# Do you believe in climate change/global warming?



## rileysrjay (Jun 2, 2017)

With U.S. president Donald Trump pulling America out of the Paris climate change deal, I want to know what my fellow tempers thought of his decision and climate change in general. Personally I'm a bit of a skeptic, especially with scientists saying there would be an ice age in the 70s and the fact that science really doesn't always follow 100% proven facts, but instead use something like evolution which arguably is nothing more than a religion.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Jun 2, 2017)

I didn't vote as neither of your options really apply to me. I'm in the middle yes climax change is a real thing however I'm skeptical on how much us humans have had an affect on it and how much we really can do about it. Sure scientist say a lot of things but they can also be wrong and I'm not convinced of the evidence provided.


----------



## PabloMK7 (Jun 2, 2017)

CallmeBerto said:


> I didn't vote as neither of your options really apply to me. I'm in the middle yes climax change is a real thing however I'm skeptical on how much us humans have had an affect on it and how much we really can do about it. Sure scientist say a lot of things but they can also be wrong and I'm not convinced of the evidence provided.


The problem is that if it is real, you'll get convinced once it's to late


----------



## tbb043 (Jun 2, 2017)

Global warming is real, it's called summer and it happens every year.


----------



## dAVID_ (Jun 2, 2017)

We should check statistics before and after the change. This way we'll know if the U.S was actually taking action on the problem.


----------



## rileysrjay (Jun 2, 2017)

CallmeBerto said:


> I didn't vote as neither of your options really apply to me. I'm in the middle yes climax change is a real thing however I'm skeptical on how much us humans have had an affect on it and how much we really can do about it. Sure scientist say a lot of things but they can also be wrong and I'm not convinced of the evidence provided.


I'll add an option for your opinion to the poll as I know plenty of others have the same opinion.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Jun 2, 2017)

PabloMK7 said:


> The problem is that if it is real, you'll get convinced once it's to late



I believe in climax change. It's just I'm not convinced how much damage we have done or if there is anything we can do about it.


----------



## DinohScene (Jun 2, 2017)

Climate change?
What climate change?

You silly earthlings and your "climate change"

Come to Venus, always a nice 462c.


----------



## RevPokemon (Jun 2, 2017)

I fully agree with the current scientific consensus regarding climate change but I am against actions to legally limit emissions since I do not like the idea of the government stepping in...


----------



## rileysrjay (Jun 2, 2017)

CallmeBerto said:


> I believe in climax change. It's just I'm not convinced how much damage we have done or if there is anything we can do about it.


Is the new option good? Or should I should I say it's being caused more by natural causes than humans?


----------



## Ryccardo (Jun 2, 2017)

rileysrjay said:


> the fact that science really doesn't always follow 100% proven facts, but instead use something like evolution which arguably is nothing more than a religion.


Science is, by definition, never 100% sure and any theory may be trumped by a newer one: a great example is Newton's dynamics (ie "if it moves at a steady 10 meters per second, it will have moved 20 meters after 2 seconds") which are still sufficiently accurate for most people's interest in physics, but become extremely inaccurate at near-light-speed speeds;
still good (and faster to calculate!) for your bike, car, or jet; but they fell from "almost universally considered accurate" to "approximation of a subset of cases these new laws apply to" in less than 10 years, iirc


----------



## CallmeBerto (Jun 2, 2017)

rileysrjay said:


> Is the new option good? Or should I should I say it's being caused more by natural causes than humans?



I think it should say  "Yes climax change is a real thing however I'm skeptical on how much us humans have had an affect on it and how much we really can do about it."


----------



## erman1337 (Jun 2, 2017)

I'm not going to live that long, so I don't really care about the effects

Also the members of the Paris deal aren't forced to do changes really


----------



## CallmeBerto (Jun 2, 2017)

erman1337 said:


> I'm not going to live that long, so I don't really care about the effects



Ha! don't care about your children? the human race in general?


----------



## theoldbucwild (Jun 2, 2017)

Why, I do think it exists, it is heavily exaggerated. I also want to know, how much have humans been involved? The world has been around for like 8 billion years, and we started emitting these gases in the early 17th Century


----------



## sarkwalvein (Jun 2, 2017)

_*Yes, climate change is real and caused by humans, but I don't feel entitled to say what USA should do about it.*_

I don't see this option!


----------



## erman1337 (Jun 2, 2017)

CallmeBerto said:


> Ha! don't care about your children? the human race in general?


I won't adopt children


----------



## DKB (Jun 2, 2017)

Just like evolution, if you don't believe in climate change, something is wrong with you.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Jun 2, 2017)

DKB said:


> Just like evolution, if you don't believe in climate change, something is wrong with you.



How much was caused by us? How much was natural? We already know that the earth has gone through a few changes since it came into being.


----------



## theoldbucwild (Jun 2, 2017)

To look at this at sadistic view point, I won't be alive to see anything terrible happen


----------



## Xzi (Jun 2, 2017)

The agreement is non-binding and countries set their own benchmarks.  Withdrawing from the deal once again shows that Trump has no ability to negotiate and no creativity.  It's always, "Obama did it, so it must be bad.  Hurr durr."  A pet rock literally would've made a better president.


----------



## Hanafuda (Jun 2, 2017)

I would add another option. I come in closest to this:

"Yes, climate change is real, but humans aren't the ones causing it"

But humans may be causing it, or causing some of it. I think cow farts are as big as fossil fuels. I think overpopulation is bigger than anything else, but we don't hear about that anymore. And while I have seen evidence that there has been a warming trend, I haven't seen convincing evidence that isolates humanity as the only cause. The earth has seen millions of warming and cooling trends through its history.

As for this Paris accord business (and the Copenhagen and Kyoto deals before that), the real aim of those people is getting a toe in the door to global government. No thanks. The UN is already bad and corrupt enough.


----------



## rileysrjay (Jun 2, 2017)

CallmeBerto said:


> I think it should say  "Yes climax change is a real thing however I'm skeptical on how much us humans have had an affect on it and how much we really can do about it."





sarkwalvein said:


> _*Yes, climate change is real and caused by humans, but I don't feel entitled to say what USA should do about it.*_
> 
> I don't see this option!


Added both. Had to shorten though a bit because of the character limit but I think they get the point across


----------



## sarkwalvein (Jun 2, 2017)

Hanafuda said:


> I would add another option. I come in closest to this:
> 
> "Yes, climate change is real, but humans aren't the ones causing it"
> 
> ...


Cow farts play an important role, but the overpopulation of cows and the elevated levels of farting are a byproduct of the dairy industry and a consequence of our actions.


----------



## rileysrjay (Jun 2, 2017)

Xzi said:


> The agreement is non-binding and countries set their own benchmarks.  Withdrawing from the deal once again shows that Trump has no ability to negotiate and no creativity.  It's always, "Obama did it, so it must be bad.  Hurr durr."  A pet rock literally would've made a better president.


Speaking of rocks, we already know Dwayne "the rock" Johnson is gonna win 2020


----------



## CallmeBerto (Jun 2, 2017)

rileysrjay said:


> Speaking of rocks, we already know Dwayne "the rock" Johnson is gonna win 2020



Don't remind me >.< god the american people are F* idiots.


----------



## rileysrjay (Jun 2, 2017)

CallmeBerto said:


> Don't remind me >.< god the american people are F* idiots.


At least Trump had some credentials, like being a businessman (although he really hasn't shown that while being president). The rock, has, um, the new Baywatch movie?


----------



## sarkwalvein (Jun 2, 2017)

If Reagan pulled it, the Rock also can! /s


----------



## Xzi (Jun 2, 2017)

rileysrjay said:


> At least Trump had some credentials, like being a businessman (although he really hasn't shown that while being president). The rock, has, um, the new Baywatch movie?


OTOH the Rock at least had to earn his fame and fortune.  Trump was born into wealth, that's the entirety of his credentials.  That alone shouldn't even get you a job at McDonald's.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Jun 2, 2017)

Xzi said:


> OTOH the Rock at least had to earn his fame and fortune.  Trump was born into wealth, that's the entirety of his credentials.  That alone shouldn't even get you a job at McDonald's.


How not?
Daddy trump would buy an McD store and give him the job.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Jun 2, 2017)

rileysrjay said:


> At least Trump had some credentials, like being a businessman (although he really hasn't shown that while being president). The rock, has, um, the new Baywatch movie?



To be fair he kicked ass in his wrestling career and is the one of the most paid movie actors. The man is an amazing worker and they are already preparing him for him running.


----------



## Hanafuda (Jun 2, 2017)

sarkwalvein said:


> Cow farts play an important factor, but the overpopulation of cows and the elevated levels of farting are a byproduct of the dairy industry and a consequence of or actions.



Yeah, I wasn't implying that cow fart methane was the cows' fault. Humans created that industry, we're responsible for it.

If the earth is experiencing a warming trend that is NOT just the natural cycle of how the climate works (it was warmer than this in early medieval times, much colder than this during the 'little ice age', so is it surprising or unusual that it is getting warm again now?) then the theory is that this warming has been caused by the growth in human population and what we've done to meet our needs through agriculture and industrialization. And if that is true, there is no way to stop it short of sterilizing about 5 billion humans to cut the population by 80% or more over the next 50 years. Non-binding treaties and feelgood bumper stickers won't do shit.


----------



## Aurora Wright (Jun 2, 2017)

http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/





/end thread


----------



## Xzi (Jun 2, 2017)

sarkwalvein said:


> How not?
> Daddy trump would buy an McD store and give him the job.


