OBVIOUSLY we are not 'too small to make a difference to the climate'.

Aside from that, the fact that temperature is still increasing, despite a (temporary) reduction in radiative forcing by ozone, tells you just how much CO2 and other greehouse gasses drive the climate.

>open a book
The irony is almost unbearable.

>>8467069
dude understands money. dude wants to bting more jobs. Explain to him how green energy = maintenance = jobs

>>8471602
climate
[klahy-mit]
noun
1.
the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region, as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years.

>>8471605
Are you seriously trying to argue that our climate isn't driven by the makeup of our atmosphere? You should have left, like you said you were going to do.

>Socialist scientists have lied for years about race and gender not being real
>Expect people to believe you morons about climate change

#MakeAmericaPollutedAgain

>>8471616
>being this retarded
Here's a house fire for you to die in.

>>8471628
A person can look at two dogs and see two different races of dog

Scientists can't look at a white and black person and see two different races

Your precious """science""" isn't anymore infallible to public and social pressure than any other method. You people are pathetic and circle jerk yourselves endlessly.

>>8471632
So the real question is: what are you doing on the science board?

>>8471634
I like to laugh at Reddit sometimes

>>8471635
So go to Reddit.

>>8471632
I am pretty sure all domestic dogs are in the same subspecies

>>8471616
>>Expect people to believe you morons about climate change
Meanwhile, 2017 is on track to become the first year in human history with a blue ocean event. Stay delusional, /pol/.

>>8471616
>thinks scientists have lied about anything cuz politics
>thinks scientists have abandoned gender now of all times when genes are hot shit
>thinks scientists just sits around lying about our climate cuz "dey soshyalist"
>does not realize the wealth of evidence to suggest the efficacy of science
>retarded

Your mom still needs that abortion

>>8471640
"Science"fags sure are quick to go to abortion as an insult

It's like they have no regard for human life or something...

>>8471641
Yeah.
Its like medicine isnt even a thing

On another note, anon: if b8 then gj

>>8471642
Science fags in their support of feminism have effectively othered womb babies, saying they "don't count" and are "a pile of goo"

Congrats, you became the racists you criticize so much

>>8467069
Rubio and Cruz as well thought that Global Warming was bogus, that's 3 presidential candidates already.
If you can't win at the top, you need to go for the education, it might be a social engineering problem to solve.

>>8471695
>Give me the schools

Ah yes, scientists totally aren't socialists

I used to think parents homeschooling their kids was stupid, but now post Trump, I get it

>>8471720
I am not the one who made this point first but I am going to parrot it, the public in 2008 did not care for gay marriages, just like Obama, when the majority became in favor of them in 2012, so was Obama, if the public start caring for it, and making demands, maybe something will change.

>>8471339

>I need things to be complex or else they're wrong.
>I cannot accept something because I'm going to pay more money.
>I cannot provide evidence to support my claims.

Can you fuck off the board already?

I was a little bit skeptical about climate change but this thread really opened my eyes.

Thanks for explaining the science anons.

>>8471791
I think people should consider that even there was no Global Warming, pollution still poses a threat, that takes 3 million people each year
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/sep/16/more-people-die-from-air-pollution-than-malaria-and-hivaids-new-study-shows

And the two threats are fought in the same way.

>>8470996
>people who don't subscribe to left identity politics and believe every point they make, even if bullshit, are now completely anti science
fuck you asshole.Just because I believe in the concept of a nation state and not blind globalism does not mean I can't understand science
t. chemist

>>8471339
Ok, at this time I realize you're simply having a laugh. I didn't laugh but you got me.

>>8471505
No I was not born into any occult influence and am an atheist. I find the occult fascinating and the AGW cult is no exception. You can't help but compare it to other religions, for example the climate doom and biblical end of days prophecies, for some reason these have great traction when a population is repeatedly subjected to them. The AGW priest who was pasting all of his "data" into the thread is no different than someone who quotes scripture ad nauseam ignoring all of the contradictions. They also seem to imply they are an expert in many different fields of science and perhaps even collated and fact checked this mountain of "data" themselves.

>>8471737
On the contrary. The AGW doom theory is ridiculously complex and to think there is some sort of conclusion to be had by stuffing that much "data" into a computer simulation that seems to spit out nothing but climate doom and thus a carbon tax must be installed right away is preposterous. And then when the simulations prove wrong they start to chant "doesn't matter", "it helps fix other problems" or whatever rationalization comes to mind.
What do you suppose the endgame of the AGW theory might be? Heh, holy shit there are some seriously naive people in the AGW cult is my only point. The board is not your personal hugbox and echo chamber, perhaps go to reddit for your AGW threads if that's what your looking for?

>>8472242
Why can't you poltards fuck off and stay in pol?

>>8467079
exactly

>>8471815
ok but co2 is not a pollutant, and that's Trumps opinion on the subject.

Ocean Acidifying leading to trophic collapse as calcium carbonate plankton die and decline

>>8472242
>What do you suppose the endgame of the AGW theory might be?
I can't think of any.

