Is Jow Forums embarrassed by Trump?

What? I fucking love Trump. Kys nigger tranny.

This
>>heh, they were off by a fraction of a degree over the course of several decades checkmate scientists!
HA! They were talking about a fraction of a degree rise, so...
Go ahead, post one of those bullshit charts that don't show the 1930's warm spike and level out the medieval and roman warm periods

Yes, he's unable to grasp this specific distinction between weather and climate. What a retard.

>1980
>What is Mount St. Helen's
>How have we shown that volcanoes cause cooling

GLOBAL WAMING! WE NEED YOU!

Attached: trump.jpg (727x485, 106K)

COME BACK GLOBAL WAMING!!!!!!

Remember when the california wildfires were blamed on Global Warming by the scientific community before they discovered it was PG&E's fault?

> is Jow Forums embarrassed by Trump?

Go fuck yourself. Literally every time there's a hurricane, flooding, massive storms, wildfires, etc., the Left blames it on muh "Climate Change". It is completely justifiable for Trump to use the same tactic.

This is obvious bait by Trump. Typo and everything.

People will talk shit about how he's wasting time tweeting, but it must be really hard to resist getting tens of thousands of yous with no real effort. I'd do the same shit if I was him

>1 year

>40 year sample

fuck off retard

If you can't argue the point, find a typo.

>identity of an anonymous discussion board where the use of the worst insults against the unknown identity and crazy disputes is normal

Who is against science?

Attached: lying shill actor bill nye fake scientist guy versus gender.jpg (480x938, 62K)

^this

Volcanoes cause cooling but only for a few years. Eg Pinatubo caused a couple years of cooling in the early 90s (Wich was accurately predicted by climate scientists) but because SO2 has a short life in the atmosphere it doesn't last.
Also how can you say that volcanoes cause cooling but deny that GHGs cause warming? It's the same mechanism.

PG&E with decades of lefty tree huggers blocking the proper maintenance of the forest.

>Global warming science has been pretty accurate at predictions long-term warming trends

Sure, 1/100 of them didn't massively overstate the amount of warming we would experience by 20XX.

trump slowly and slowly just shows out to be dumber then a proves to everyone that he isn't that good after all... at least he saved america from that commies bastard and hillary clinton

PG&E was responsible for the clearing and maintenance of the areas under their power-lines.

they tried to blame it on environmental laws, but they law actually DEMANDS they cut trees away and clear deadfall.

PG&E royally fucked up.

We were supposed to die in the 70s because of acid rain, deforestation.
Predictions were that the planet would be inhabitable by the 1980s.
How about the holes in the ozone layer that were supposed to make it so the sun burnt us up?
Aquanet and spray underarm deodorant suffered greatly.

True. But, they may or may not have been able to actually cut the trees because there are often court injunctions that stop this lawful process.
Either way, there's something fishy about that fire all the way around.

Because every time there's a volcano there's some cooling, but the increase of .1% of a certain gas in the atmosphere has yet to produce the alarmist level warming.
Also, changes in the sun cause changes in our magnetic field which cause volcanoes, and a weakened magnetic field causes cooling, like we have going on right now. In 2000-2003 the sun was unusually active and we got some warming. Carbon isn't shit in this equation.

>(((Schaub)))
Every time

>Environmentalists fixed these problems so now we'll pretend they weren't real
We limited the pollutants that caused acid rain and the thinning ozone layer. This didn't go away on its own we identified the problem, identified the cause, and the international community worked together to solve it. Acid rain and the ozone hole are literally perfect examples of scientists being right and solving environmental problems

>.1%
CO2 levels are 35% higher than preindustrial levels while methane more than doubled

what is it about climate change that gets boomer's lizard brains so fucking riled up?

what the fuck is the problem with having clean and renewable energy that doesn't require the environment to be ravaged whether the temperature is changing or not? There is no argument against restricting pollution.

Attached: 1544933739837.jpg (828x923, 62K)

i love how it followed proposed train lines
gets my bacon makin

>how can you say that volcanoes cause cooling but deny that GHGs cause warming?
Lack of increased temperature in the troposphere would be my starting point.

No, I love my president.

>There is no argument against restricting pollution.
How old are you? Legit wondering if you're stupid or just young

>controlled opposition

which is what percentage of the atmosphere, including water vapor?

23

give me one reason why pollution is good and why we shouldnt have clean and renewable energy

>give me one reason why pollution is good and why we shouldnt have clean and renewable energy
Let's say the US takes the lead, and legislates that no company can produce any pollution.

In a global economy, how do you think that would effect the US?

I love Trump more everytime a faggot hates him.

I love this one. Tell me again how using hairspray and a/c in the northern hemisphere caused a hole in the ozone over Antarctica

>retweeting (((science))) is hard

in almost every single case nothing fundamentally changes in productivity and energy output

theres no reason why you wouldnt have nuclear instead of coal
theres no reason why you wouldnt restrict companies from dumping toxic waste
theres no reason to drill in the arctic for oil

>muh china!
who gives a shit
we're an importer country dipshit

So you're young AND stupid.
Lurk more.

how old are you

>pollution

Carbon dioxide is not pollution. It is a natural gas that is vital to the eco system. If you disagree, then plant a tree and hold your breath.