Oh, being born wealthy will get you just about anything (up to and including the presidency) in this country.  It's the only way to truly have freedom.  That's the way things are, I'm just saying it's not the way things should be.  Praying at the altar of trickle-down economics should've stopped long ago.  Instead we're moving further into haves and have-nots territory.


----------



## DiscostewSM (Jun 2, 2017)

By comparison, how much have humans contributed vs...a single volcano?


----------



## Sliter (Jun 2, 2017)

most of people that don't believe don't even lived with a little bit of nature in life? even little changes does a big effect
When I was little there was like a half square with only trees and stuff, like a building sit, not a park, and near it, houses with not much than a single tree in front or a small one, me and some friends went there to play , at light guys want there do use drugs lol, anyway, there was fresh, had a nice wind that passed by there ...
One time it was all cut down  and was let there like 5 year without building something there, I can tell the obvious that the freshness was lost and that place because hotter and dryer than before... if this happens in an small area with few trees, when they do in places that there a lots and lots what do you think gonna happen? people starting burn a lot of stuff from a time to other don't cause any problem? come on guys :B


----------



## Xzi (Jun 2, 2017)

DiscostewSM said:


> By comparison, how much have humans contributed vs...a single volcano?


One big corporate cow farm is probably the equivalent of an erupting volcano every day.  The problem is the consistency with which people (and manmade products) spew emissions, not just the total amount.


----------



## rileysrjay (Jun 2, 2017)

Hanafuda said:


> I would add another option. I come in closest to this:
> 
> "Yes, climate change is real, but humans aren't the ones causing it"
> 
> ...


So I guess I could add "yes, climate change is real, but humans are indirectly causing it via farming and other industries"


----------



## Hanafuda (Jun 2, 2017)

rileysrjay said:


> So I guess I could add "yes, climate change is real, but humans are indirectly causing it via farming and other industries"



No, what I was suggesting would be "yes, climate change is real, but whether humans are causing it is uncertain"

But your changes have it covered.


----------



## Paccc (Jun 2, 2017)

DiscostewSM said:


> By comparison, how much have humans contributed vs...a single volcano?



Eh, a super volcano would greatly lower the global temperature.
The deccan traps lowered temps by 2 degrees https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deccan_Traps
that would not even be enough to wand off global warming, yet the event is widely known for triggering a mass extinction...


----------



## Aurora Wright (Jun 2, 2017)

Hanafuda said:


> I would add another option. I come in closest to this:
> 
> "Yes, climate change is real, but humans aren't the ones causing it"
> 
> ...


https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/
All the evidence you need


----------



## Deleted User (Jun 2, 2017)

*Yes climax change is real however I'm skeptical on how much us humans have had an affect on it*

I think it's partly exaggerated how much humans are being cause this climate change but it is definitely a thing, maybe a natural process as well as human activity adding onto it? ^^

But it is definitely not bullshit that it exist.


----------



## Viri (Jun 2, 2017)

Yes, I believe climate change is real and it has happened before. I'm iffy on human involvement.

As for the Paris agreement, the US leaving it isn't the end of the world. The world won't blow up due to US not signing it. Green energy will go down in price, solar will become dirt cheap(hopefully), people will adapt, no need for a treaty. Also, Obama should have went through congress before signing such a treaty.


----------



## The Real Jdbye (Jun 2, 2017)

CallmeBerto said:


> I didn't vote as neither of your options really apply to me. I'm in the middle yes climax change is a real thing however I'm skeptical on how much us humans have had an affect on it and how much we really can do about it. Sure scientist say a lot of things but they can also be wrong and I'm not convinced of the evidence provided.


This is pretty much how I feel as well. I think there's enough evidence of global warming that it would be ignorant to deny its existance, it's like saying vaccines cause autism even though there's absolutely no evidence of that and it doesn't make any sense, just something ignorant people tell themselves.


----------



## Glyptofane (Jun 2, 2017)

Even if climate change is real, the Paris Climate Accord is a scam focused on wealth redistribution and deindustrialization of the West.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 2, 2017)

clownb said:


> Even if climate change is real, the Paris Climate Accord is a scam focused on wealth redistribution and deindustrialization of the West.


The effect of exiting the Paris accord is exactly as you stated.  Wealth redistribution to the top, suppression of green energy efforts/training in the US.  Exxon Mobil is secretary of state now, after all.  Corruption with this administration is plain as day, they aren't smart enough for obfuscation.

The accord itself is, again, non-binding and each country sets their own standards.  Exiting makes the US look too stupid to lead or follow in the world.


----------



## Ryccardo (Jun 2, 2017)

CallmeBerto said:


> Ha! don't care about your children? the human race in general?


Oh, the single species that (to the best of our knowledge) has had the strongest environmental impact on the planet, and is also unable to allocate reasonable amounts of resources to their 7 billion specimens?


----------



## grossaffe (Jun 2, 2017)

hehe, 'climax'.


----------



## rileysrjay (Jun 2, 2017)

grossaffe said:


> hehe, 'climax'.


Uggh, where's the facepalm emote when I need it?


----------



## CallmeBerto (Jun 2, 2017)

Xzi said:


> The agreement is non-binding and countries set their own benchmarks.  Withdrawing from the deal once again shows that Trump has no ability to negotiate and no creativity.  It's always, "Obama did it, so it must be bad.  Hurr durr."  A pet rock literally would've made a better president.



It was Obama's fault this time. He was the one who went in a "signed" this bs non binding agreement. It was a joke from the get go.


----------



## yusuo (Jun 2, 2017)

What I think, hah, Donald trump is a corporate tool who is only interested in increasing profits for those fortunate enough to be in his presence.

He's an idiot at best and the worst thing is the people voted for this idiot. He is the definition of corporate greed and his sole purpose is to allow other to suckle from his teet.

I can't believe how people honesty thought he would put the public above corporations. His staff is constanly on damage control.

God help us all


----------



## Deleted User (Jun 3, 2017)

I'm just gonna bet $20 that this tread will be closed by the end of next week.

I know that climate change is real. However, I don't care what President Trump says I will support him. Whether or not I voted has no effect on this decision, but the fact the we as a country elected him. People need to stop acting like they are more important than the country as a whole. If everybody made an argument against trump or for trump and we had a civil war, other super powers would take away our country.

If everybody were to act together, we could actually get shit done.

Climate Change is real. It is a part of nature. Do you think that animals caused the warming of the globe to end the Ice Age? No. It is just natural course of events

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



yusuo said:


> What I think, hah, Donald trump is a corporate tool who is only interested in increasing profits for those fortunate enough to be in his presence.
> 
> He's an idiot at best and the worst thing is the people voted for this idiot. He is the definition of corporate greed and his sole purpose is to allow other to suckle from his teet.
> 
> ...


Did you like Ronald Reagan? Trump has the same policies as Reagan, but he made his business. He has to be more stern. He will run the country like a business, as a business, until he realizes that he can't. Then he will buck up and be a better president. Nobody gives him a chance.

EDIT: I forgot to post on-topic! I really don't care what the U.S. did on the stance. We aren't the only country in the world not signing it. I'm actually glad they didn't because it means more money going towards reducing these Trillions of dollars of debt. Although it won't be much, it's something


----------



## rileysrjay (Jun 3, 2017)

blujay said:


> I'm just gonna bet $20 that this tread will be closed by the end of next week.
> 
> I know that climate change is real. However, I don't care what President Trump says I will support him. Whether or not I voted has no effect on this decision, but the fact the we as a country elected him. People need to stop acting like they are more important than the country as a whole. If everybody made an argument against trump or for trump and we had a civil war, other super powers would take away our country.
> 
> ...


Gotta agree with you, especially with the whole "not my president" bullshit going on. It's just a bunch of salty people (mostly liberals) who are upset that Hillary or Bernie or whoever their candidate was didn't win. They need to get over themselves, grow up, and face reality. I didn't see people this upset when Obama got in office both times.


----------



## GhostLatte (Jun 3, 2017)

blujay said:


> Did you like Ronald Reagan? Trump has the same policies as Reagan, but he made his business. He has to be more stern. He will run the country like a business, as a business, until he realizes that he can't. Then he will buck up and be a better president. Nobody gives him a chance.


I think he was given too many chances as nuclear warfare is almost imminent.


----------



## Deleted User (Jun 3, 2017)

rileysrjay said:


> Gotta agree with you, especially with the whole "not my president" bullshit going on. It's just a bunch of salty people (mostly liberals) who are upset that Hillary or Bernie or whoever their candidate was didn't win. They need to get over themselves, grow up, and face reality. I didn't see people this upset when Obama got in office both times.


This is my favorite: http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/...er-we-need-you-hillary-sue-the-us-sot-ctn.cnn


GhostLatte said:


> I think he was given too many chances as nuclear warfare is almost imminent.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brinkmanship_(Cold_War)

I believe we were in the same boat in the 50's. People are just pissed because a white male actually won something for once. That is for another rant altogether. Have fun guys.


----------



## bi388 (Jun 3, 2017)

blujay said:


> I'm just gonna bet $20 that this tread will be closed by the end of next week.
> 
> I know that climate change is real. However, I don't care what President Trump says I will support him. Whether or not I voted has no effect on this decision, but the fact the we as a country elected him. People need to stop acting like they are more important than the country as a whole. If everybody made an argument against trump or for trump and we had a civil war, other super powers would take away our country.
> 
> ...