>>8472242

>People gonna take muh carbons
>I want to sound like the tough guy though
>muh hugbox echochamber buzzwords

You're not fooling anyone with your tough guy act and your pseudo intellectual garbage. The only person acting like they're following a cult is you. Fuck off already, /pol/ shitter.

>>8471645

They are piles of goo. They aren't even sentient. It's not like they're in their mother's womb thinking to themselves, "Gee, I can't wait to be born!"

>Racism

What the actual fuck are you going on about?

>>8472869
> People gonna take muh carbons
You don't even understand the significance of the government being able to regulate CO2 as "pollution." You might not know this, but you exhale CO2. Government getting to regulate that as pollution means they get to control your breathing, because it creates "pollution."

Now do you understand why people don't want the government to be able to regulate CO2? It's such a massive move toward a authoritarian collectivist state that no one with a hint of common sense supports it.

>>8473003

That is the most far-fetched, conspiracy bullshit I've ever read on /sci/. Congrats, you baited me. I'm done, not going to converse with a conspiracy theorist today.

>>8473003
>You don't even understand the significance of the government being able to regulate CO2 as "pollution." You might not know this, but you exhale CO2. Government getting to regulate that as pollution means they get to control your breathing, because it creates "pollution."
Congratulations.
You're a fucking moron.

>>8471632
>races of dog
im dying

>>8473042
>>8473200
This is why Trump won. Whenever someone brings up a common sense argument, liberals shout that person down, calling them stupid, a conspiracy theorist, racist, sexist, islamophobic, and every other insult their tiny brains can come up with. Insulting people instead of actually addressing the argument shows everyone that you're just another oppressor trying to silence any dissent.

>>8473253
>Insulting people instead of actually addressing the argument shows everyone that you're just another oppressor trying to silence any dissent.
You didn't present an argument, you just ranted about the government wanting to sap and impurify your bodily fluids.

>>8473265
The government literally wants to be able to control what you breathe out. The argument is that is a massive threat to individual liberty. Your response is to dismiss that as a stupid, bigoted, conspiracy theory. This is why we won and you lost. The American people are sick and tired of liberals like you insulting us at every turn, and we're not going to listen to your garbage dogma any more.

>>8473280
>The government literally wants to be able to control what you breathe out.
>The argument is that is a massive threat to individual liberty.
It's also completely made-up - nobody has proposed doing that.

>>8473386
> nobody has proposed doing that.
The entire warmist side has been clamoring for regulations on CO2. You're in denial.

>>8473398
>The entire warmist side has been clamoring for regulations on CO2.
No. They've been clamouring for restrictions on CO2 produced from fossil sources. Coal plants, petrol vehicles, that kind of thing.
No-one but paranoid conspiracy theorists have mentioned a "breathing tax".

>>8473253
>>8473280

>This is why we won and you lost

You didn't win shit. You automatically assumed other people here aren't Trump supporters and think your viewpoint is wrong. You come to this thread, post some inane bullshit about how "muh gubermen" is trying to control the air you breath without providing any substantial evidence to support your viewpoint on a SCIENCE board and you expect us to believe you? You want a hugbox, special snowflake? Go talk to your conspiracy theorist friends to keep that delusion going in your head. CO2 tax isn't about restricting your breathing and if you honestly want us to believe that, you better start providing substantial evidence, otherwise fuck off back to /pol/.

>>8471632
Fucking retard, this is /sci/, not /pol/. There are no "races" of dogs, they are breeds. All dogs are the same species, capable of interbreeding, which is exactly what humans can do. There are ethnicities (races) in humans, not different species. The genetic differences between Africans and Europeans are not large enough to classify us as different species, because we can interbreed and create fertile offspring, which is the definition of a species.

Now fuck off back to your hugbox on /pol/ please.

>>8467069. Oh it's an issue and it is real but we can't do anything about it since we are not the cause. Our world goes through periods of core rotation flips. We are in a slowdown period right now during this phase of the core slowing the magnetic shielding we have on our planet weakens. This in the main contributor to the issue of global warming. The core rotation flip will happen between 500 to 1500 years from now and during this period our shield will get weaker. In a few more hundred years it will be so weak that the sky at night will look like the Arora Borealis all over the world. The notion of reducing greenhouse gasses and trying to save the environment is nice but ultimately the core will slow more radiation will enter the Earth (as it has many times) nothing can be done to stop this process. We don't even make enough greenhouse gasses to matter one large volcanic eruption outputs more global warming gasses then you realize. If you want to really help start pushing ideas for species survivability. When the core really slows we may not survive if steps are not taken soon. The rate of the shield decay is a constant and we will continue to get warmer all the way up to the core flip..then the flip occurs and more than likely the next ice age starts. It a natural cycle. Life and death. We really can't hurt the Earth it will heal ,but unless we forget the political card of global warming and look at it more as future species survivability, it is not really going to matter.

>>8473785
Retard.

>tfw I agree with some of the things he say but in terms of science and environment I do not like his policies at all

Why does science has to be associated in the minds of people with the left? The same left that has people who deny the existence of biological sex.