Attached: global warmists hate trees, carbon dioxide.jpg (900x672, 135K)

>no no pollution is actually GOOD for the environment!
this is your brain on Limbaugh

Aww cute one kiddo

how old are you
dont dodge the question

Whatever I tell you would be a lie anyway, whippersnapper

>Global warming science has been pretty accurate at predictions long-term warming trends

It helps when you are revising your model continuously to account for past errors.

Identify cause and work together on a solution.
Ok, they banned paper grocery bags because of deforestation. Maybe you're not old enough to remember how deforestation of the Amazon rain forest was supposed to kill us 3 decades ago.
They switched to plastic bags because it was better for the environment. Now plastic bags are bad, Mmmm, kay and now we have to pay the govt 10 cents to get a paper grocery bag. Somehow using paper is now ok, and apparently makes it better for the environment now that we have to pay the govt for them.

There's definitely something hinky going on.

No

>Hot day == Climate Change
>Cold day == Weather
t.liberal

i bet you're going to call into Limbaugh after this and talk about how you owned the libs about global warming

youre so fucking stupid

Social programming meant to keep the populace in a constant state of fear.

I don't even know who Limbaugh is, did you learn about him on your Colbert show?

its almost like things change when more information becomes available and maintaining the same policies and ideology that you stupid fucking boomers had 40 years ago is retarded

>Science must be believed
Now do gender.........

So you admit that your ideas are retarded

lm*o

Trumptard detected!

Those gases are lighter than air, they float UP; that's why it all collected at one point.

It's like putting too much air into a balloon.

I'm not a boomer. At least get generation identification correct. I'd have to be nearly 80 to be a boomer.

Is this the horseshit they are teaching you in school? No wonder you are all so confused.

Why is he making fun of my climate religion?!

>deforestation for paper is a problem
>use plastic instead
>plastic is actually worse
>use reuseable bags instead
its almost as if thats how you solve a problem. by trying solutions and then checking if theyre effective and then trying new ones when previous ones are deemed ineffective

>actually arguing carbon dioxide is a pollutant

Dude bro just ban all the pollution breh

as if gen x doesnt behave exactly the same as boomers with more bitter resentment

it is

the geriatric department in government wont let us

turd pbp

You move to Venus and breath all the carbon dioxide any time you want. The rest of us will stay here and breathe oxygen.

>the geriatric department in government wont let us
Thank god, because retards like you literally can't fathom why it's a retarded idea

You're telling me that pollutants arent actually pollutants and that pollution which isnt actually pollution is actually GOOD for the environment, and you call ME retarded.

Reusable bags are fine if you're single and eat out most of the time and are willing to carry around bags like an old lady.
You still have to pay for them. Unless you're on welfare, then you don't have to pay for them. Apparently being poor makes your bags automatically environmentally friendly.
This insistence to pretend like we're eurofags is beyond annoying.

Yes, I'm calling you retarded because you think 'banning all pollution' is a feasible and good idea

thats not at all what im saying you brain dead loser

GenXers do not behave just like boomers. You must not be paying much attention if you actually think that.

So, I wonder how environmentally friendly HRT is? You'd think with the drastic increase in men taking synthesized female hormones, this has to be effecting the water supply.

>dude just ban all pollution
>the geriatric department in government wont let us
Are you so retarded you can't even keep up with your own conversations?

Are you capable of recognizing patterns?

Attached: 1548370301223.jpg (600x312, 44K)

Trannie Discorder go home

No. He's dumb and bluepilled on some aspects, but ultimately the US right needed an uncompromising Chad like him to bitch-slap the leftist media.

I wonder how environmentally friendly this is?
youtu.be/qs774ZhAs0w

are you actually autistic to the point where an exaggerated insult is interpreted as a literal word for word policy statement?

pollute;
1,a To contaminate with harmful or poisonous substances
1, b To defile or corrupt

see >There is no argument against restricting pollution.
lol You have the opinions of a 12 year old, you must be in college

I know, right. They glow. At first you think you're talking with a 14 year old, then you realize you're just talking to a hormone laden man with emotional problems.

yes dumping CO2 and other greenhouse gases is pollution and no amount of fox news and AM radio will change this

>fox news and AM radio
Listen and obey, the whole country will be underwater in 10(more) years! Be afraid! Terror!

Attached: fake-news-journalists-CNN-Clinton-campaign-600.jpg (600x1078, 193K)

You can't eliminate CO2.

Ok so there were only a couple hundred million people before, now there's 8 billion people exhaling CO2. So dumping... K

...

So you're saying we need to reduce the population?

I didn't say anything about that. I'm saying CO2 can't be pollution, and then I posted the definition of pollute because apparently they don't teach definitions in school lol

This
To think the climate on a planet in such a complex system is going to stay the same forever is retarded. All their predictions from 20 years ago have come to pass and nothing has happened. Coastal cities aren’t under water (unfortunately), the arctic still exists, polar bears are still there. If they were really serious about what they say the very first step we could take that wouldn’t cost us a dime (and in fact save us a lot) is immediately stop mass migration from the third world, since once in the first world people use a lot more of the worlds finite resources. Until they suggest that I’m not buying what they’re selling.

Bruh...