Just because we elected someone doesn't mean we need to support him, especially when he is a national embarasment. Yes, he is my president. But a country shouldn't blindly follow it's president just because they were elected. And before anyone says it no I didn't say "Obama's your president follow what he says" before, and I didn't vote for Hillary or Bernie in the general. Blind loyalty to a nations leadership just because they won an election is dangerous, and the fact that he is clearly mistaken here means he SHOULD be spoken up against to show him the people disagree with his assessment. And no I don't like Reagan lol.


----------



## Depravo (Jun 3, 2017)

blujay said:


> I'm just gonna bet $20 that this tread will be closed by the end of next week.


That will depend entirely on the conduct of the people commenting in this thread.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jun 3, 2017)

Thank god, I expecting at least 40 votes saying it was bullshit. Good to know that not that many people are so stupid as to think it's bullshit.


----------



## Deleted User (Jun 3, 2017)

bi388 said:


> Just because we elected someone doesn't mean we need to support him, especially when he is a national embarasment. Yes, he is my president. But a country shouldn't blindly follow it's president just because they were elected. And before anyone says it no I didn't say "Obama's your president follow what he says" before, and I didn't vote for Hillary or Bernie in the general. Blind loyalty to a nations leadership just because they won an election is dangerous, and the fact that he is clearly mistaken here means he SHOULD be spoken up against to show him the people disagree with his assessment. And no I don't like Reagan lol.


mmm. unwatching a thread just to get quoted. my favorite.

Anyways. You have some valid points. We shouldn't follow them blindly, but we also shouldn't have a Social Media civil war or anything of the sorts that can lead to a divided country. If we could stay united, without all of the hatred (and it is easier to share hatred more than love), we could possible live a better life with better decisions.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jun 3, 2017)

Depravo said:


> That will depend entirely on the conduct of the people commenting in this thread.


Which as we all know usually goes to shit after the 100th post.


----------



## gnmmarechal (Jun 3, 2017)

I'd go with "humans didn't cause it, but they are making it happen faster".


----------



## rileysrjay (Jun 3, 2017)

blujay said:


> This is my favorite: http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/...er-we-need-you-hillary-sue-the-us-sot-ctn.cnn


Lol, ever heard of the electoral college? Also gotta love the guy in the anonymous mask eavesdropping in the background.


----------



## bi388 (Jun 3, 2017)

blujay said:


> mmm. unwatching a thread just to get quoted. my favorite.
> 
> Anyways. You have some valid points. We shouldn't follow them blindly, but we also shouldn't have a Social Media civil war or anything of the sorts that can lead to a divided country. If we could stay united, without all of the hatred (and it is easier to share hatred more than love), we could possible live a better life with better decisions.


I tend to use very little social media besides reddit and gbatemp so I guess I miss post of the hatred and drama but of course it's better to reason things out than blindly attack. I think Trump was mistaken, and people should have cival campaigns with no violence or law breaking to show him people disagree with him.


----------



## Deleted User (Jun 3, 2017)

bi388 said:


> I tend to use very little social media besides reddit and gbatemp so I guess I miss post of the hatred and drama but of course it's better to reason things out than blindly attack. I think Trump was mistaken, and people should have cival campaigns with no violence or law breaking to show him people disagree with him.


Civil Campaigns are one thing.

But certain things are not acceptable. I will not list them here because I am done. I swear if anyone quotes this post I'm done.


----------



## Mansize (Jun 3, 2017)

Don't think we can have that much of an influence, as much as we'd like to think we are that powerful. I do think we should cut down on the emissions and fuel usage, and that nature is severly damaged by what we do. 

This being said, here are some reconstructions from the Grid2 ice core; which reveals that climate change looks only troublesome depending on what time frame you look at;


420,000 years up until now; "It's not that bad"







Looking back "only" 49,000 years; "It's been bad for like 10,000 years yes"






Looking back 11,000 years; "It's been quite steady for a while now"





Looking back 8,000 years; "We are in the clear what is all fuss about kthnx"





Looking back some 3,000 years; "I thought the middle ages were hot, but damn, before Christ!" 






Looking back some 1,200 years; "I wish it was good weather like in the middle ages"






Looking only 600 years back; "We're gonna die"


----------



## Nightwish (Jun 3, 2017)

Yeah, some of the attacks are undemocratic (but parody is parody and no one is immune), but you can't fault the media for constantly calling him out on his idiocy and ignorance, that's their job, it's not their fault the POTUS and hs staff is completely unfit for the job.

On topic, yes, human caused global warming is real and we're fucked*, because humans are still too stupid to fight for their own interests (including survival). However, Trump's decision isn't that relevant, since renewables are making surprising technological progress and coal ain't coming back.

By fucked I don't mean we're all gonna die, society will collapse, and dogs and cats are going to rule the world together, it's just that we're going to have to deal with massive migration, change where we grow food, deal with frequent extreme weather, build a lot of seawalls and other destructive, disruptive and costly things.


----------



## Mansize (Jun 3, 2017)

Growing food needs a lot of CO2. Actually, the more CO2, the more crops you can grow; why hasn't somebody taken advantage of this fact yet.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 3, 2017)

CallmeBerto said:


> It was Obama's fault this time. He was the one who went in a "signed" this bs non binding agreement. It was a joke from the get go.


Yeah, it was a joke.  That's why everybody signed it except the US, Syria, and Nicaragua.  Hell, Nicaragua didn't sign because it didn't go far enough.  At least that's a good reason.  For Trump, it's because he can't be an adult for five seconds, so he got sent to the kid's table by the rest of the world leaders and now he's being a pouty bitch.  The reality is all it does is diminish the US's presence on the world stage.  Naturally Trump is too short-sighted to give a damn.


----------



## Nightwish (Jun 3, 2017)

Mansize said:


> Growing food needs a lot of CO2. Actually, the more CO2, the more crops you can grow; why hasn't somebody taken advantage of this fact yet.


Because we all like meat too much, production of which produces CO2 and methane.

EDIT: fixed


----------



## Deleted User (Jun 3, 2017)

Nightwish said:


> Because we all like meat too much, which produces CO2 and methane.


I can't even take this post seriously.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Jun 3, 2017)

Nightwish said:


> Because we all like meat too much, which produces CO2 and methane.


While this is true, the worse offenders would be milk, cheese, and the rest of the dairy.
You should need to keep them cows farting longer to keep producing these.


----------



## fedehda (Jun 3, 2017)

Mansize said:


> Growing food needs a lot of CO2. Actually, the more CO2, the more crops you can grow; why hasn't somebody taken advantage of this fact yet.


Thanks for the advice, dude!


----------



## Joe88 (Jun 3, 2017)

Xzi said:


> OTOH the Rock at least had to earn his fame and fortune.  Trump was born into wealth, that's the entirety of his credentials.  That alone shouldn't even get you a job at McDonald's.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 3, 2017)

Joe88 said:


> snip


His dad kept giving him several loans and bailing out his failed business ventures one after the other.  At some point he had so many failures that US banks wouldn't even lend to him any more, which is where the Russians came in.  Daddy's lawyers and financial advisors kept him from losing everything.

Also, that comic uses the "small loan of a million dollars" quote without a hint of irony.  Cringe.  Kinda proves my whole point about being born into wealth.


----------



## queendude (Jun 3, 2017)

To everyone: Watch "Inconvenient Truth". Just for 15 minutes. It will open your eyes.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Jun 3, 2017)

I don't love the idea of limits on businesses, but this is one area where it's literally do or die.


----------



## Deleted User (Jun 3, 2017)

queendude said:


> To everyone: Watch "Inconvenient Truth". Just for 15 minutes. It will open your eyes.





I don't have this kind of money! Are you insane? /s


----------



## hobbledehoy899 (Jun 3, 2017)

DKB said:


> Just like evolution, if you don't believe in climate change, something is wrong with you.


Says the guy who watches "hentai of ponies."


----------



## DrkBeam (Jun 3, 2017)

People thinking it is a believe like religion, lol,  there is a global warming over the years and temperatures have become more extreme, it's a proved thing humans are accelerating the process, so it shouldn't been a significant thing if humans weren't on earth since the beginning, really informative the comment of AuroraWright, it explains the difference between uninformed people. I have faith in the humanity, it will be a long term solution adopted by people after some hundred of years, the humanity life expectation has been increased over the years, we create more benefits than misery in general, of course there will be death by the climate change, the question is how many


----------



## Deleted User (Jun 3, 2017)

pshh. it's all bullshit. we'll just move to mars


----------



## bi388 (Jun 3, 2017)

Fun fact, one of the recent United Nations studies from the past few years (too lazy to find it lol) says that unless the world cuts it's meat by 75% by 2050 the world won't be able to recover environmentally

Edit: it's the unep Oct 2012


----------



## DKB (Jun 3, 2017)

bi388 said:


> Fun fact, one of the recent United Nations studies from the past few years (too lazy to find it lol) says that unless the world cuts it's meat by 75% by 2050 the world won't be able to recover environmentally
> 
> Edit: it's the unep Oct 2012



It won't be able to recovery environmentally for humanity's standards. But, we're humans. For god sakes, remember we live on a rock that was hit by flaming balls of fire thrown at it at speeds higher than anything else on this planet ever billions of years ago forged from fucking stars.

I assume by that chart it means it won't recover in time for humans to still be alive, otherwise, the planet will. Plastic ain't destorying the planet anytime soon.


----------



## qqq1 (Jun 3, 2017)

I certainly believe things are changing. The problem I have is I see rich people telling me how much I need to change while they fly around in private jets and hang out in multiple mansions. A small sacrifice in these people's life styles will make more change than most of us regular people could do.


----------



## RustInPeace (Jun 3, 2017)

Of course it's real, and I do think the human race has contributed to it. To what extent I don't know, but there's an influence for sure. There used to be a time where Winters were consistently cold and had lots of snow, I remember 2003 having almost a foot of snow in these parts (Pennsylvania), and since around 2006, it just went all inconsistent with warmer Winters, rainy ones, and sometimes classic snow heavy ones. I always look at that as an indication of Global Warming. Meanwhile Spring and Summer stay being hot, hotter than usual at times, but this Spring there were some unusually cool days, which I appreciated. That's been gone though, it's building up to another hot Summer.


----------



## queendude (Jun 3, 2017)

blujay said:


> View attachment 88827
> I don't have this kind of money! Are you insane? /s


Stream it dude, it's an awesome movie. You'll clearly see what we've really done to this earth.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Jun 3, 2017)

queendude said:


> Stream it dude, it's an awesome movie. Youll see what've done to this earth.



That movie is nothing more then propaganda nonsense.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Jun 3, 2017)

The fact that the first option is the popular one shows the problem... And no... It's not the US pulling out of this pact that was primarily funded by the US.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 3, 2017)

CallmeBerto said:


> That movie is nothing more then propaganda nonsense.


It's like a 98% scientific consensus on this.  It exists whether you believe in it or not, just like gravity.


----------



## queendude (Jun 3, 2017)

CallmeBerto said:


> That movie is nothing more then propaganda nonsense.


Hopefully you live in Florida, and once it will happen, it will be too late.
People like you who can't accept the truth are lost.

"Jobs, Jobs, Jobs" are not everything, Trump. Money either.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 3, 2017)

Memoir said:


> The fact that the first option is the popular one shows the problem... And no... It's not the US pulling out of this pact that was primarily funded by the US.


We are pulling out of it on a federal level.  Thankfully there are a whole lot of US governors and mayors willing to commit regardless of the white house's opinion.  I'm sure we'll see a lot more channels of communication between foreign governments and state governments that bypass our joke of a president going forward.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Jun 3, 2017)

queendude said:


> Hopefully you live in Florida, and once it will happen, it will be too late.
> People like you who can't accept the truth are lost.
> 
> "Jobs, Jobs, Jobs" are not everything, Trump. Money either.



Al Gore, DiCaprio these big climax change spokesman who say we are all going to die if we don't do X kept getting in their big fancy jets and and burning how much fuel? I don't take these people seriously nobody should.


----------



## Viri (Jun 3, 2017)

At least we have people like Elon Musk flying on his private jet all over the place and even flew to Washington to leave Trump's adviser circle. How green!

Don't get me started how green Leonardo Dicaprio is, while using his private jet to once pick up his hat, and renting out yachts for parties, while telling me to lower my carbon foot print.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Jun 3, 2017)

Xzi said:


> It's like a 98% scientific consensus on this.  It exists whether you believe in it or not, just like gravity.



Again my issues is not if it exist or not more so how much we have contribute to it and if we can even do anything to stop it. This plan was a joke and would have done nothing but made use weaker.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 3, 2017)

CallmeBerto said:


> Again my issues is not if it exist or not more so how much we have contribute to it and if we can even do anything to stop it. This plan was a joke and would have done nothing but made use weaker.


We've made ourselves weaker on the world stage by not signing on.  The funny thing is that smart business leaders and local politicians are completely bypassing Trump on this anyway and making their own commitments.  Not only because it's better for the climate going forward, but because embracing green energy is better for profits as well.  Only the white house is too retarded and short-sighted to see that.


----------



## Deleted User (Jun 3, 2017)

queendude said:


> Hopefully you live in Florida, and once it will happen, it will be too late.
> People like you who can't accept the truth are lost.
> 
> "Jobs, Jobs, Jobs" are not everything, Trump. Money either.


Alright, apparently responding to a thread once you unwatch it rewatches it so I guess I'm in for good this time.

While I agree that things like this are true, I don't think we did everything.

Also, while Jobs and Money aren't everything:




While during Trump's administration this won't be wiped,

*IT IS STILL VERY IMPORTANT
*
If we were to divide our debt among which nations, the most would go to China.

If we don't pay off this debt, bad things will happen. Very, very bad things.

We are almost at a whopping $20 trillion in debt. That is more than the 3 countries right behind us *combined*. The US is struggling. Whether we believe it or not, or first priority should be fixing the economy. If this means acknowledging Climate change and putting more money towards it so be it. But it doesn't. It means creating new jobs and many more things.


----------



## queendude (Jun 3, 2017)

Viri said:


> At least we have people like Elon Musk flying on his private jet all over the place and even flew to Washington to leave Trump's adviser circle. How green!
> 
> Don't get me started how green Leonardo Dicaprio is, while using his private jet to once pick up his hat, and renting out yachts for parties, while telling me to lower my carbon foot print.





CallmeBerto said:


> Al Gore, DiCaprio these big climax change spokesman who say we are all going to die if we don't do X kept getting in their big fancy jets and and burning how much fuel? I don't take these people seriously nobody should.


This doesn't mean that global warming isn't happening. It's happening. And we have to take it seriously. 
Remember Stephen Hawking? He gave us 1000 years to search a new planet.... recently he changed his mind - he gave us 100 years before we're going to die if we don't take action immediately. 
The rapidly growing human population is a difficult challenge to the humanity. More than 10 billion people will be a total disaster.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 3, 2017)

blujay said:


> We are almost at a whopping $20 trillion in debt. That is more than the 3 countries right behind us *combined*. The US is struggling. Whether we believe it or not, or first priority should be fixing the economy. If this means acknowledging Climate change and putting more money towards it so be it. But it doesn't. It means creating new jobs and many more things.


What are you talking about?  Green energy creates jobs.  Or did you think coal mining was the wave of the future?


----------



## CallmeBerto (Jun 3, 2017)

queendude said:


> This doesn't mean that global warming isn't happening. It's happening. And we have to take it seriously.
> 
> Remember Stephen Hawking? He gave us 1000 years to search a new planet.... recently he changed his mind - he gave us 100 years before we're going to die if we don't take action immediately.
> The rapidly growing human population is a difficult challenge to the humanity. More than 10 billion people will be a total disaster.



Exaggeration the planet isn't going anywhere unless we nuke it to hell and back.

fear mongering...the human population in the west and japan has been declining while people in these 3rd world shitholes keep increasing...might want to speak to them and tell them to stop breeding.


----------



## Deleted User (Jun 3, 2017)

Xzi said:


> We've made ourselves weaker on the world stage by not signing on.  The funny thing is that smart business leaders and local politicians are completely bypassing Trump on this anyway and making their own commitments.  Not only because it's better for the climate going forward, but because embracing green energy is better for profits as well.  Only the white house is too retarded and short-sighted to see that.


Alright wise guy.
I've had plenty enough of your shit.

How about you get off of all of your electronics, move out of your house/apartment, get rid of your car and all of your luxuries, and then, go full green. Live homeless and do everything in your power to create a better world.

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." - Margaret Mead

But the problem is, nobody is willing to do that. If the whole country had that motivation, we would change the world. But we don't. We like sitting in front of our computers ranting about politics. Ranting about how we are right and the other is wrong. Well, maybe if you're so dedicated to getting Trump  out of the White House, you'll assassinate him. Oh wait, nobody will go that far for the good of the country. Oh well, I guess nobody is willing to do anything so I'll rant about it even though I won't either.

Get over yourself sunshine and learn how to be a constructive member of society.

(yes I know, this post contains large amounts of sarcasm and hypocrisy. I am guilty of a lot of it myself, but I am not whining like a little bitch about it)


----------



## CallmeBerto (Jun 3, 2017)

Xzi said:


> We've made ourselves weaker on the world stage by not signing on.  The funny thing is that smart business leaders and local politicians are completely bypassing Trump on this anyway and making their own commitments.  Not only because it's better for the climate going forward, but because embracing green energy is better for profits as well.  Only the white house is too retarded and short-sighted to see that.



We really haven't the US are the big boys in town (sound as pretentious as hell but it's true.) We will ALWAYS have a seat at the table unless out economy goes to shit. 

However I do agree with your second part we should go green not to save the planet or whatever the hell but more because that is the way the world is moving (jobs)


----------



## Xzi (Jun 3, 2017)

blujay said:


> Alright wise guy.
> I've had plenty enough of your shit.
> 
> How about you get off of all of your electronics, move out of your house/apartment, get rid of your car and all of your luxuries, and then, go full green. Live homeless and do everything in your power to create a better world.
> ...


When did I ever advocate for giving up all your electronics or any of that nonsense?  Climate change is a collective problem that requires a collective solution.  It only takes a bit of extra effort for the individual (such as recycling and using LED bulbs).  We have the technology to begin addressing the issue on a large scale right now, and we simply choose not to because of the inbred morons we've elected as leaders.  Very frustrating.



CallmeBerto said:


> We really haven't the US are the big boys in town (sound as pretentious as hell but it's true.) We will ALWAYS have a seat at the table unless out economy goes to shit.


Whether the US can regain any semblance of credibility or dignity after Trump is a different matter, but world leaders aren't going to keep humoring him and his mental illness.  I doubt he'll be invited on many more international visits, and the US will definitely be left out of a lot in the next few years.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Jun 3, 2017)

blujay said:


> Alright, apparently responding to a thread once you unwatch it rewatches it so I guess I'm in for good this time.
> 
> While I agree that things like this are true, I don't think we did everything.
> 
> ...



It's time for a shameless self-plug, I actually posted an explanation of the national debt here.

As far as your points go, I understand what you're saying, but I still feel inclined to respectfully disagree. It's always gonna be hard to find time to care for the planet, but we gotta start somewhere, and I do think everyone in the world has a responsibility to each other, regardless of whether some countries might completely ignore it.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



CallmeBerto said:


> We really haven't the US are the big boys in town (sound as pretentious as hell but it's true.) We will ALWAYS have a seat at the table unless out economy goes to shit.
> 
> However I do agree with your second part we should go green not to save the planet or whatever the hell but more because that is the way the world is moving (jobs)


Agreed. I do think going green will modernize our energy.


----------



## Joe88 (Jun 3, 2017)

Xzi said:


> We've made ourselves weaker on the world stage by not signing on.  The funny thing is that smart business leaders and local politicians are completely bypassing Trump on this anyway and making their own commitments.  Not only because it's better for the climate going forward, but because embracing green energy is better for profits as well.  Only the white house is too retarded and short-sighted to see that.


They can do whatever they want but the US govt still won't foot the bill for it, this is just one of the reasons obama almost doubled the US national debt in only 8 years.
This isnt about the science but the financial part, how it affects americans, the economy, and the job market and all were pretty much negative. The US currently has been reducing CO2 on its own without having to sign a piece of paper, treaty, ect... and their emissions will continue to go down. This isnt some end of the world, the world is finished, like its being touted in liberal trash media.


----------



## bi388 (Jun 3, 2017)

Joe88 said:


> They can do whatever they want but the US govt still won't foot the bill for it, this is just one of the reasons obama almost doubled the US national debt in only 8 years.
> This isnt about the science but the financial part, how it affects americans, the economy, and the job market and all were pretty much negative. The US currently has been reducing CO2 on its own without having to sign a piece of paper, treaty, ect... and their emissions will continue to go down. This isnt some end of the world, the world is finished, like its being touted in liberal trash media.


I'm not sure the U.N., who labels this the biggest threat to humanity, is the "liberal trash media", especially since many of the nation's with the greatest pull in the U.N. are conservative, like Germany. While the US citizens financial situation is certainly important, I'd like to worry about the future of the planet first and money afterwards.


----------



## The Catboy (Jun 3, 2017)

It takes a special kind of stupid to believe climate change isn't real


----------



## CitizenSnips (Jun 3, 2017)

Crystal the Glaceon said:


> It takes a special kind of stupid to believe climate change isn't real


Like the President? lol
edit, just realized the thread was about Trump, i'm tired lol


----------



## The Catboy (Jun 3, 2017)

CitizenSnips said:


> Like the President? lol





Crystal the Glaceon said:


> It takes a special kind of stupid to believe climate change isn't real


----------



## BGC592 (Jun 3, 2017)

Oh boy, a thread about climate change, this will totally be a completely civilised conversation with no shade/shit being thrown by anyone on any side of politics


----------



## Meteor7 (Jun 3, 2017)

Fucking what? Climate change isn't something you have the liberty to believe or disbelieve and still be considered a rationally thinking human being. This isn't some controversial new theory on the physics of a singularity or something like that; believing climate change isn't real is akin to saying "gravity is a hoax." The ludicrous thing is that you can measure temperature changes in a controlled environment depending on the amount and kinds of "greenhouse gasses" present _easily._ Not only that, but we know exactly why it happens, too. So what's the implication here, that it happens in a lab but stops happening if it's in the atmosphere? Like it's just all "fuck, it's cold up here; better stop absorbing/emitting infrared radiation!"

And let's go ahead and address the whole accusation of fabricated evidence to push an agenda. *clears throat* WHAT FUCKING AGENDA? Why would anyone want to stop using polluting products if they don't pollute? What, do you think everyone's fucking with you just for funsies? If there is no downside to creating and emitting greenhouse gasses, then there's no upside to tricking people into not using them. "But corruption is everywhere!", I hear you wheeze, "We see misinformation spread daily!" and yes; yes we do. Many, many industries around the globe are corrupt in more ways that one, and they often spread misinformation as a means to bolster their own profits. "So you admit it! We can't trust anything!" If you only deal with logic in the most reductive format, then yes, it certainly would seem that way to you, but the common thread influencing all of this, what I call "information toxicity", is money. Who gets money from not consuming pollutants? Nobody. In fact, the only people who stand to lose money are those who sell those polluting materials, like those in the oil industry. But, of course, the oil industry isn't nearly corrupt or powerful enough to start a smear campaign against the one thing that could harm their profit margin. I'm sure that, if climate change were real, they'd graciously step aside and shut down their companies for the good of the world, as we have seen happen so many times in the past.

Yeah, shade has been thrown, but sometimes being civil doesn't do any good. It certainly doesn't give me the catharsis this just did, for one.


----------



## invaderyoyo (Jun 3, 2017)

It's pretty scary that it's 2017 and there are still people in the US that don't believe in climate change or evolution. We really need to improve education.


----------



## BARNWEY (Jun 3, 2017)

How I feel when I see people that don't believe in climate change (and other obvious things):


----------



## RaMon90 (Jun 3, 2017)

Anyone from U.S here that voted Trump, what do you think?
Stupid move, hope about China is all true except for free trade thing agreement.


----------



## Viri (Jun 3, 2017)

queendude said:


> The rapidly growing human population is a difficult challenge to the humanity. More than 10 billion people will be a total disaster.


Yeah, I agree, we should stop feeding Africa, it's making things worse.


----------



## Deleted-355425 (Jun 3, 2017)

The planet will always do its own thing, fuck it.


----------



## StarTrekVoyager (Jun 3, 2017)

Anyone not "believeing" in climate change/global warming is a retard. Period. This isn't a theory or I don't know what, it's *a fact*. Exactly like Darwinism, and despite this we have conservative Christian retards trying to make American kids learn creationist bullshit.


----------



## Nightwish (Jun 3, 2017)

queendude said:


> To everyone: Watch "Inconvenient Truth". Just for 15 minutes. It will open your eyes.



That movie is about as helpful as Sarkesian's rants for feminism: negatively.



blujay said:


> We are almost at a whopping $20 trillion in debt. That is more than the 3 countries right behind us *combined*. The US is struggling.



I wish people learned some basic macroeconomics. The US is fine, the american debt is fine and, say, using some more of it to improve infrastructure would be a pretty good idea for the economy.


----------



## matthi321 (Jun 3, 2017)

thats bad news he pulled out, i hate if its getting hotter as my balls get all sweaty


----------



## StarTrekVoyager (Jun 3, 2017)

Oh, and actually, for those wondering if humans really caused it, here's a fact. Ordinary, Earth has been changing climate over and over by some degrees. But usually, it is a very long process, across tens of thousands of years. Here we have a change as big as these but only in less than 100 years.


----------



## Procyon (Jun 3, 2017)

I believe it's real, I believe humans have effect of it, but IDK how much. I still think it's a big issue tho, but we could stop it from happening with lots of effort


----------



## DCG (Jun 3, 2017)

Climate change is real, but I don't think humans are the main cause (we're affecting it, but not causing).
Also a friend of mine (don't agree with her on 99% of politics, would define her as a sort of SJW) gets furious if someone starts talking about global warming (she's doing a doctorate in earth science).


----------



## StarTrekVoyager (Jun 3, 2017)

DCG said:


> Climate change is real, but I don't think humans are the main cause (we're affecting it, but not causing).
> Also a friend of mine (don't agree with her on 99% of politics, would define her as a sort of SJW) gets furious if someone starts talking about global warming (she's doing a doctorate in earth science).


Humans are the main cause of it. Simulation w/o human causes have led to a stable to colder slimate than today's.


----------



## xBleedingSoulx (Jun 3, 2017)

Climate change is real but it's not caused by humans, what we are doing is increasing the speed that it's happening. I believe the only way we will ever slow it down significantly is by changing to wind or solar power globally. The Paris agreement was a good start but I don't think it was really enough to have any effect.


----------



## StarTrekVoyager (Jun 3, 2017)

xBleedingSoulx said:


> Climate change is real but it's not caused by humans, what we are doing is increasing the speed that it's happening. I believe the only way we will ever slow it down significantly is by changing to wind or solar power globally. The Paris agreement was a good start but I don't think it was really enough to have any effect.


Climate change in general always heppened. The current climate change is at 95% caused by human activity. Oh, and:


----------



## Lukerz (Jun 3, 2017)

Well you opened a can of worms. Why not start a thread on Gender, North Korea, #notmypresident, and how stupid religion is?


----------



## Hayleia (Jun 3, 2017)

Lukerz said:


> Well you opened a can of worms. Why not start a thread on Gender, North Korea, #notmypresident, and how stupid religion is?


But these topics are largely based on opinions (though some opinions are more funded than others). Here, it's just a fact. Next thread will be "who believes the earth is round?".


----------



## xBleedingSoulx (Jun 3, 2017)

StarTrekVoyager said:


> Climate change in general always heppened. The current climate change is at 95% caused by human activity.



I agree with that, it's what I was stating. I think you're getting confused by the word 'cause'. Saying humans caused climate change would mean climate change is 100% man made. What humans have done is caused it to happen significantly faster, by 1000s of years if not more.


----------



## StarTrekVoyager (Jun 3, 2017)

Also, a bit of humor.
https://xkcd.com/1732/


----------



## BGC592 (Jun 3, 2017)

Maybe Elon has the right idea on humanity going to Mars. Not cause of climate change or anything like that, but so he could get away from all the political shit flinging that's been happening recently. On that note, time to open up another can of worms with the statement "Lets move humans off planet to live elsewhere"


----------



## Flame (Jun 3, 2017)

people who deny Climate change needs to check they head with a hammer.


----------



## AmandaRose (Jun 3, 2017)

Climate change is real and I have witnessed it myself lol where I stay the summers used to be mega hot for about 4 to 5 months the last 10 years we have been lucky to get more than a weeks hot weather during the summer the other 51 weeks of the year it rains every day non stop where as previously it hardly ever rained.


----------



## Ev1l0rd (Jun 3, 2017)

I believe Climate Change to be a real thing. It's something I actually was able to witness. When I was around 4 years old (2004 for the curious), every winter would have snow/freezing. Not much snow, and most certainly not always thick enough ice for ice skating, but snow was almost always a thing. Fast forward about 6 years later. From 2010 to the present, whether there will be snow or not is not guaranteed, and the past few years barely had any snow.

Of course, since I live in the Netherlands, I don't really experience the effects that much as some others do, but I do believe it's a thing. In part because my geography teacher actually explained global warming and what causes it and that made sense to me (tldr: By digging oil/removing trees, we expose more CO2 in the air, causing the temperature to rise).

I'm fairly certain I will not be alive when things get really bad with global warming, but I do not feel that I can leave my possible offspring to a world in which it will become almost unlivable.


----------



## AmandaRose (Jun 3, 2017)

Ev1l0rd said:


> I believe Climate Change to be a real thing. It's something I actually was able to witness. When I was around 4 years old (2004 for the curious), every winter would have snow/freezing. Not much snow, and most certainly not always thick enough ice for ice skating, but snow was almost always a thing. Fast forward about 6 years later. From 2010 to the present, whether there will be snow or not is not guaranteed, and the past few years barely had any snow.
> 
> Of course, since I live in the Netherlands, I don't really experience the effects that much as some others do, but I do believe it's a thing. In part because my geography teacher actually explained global warming and what causes it and that made sense to me (tldr: By digging oil/removing trees, we expose more CO2 in the air, causing the temperature to rise).
> 
> I'm fairly certain I will not be alive when things get really bad with global warming, but I do not feel that I can leave my possible offspring to a world in which it will become almost unlivable.


Pretty much the same as what I posted just above you lol good to see someone else with a similar experience.


----------



## Procyon (Jun 3, 2017)

I believe it's here, and happens, but not that it's completely man caused.


----------



## Lukerz (Jun 3, 2017)

Hayleia said:


> But these topics are largely based on opinions (though some opinions are more funded than others). Here, it's just a fact. Next thread will be "who believes the earth is round?".


True. But there's always someone stupid enough to argue with facts. It just depends on what people think are facts. But wait that would make my first statement irrelevant.... How aboght this: Everyone has a opinion. And if they dont like other's opinions the get salty. Err... That's noit good ether. Shoot, reality is confusing.




StarTrekVoyager said:


> Humans are the main cause of it. Simulation w/o human causes have led to a stable to colder slimate than today's.


Simulation didn't equal reality.


----------



## leon315 (Jun 3, 2017)

HALT! STOP THIS USELESS ARGUMENTS, I have a solution:

Starting from today we all shall use electric cars, and vote YAY to nuclear "green" energy XD


----------



## StarTrekVoyager (Jun 3, 2017)

leon315 said:


> HALT! STOP THIS USELESS ARGUMENTS, I have a solution:
> 
> Starting from today we all shall use electric cars, and vote YAY to nuclear "green" energy XD


Youmay be joking, but using 100% electric cars is actually viable in a lot of "small" countries. In France people always use cars for 'travelling' 1 mile, so it's idiotic pollution. And abouit nuclear energy, I think our future is in nuclear fusion. No waste, no risks, and a tremendous amount of energy. But for now, within the 21th century, countries shall do the transition through green energies (hydro, solar, wind), abandon fossil fuels (coal/gas/oil) and reduce the part of fission nuclear, which despite being non-polluant, has downsides like limited Uranium resources and nuclear waste.


----------



## smf (Jun 3, 2017)

StarTrekVoyager said:


> In France people always use cars for 'travelling' 1 mile, so it's idiotic pollution. And abouit nuclear energy, I think our future is in nuclear fusion.



French people do not always just travel 1 mile. I'm sure some of them do, but that is the same everywhere. Electric cars move where the pollution is, they don't prevent pollution.

It's still unclear whether nuclear fusion is possible, unless we convert the planet into a sun. Which would have it's own drawbacks.


----------



## StarTrekVoyager (Jun 3, 2017)

smf said:


> French people do not always just travel 1 mile. I'm sure some of them do, but that is the same everywhere. Electric cars move where the pollution is, they don't prevent pollution.
> 
> It's still unclear whether nuclear fusion is possible, unless we convert the planet into a sun. Which would have it's own drawbacks.


Nuclear fusion is definitely possible. We only need to increase its efficacity ration. It has already been done, but with a short production and while spending more energy than they produce.


----------



## DKB (Jun 3, 2017)

Flame said:


> people who deny Climate change needs to check they head with a hammer.



I actually lol'd when seeing that. Instantly reminded me of this:


----------



## linuxares (Jun 3, 2017)

I believe all countries should do their duty and produce as little greenhouse gasses as possible, but I also think that earth itself is helping with this global warming. Humans have inpacted it, no doubt about it. But I got a feeling that we are just helping something that would have been a natrual phenomenon anyway. Since earth have always had it ups and downs.

However, I still think the US should stay in the Paris Agreement. It's just silly to think that coal should be used as fuel. No, at most the coal you should get are made from pinetrees and put in your grill.


----------



## Deleted-355425 (Jun 3, 2017)

linuxares said:


> I believe all countries should do their duty and produce as little greenhouse gasses as possible, but I also think that earth itself is helping with this global warming. Humans have inpacted it, no doubt about it. But I got a feeling that we are just helping something that would have been a natrual phenomenon anyway. Since earth have always had it ups and downs.
> 
> However, I still think the US should stay in the Paris Agreement. It's just silly to think that coal should be used as fuel. No, at most the coal you should get are made from pinetrees and put in your grill.



Talk to germany they have loads of coal power still.


----------



## linuxares (Jun 3, 2017)

mech said:


> Talk to germany they have loads of coal power still.


Yepp, they should stop using it as well. I mean all countries should work towards green energy.


----------



## Deleted-355425 (Jun 3, 2017)

Germany coal stations : https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01...-germanys-new-coal-boom-reaches-record-level/


----------



## leon315 (Jun 3, 2017)

StarTrekVoyager said:


> Youmay be joking, but using 100% electric cars is actually viable in a lot of "small" countries. In France people always use cars for 'travelling' 1 mile, so it's idiotic pollution. And abouit nuclear energy, I think our future is in nuclear fusion. No waste, no risks, and a tremendous amount of energy. But for now, within the 21th century, countries shall do the transition through green energies (hydro, solar, wind), abandon fossil fuels (coal/gas/oil) and reduce the part of fission nuclear, which despite being non-polluant, has downsides like limited Uranium resources and nuclear waste.


Man, seriously that's a utopia, it would happens only in a perfect... World


----------



## ItsMetaKnight (Jun 3, 2017)

Wrong question here.
It should be: "Do you *understand* climate change/global warming?"
It's not about believing. It's a scientific fact.


----------



## Mansize (Jun 3, 2017)

queendude said:


> To everyone: Watch "Inconvenient Truth". Just for 15 minutes. It will open your eyes.



That says the Netherlands should have been swallowed by the sea a few years back;
surprise, that didn't happen.



mech said:


> Talk to germany they have loads of coal power still.



That is because Germans generally detest nuclear power sources even more than coal. God knows why.


----------



## ItsMetaKnight (Jun 3, 2017)

Mansize said:


> That is because Germans generally detest nuclear power sources even more than coal. God knows why.


Ever heard of Chernobyl? Fukushima? So hard to see people hate these risks?
Also the disposal problem. Nuclear power comes with MUCH more waste and pollution than anything else.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 3, 2017)

ItsMetaKnight said:


> Wrong question here.
> It should be: "Do you *understand* climate change/global warming?"
> It's not about believing. It's a scientific fact.


+1

I'm confused as to why someone would believe climate change is a hoax... the data is there, Google is free


----------



## DeoNaught (Jun 3, 2017)

i believe Climate change is real, but not how it is portrayed.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 3, 2017)

DeoNaught said:


> i believe Climate change is real, but not how it is portrayed.


Explain?


----------



## DeoNaught (Jun 3, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Explain?


I believe that the climate is changing, 
but not only because of us. like honestly it has fluctuated through time, around the beginning it was a hotter climate, vikings it was colder, and so on. we aren't really to blame, but i am not saying that we should live like this.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 3, 2017)

DeoNaught said:


> I believe that the climate is changing,
> but not only because of us. like honestly it has fluctuated through time, around the beginning it was a hotter climate, vikings it was colder, and so on. we aren't really to blame, but i am not saying that we should live like this.


Well right, but there is documented evidence that increased carbon dioxide levels increase the average temperature, and ever since we've figured out "hey we can power stuff by burning things" the carbon dioxide levels have been rising


----------



## Mansize (Jun 3, 2017)

mech said:


> Talk to germany they have loads of coal power still.



That is because Germans detest nuclear power sources even more.


ItsMetaKnight said:


> Ever heard of Chernobyl? Fukushima? So hard to see people hate these risks?
> Also the disposal problem. Nuclear power comes with MUCH more waste and pollution than anything else.



Factor out design flaws and tsunamies here please? They dont have those in Germany. There are safe nuclear plants all over the world. The amount of waste and polution it causes is actually very small as compared to burning the coals.


----------



## grossaffe (Jun 3, 2017)

Mansize said:


> That is because Germans detest nuclear power sources even more.
> 
> 
> Factor out design flaws and tsunamies here please? They dont have those in Germany. There are safe nuclear plants all over the world. The amount of waste and polution it causes is actually very small as compared to burning the coals.


There are too many problems with nuclear power as-is for it to be a silver-bullet solution.  I'm interested to see what happens with research into Thorium-based nuclear power.


----------



## Mansize (Jun 3, 2017)

grossaffe said:


> There are too many problems with nuclear power as-is for it to be a silver-bullet solution.  I'm interested to see what happens with research into Thorium-based nuclear power.



The question is, are those problems bigger or smaller than the troublesome chart of coal plants shown earlier in this thread?


----------



## grossaffe (Jun 3, 2017)

Mansize said:


> The question is, are those problems bigger or smaller than the troublesome chart of coal plants shown earlier in this thread?


Not an easy question to answer.  Yes, those coal plants are contributing new carbon to the atmosphere, but how much does that actually contribute to the climate change?  On the flip side, you have to consider the absolute disaster potential with the nuclear plant that could render wide areas uninhabitable for a long time, as well as the dangerous nuclear waste and how to store it in such a way that it's safely packed away somewhere that terrorists won't be able to get their hands on it.

I'm not a fan of coal, but the problems nuclear presents are big enough that I can't really fault a country/province/city/whomever from not wanting to have a reactor in their backyard.


----------



## Mansize (Jun 3, 2017)

grossaffe said:


> Not an easy question to answer.  Yes, those coal plants are contributing new carbon to the atmosphere, but how much does that actually contribute to the climate change?  On the flip side, you have to consider the absolute disaster potential with the nuclear plant that could render wide areas uninhabitable for a long time, as well as the dangerous nuclear waste and how to store it in such a way that it's safely packed away somewhere that terrorists won't be able to get their hands on it.
> 
> I'm not a fan of coal, but the problems nuclear presents are big enough that I can't really fault a country/province/city/whomever from not wanting to have a reactor in their backyard.


 
Just know that Germany does trade in nuclear generated energy, but just doesnt want to produce it   ...


----------



## grossaffe (Jun 4, 2017)

Mansize said:


> Just know that Germany does trade in nuclear generated energy, but just doesnt want to produce it    ...


Which goes back to the idea of not wanting it in your backyard.


----------



## rileysrjay (Jun 4, 2017)

grossaffe said:


> Not an easy question to answer.  Yes, those coal plants are contributing new carbon to the atmosphere, but how much does that actually contribute to the climate change?  On the flip side, you have to consider the absolute disaster potential with the nuclear plant that could render wide areas uninhabitable for a long time, as well as the dangerous nuclear waste and how to store it in such a way that it's safely packed away somewhere that terrorists won't be able to get their hands on it.
> 
> I'm not a fan of coal, but the problems nuclear presents are big enough that I can't really fault a country/province/city/whomever from not wanting to have a reactor in their backyard.


If you want to stop climate change if coal is really affecting it, Personally I see hydro being a really great way of eventually reaching renewable energy only. If someone can figure out how to harness the waves and power of the ocean in a cheap and efficient way then they'd be a billionaire.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 4, 2017)

rileysrjay said:


> If you want to stop climate change if coal is really affecting it, Personally I see hydro being a really great way of eventually reaching renewable energy only. If someone can figure out how to harness the waves and power of the ocean in a cheap and efficient way then they'd be a billionaire.


Some of the most efficient renewable energy is coastline wind farms, because you're not decreasing property value if it's in the ocean and, well, it's the ocean, so you can't run out of wind


----------



## grossaffe (Jun 4, 2017)

When it comes to solar and wind and such, the problem there is that it's not power on-demand.  It only provides power while the sun is shining or the wind is blowing.  If we want to get the most out of those, what we need is a better method of storing energy, be it a better battery or some other method.  If you're really interested in all this stuff, I recommend Bill Nye's book Unstoppable.


----------



## rileysrjay (Jun 4, 2017)

grossaffe said:


> When it comes to solar and wind and such, the problem there is that it's not power on-demand.  It only provides power while the sun is shining or the wind is blowing.  If we want to get the most out of those, what we need is a better method of storing energy, be it a better battery or some other method.  If you're really interested in all this stuff, I recommend Bill Nye's book Unstoppable.


My point with hydro is that the ocean is always moving, so in a way it kinda is power on demand. Also we need to find a better and more cost effective way of making wind turbines, solar panels and what not because they can get kinda expensive.


----------



## Vipera (Jun 4, 2017)

The people preaching the most for green energy have a SUV or other not-so-green stuff in their homes.

We are already going to the right direction to minimize pollution as much as we can. Overpopulation is gonna fuck us all. It doesn't matter if we cut consumption by 25% per person if we get 100% more people every year. Stop breeding like wild rabbits and turn on the TV.


----------



## rileysrjay (Jun 4, 2017)

Vipera said:


> We are already going to the right direction to minimize pollution as much as we can. Overpopulation is gonna fuck us all. It doesn't matter if we cut consumption by 25% per person if we get 100% more people every year. Stop breeding like wild rabbits and turn on the TV.


It's more so of third world countries that's causing overpopulation IIRC. Didn't Japan recently hit a new low with the amount of babies being born? I guess one way to combat with it would be doing what China use to do and only allow two children per couple, but I doubt countries are gonna listen anyways, and I'm also not too keen on more restriction.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Vipera said:


> The people preaching the most for green energy have a SUV or other not-so-green stuff in their homes.


Kinda like DiCaprio? Who ended up flying cross country to get his hat or whatever?


----------



## A Plus Ric (Jun 4, 2017)

Anyone stating carbon emissions......Does everyone alive forget this same science in the 70s and early 80s predicted an ice age that is naturally a coming?


Science is only as good as its funding, and once science really proves one side and disproves the other, the funding goes away. You will sadly never know the truth about the causes, or how bad it can be. Because science won't give you the answers properly as they refuse to research all aspects. They do one, tell you it's that, and we keep funding billions of dollars to them to do the exact same studies year after year.


----------



## EmanueleBGN (Jun 4, 2017)

The Earth was warm for the most period of its history.
Eg: in later medieval times was possible for vines to grow in England.
Yes, global warming is real but it's not _only_ human fault


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 4, 2017)

Vipera said:


> The people preaching the most for green energy have a SUV or other not-so-green stuff in their homes.
> 
> We are already going to the right direction to minimize pollution as much as we can. Overpopulation is gonna fuck us all. It doesn't matter if we cut consumption by 25% per person if we get 100% more people every year. Stop breeding like wild rabbits and turn on the TV.


Actually believe it or not we've hit "peak child," which means the birth rate is plateauing. The reason the population is still rising is because people are living longer, iirc within the next ~30 years the global population should be stabilized


----------



## Jax_Ripper (Jun 4, 2017)

To say it's not real is to say we have not a universe.
It's mother earth cleansing herself.

Jax

Sent from my SM-S120VL using Tapatalk


----------



## Ziggyhacks (Jun 4, 2017)

Absolutely, but on a much smaller scale than scientists believe it exists on. If I may provide some insight, we may easily be able to solve this frivolous conflict by remaining unbiased while making judgement on it.


----------



## rileysrjay (Jun 4, 2017)

Ziggyhacks said:


> Absolutely, but on a much smaller scale than scientists believe it exists on. If I may provide some insight, we may easily be able to solve this frivolous conflict by remaining unbiased while making judgement on it.


To stay unbiased in a political thread, or anywhere for that matter? Is that possible, especially here on the temp?


----------



## Lacius (Jun 4, 2017)

It's hard to reconcile the results of this poll with the results of the presidential election poll.


----------



## Jax_Ripper (Jun 4, 2017)

I think it's possible , we just have to stay open minded.

Jax

Sent from my SM-S120VL using Tapatalk


----------



## rileysrjay (Jun 4, 2017)

Jax_Ripper said:


> I think it's possible , we just have to stay open minded.
> 
> Jax
> 
> Sent from my SM-S120VL using Tapatalk


To be fair this thread so far hasn't gone to off the rails. The London attack thread is terrible though, a lot of people in their filled with prejudice at each other. Makes me sick.


----------



## grossaffe (Jun 4, 2017)

Lacius said:


> It's hard to reconcile the results of this poll with the results of the presidential election poll.


It's easy to reconcile.  Hillary was a terrible unelectable candidate.  Get over it.


----------



## Ziggyhacks (Jun 4, 2017)

Remaining _completely_ unbiased is impossible in any thread, but I was referring to judgements made by the scientists that support climate change.


----------



## Alkéryn (Jun 4, 2017)

Religion and opinion is a matter of beliefs
science is a mater of FACT
climate change is a FACT deal with it


----------



## rileysrjay (Jun 4, 2017)

Alkéryn said:


> Religion and opinion is a matter of beliefs
> science is a mater of FACT
> climate change is a FACT deal with it


True, but they call evolution science when all it is is opinion and science's attempt at religion.


----------



## grossaffe (Jun 4, 2017)

rileysrjay said:


> True, but they call evolution science when all it is is opinion and science's attempt at religion.


----------



## Taleweaver (Jun 4, 2017)

Okay...coming in this thread, I feared the worst. But apparently, only 4.4% of tempers really still believe all is okay. 


Personally, the first time I heard about climate change was somewhere in the second half of the nineties. This was just before internet became mainstream (in my life). It may have been youth sentiment, but I think science was done on a more thorough level at that time. These were reports that were made without an agenda or affiliations. It was only later that I've heard that they apparently caused controversy in the only parts where they were needed: in governments. Lobbyists didn't bother to spread propaganda or hire scientists to prove the global scale different because all they really had to do was keep journalists from it.
Anyway...as you can imagine, I saw the world take a pretty sharp turn when Gore (who was an environmentalist even before he made "an inconvenient truth") lost to some guy who abused a terrorist attack to attack a nation that had nothing to do with it. But that documentary marked a turning point: all of a sudden I wasn't alone in "this theory" of global warming, but was "a believer" for something I already knew for years. However, because quite some powerful companies (mostly car and oil ones) would become (near-)unafordably if you have to pay the FULL price for traveling by car*, they used lobbyists to spread propaganda and lies. This whole "okay, global warming is real but it's not caused by us" is one of these arguments. It's just a way to discredit the basic statistics that actually prove very well that the human-caused climate change started with the industrial revolution.


Of course I hate Trump as much as everyone else**, but still this act is pretty weird and stupid even by his track record. After all, he is a businessman. And this whole "it's about jobs!" just doesn't make sense, because it's not jobs vs clean energy. You can have both. In fact, I would think that investing in clean energy creates much more jobs than the "more of the same" that the US currently has. Solar panels and wind turbines don't create themselves. To engineer them, to build them and to maintain them undoubtedly requires at least as much jobs as keeping with the current (meaning: coal). It's not like the US is forced to import these technologies either: from an article I read, you already have quite a booming business in clean power (Texas...Hawaii...and from all the places even Pittsburg***). Those businesses could've expanded to other countries, which would've been good for your economy. Now, however, they'll have to compete with the old and polluting ways.





*meaning: somehow make sure that the pollution it makes is truly compensated for
**okay, perhaps save a small percentage of US voters who actually voted "for him" rather than "against Clinton"
***the mayor of that joint didn't like Trump citing them as "whom he worked for"...the majority voted for Hillary...and they've done a lot to move away from pollution


----------



## rileysrjay (Jun 4, 2017)

grossaffe said:


>


In my book, anything that deals with where humanity and every thing that exists came from is religion and should stay in its own realm of opinion. Just because the word "science" is slapped on something doesn't mean it's fact.


----------



## Vipera (Jun 4, 2017)

Are you afraid of global warming? Here is what you can do to solve it:

- Don't drive a car
- Use public transport
- Live in a low-energy flat built in the last decade. One room per person. Got 3 rooms? You need two more people to live with you
- Invest thousands of dollars into solar energy
- Don't use energy to heat your house at all. If you feel cold, go trim a sheep. We genetically modified them for a reason
- Don't buy bottled water. Your tap water tastes like ass? Too bad
- Don't eat anything that came to your doorstep by a truck
- Limit your energy consumptions
- Don't take a bath. Shower instead. No more than 5 minutes per day
- Don't buy anything made with non-recycled items. Bonus points if you avoid plastic altogether
- Don't buy meds. Ever
- Recycle everything
- Switch to digital data
- Don't have more than two offspring
- If you are bored, go play in a grass field or something. But don't play on the grass field to avoid hurting mother nature's creation
- Have two pairs of clothes: one for the house, one for when you are outside
- Don't use mobile phones. Use public phones
- Don't own a laptop. Or build one yourself from scrap material. For internet, use an internet cafe


I will listen to anybody who lives like this and complains about global warming. I honestly will. Other than them, I can't help but feel that anybody else is an hypocrite. Sure, I don't drive an SUV and I actually do many of the stuff I listed above, but it still won't be enough. Hell, in some cases, the points above will crush the economy.


----------



## Alkéryn (Jun 4, 2017)

rileysrjay said:


> In my book, anything that deals with where humanity and every thing that exists came from is religion and should stay in its own realm of opinion. Just because the word "science" is slapped on something doesn't mean it's fact.


Religion is one of the closest thing to pure bs you can get xD


----------



## Deleted-355425 (Jun 4, 2017)

Alkéryn said:


> Religion is one of the closest thing to pure bs you can get xD



amen to that.


----------



## grossaffe (Jun 4, 2017)

rileysrjay said:


> In my book, anything that deals with where humanity and every thing that exists came from is religion and should stay in its own realm of opinion. Just because the word "science" is slapped on something doesn't mean it's fact.


I don't think you understand what science is.


----------



## Alkéryn (Jun 4, 2017)

grossaffe said:


> I don't think you understand what science is.


He might mix up science and what crap is science journalism now a day and even then he is far from understanding what science is


----------



## Clydefrosch (Jun 4, 2017)

i wasn't dropped on my head as a baby so I do believe in climate change and at the least part of it being manmade. (actually animal made, getting rid of beef and its industry would probably be more than enough for the time being)

i also believe in desertification due to sucking dry groundwater to critical levels in part of the us, beaches running out of sand because we have to create manmade islands in the ocean, the seas and its inhabitants being poisoned by our waste and occasional oil spills.


----------



## Deleted-355425 (Jun 4, 2017)




----------



## Clydefrosch (Jun 4, 2017)

sarkwalvein said:


> _*Yes, climate change is real and caused by humans, but I don't feel entitled to say what USA should do about it.*_
> 
> I don't see this option!



probably because its among the dumbest opinions anyone could possible have about it.

the climate is a global thing so the global populance has to have a say in this. 
the us feeling it can just pull out of it, thats whats entitled


----------



## grossaffe (Jun 4, 2017)

Alkéryn said:


> He might mix up science and what crap is science journalism now a day and even then he is far from understanding what science is


Journalism covering science can be down-right dreadful.  Whether it be the writer wildly extrapolating based on an experiment they clearly don't really understand, or an Editor who writes up a click-baity headline that is flat out wrong extrapolated based on their inability to understand the subject.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Jun 4, 2017)

Vipera said:


> Are you afraid of global warming? Here is what you can do to solve it:
> 
> - Don't drive a car
> - Use public transport
> ...



yeah it wont be enough as long as the industry gets exempted from most climate regulation rules anyway.


----------



## smf (Jun 4, 2017)

Vipera said:


> I will listen to anybody who lives like this and complains about global warming. I honestly will. Other than them, I can't help but feel that anybody else is an hypocrite.



I follow some of them. I'm not sure how serious you were about them, it kinda seemed like you were putting up an insurmountable barrier. You can certainly be interested in changes to avoid pollution/global warming/etc & do some of the things that you forbid and still not be a hypocrite.

Some of the things you said are actually worse for the environment.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Jun 4, 2017)

Clydefrosch said:


> probably because its among the dumbest opinions anyone could possible have about it.
> 
> the climate is a global thing so the global populance has to have a say in this.
> the us feeling it can just pull out of it, thats whats entitled


Sorry, but I really don't think I have a say on the politics of a sovereign land I don't belong to. 
I can suggest things, I can try to come to an understanding. 
But unless I plan to go into war and conquest said land, I don't have a right to decide what to do for them. That is the meaning of sovereignty.


----------



## bi388 (Jun 4, 2017)

rileysrjay said:


> In my book, anything that deals with where humanity and every thing that exists came from is religion and should stay in its own realm of opinion. Just because the word "science" is slapped on something doesn't mean it's fact.


Not fact and religion are two different things. Science is constantly changing and sure some things considered science won't be correct but that doesn't make it religion lol a supported theory based on evidence should not be compared to a faith based belief system that breaks the known laws of the universe. Not ragging on religion, just showing how these things are in no way related.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jun 4, 2017)

Lacius said:


> It's hard to reconcile the results of this poll with the results of the presidential election poll.


What do you mean? I'm guessing you mean that more conservatives would believe its a load of shit?


----------



## Lacius (Jun 4, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> What do you mean? I'm guessing you mean that more conservatives would believe its a load of shit?


A solid majority of people in the poll believe the US should stay in the Paris agreement, but many of those people also didn't vote for the candidate who would have done that.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jun 4, 2017)

Lacius said:


> A solid majority of people in the poll believe the US should stay in the Paris agreement, but many of those people also didn't vote for the candidate who would have done that.


I see, well it's obvious that a lot of people who would consider themselves right have views that would be contrary.
It could also be a slight ignorance on their part to the rulings of their elected president.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Jun 4, 2017)

The thing that bothers me more is that people believe Trump pulled out because he doesn't care about the impact it may or may not have. He even stated himself that he wants to renegotiate the terms to better benefit us as a country.


----------



## grossaffe (Jun 4, 2017)

Lacius said:


> A solid majority of people in the poll believe the US should stay in the Paris agreement, but many of those people also didn't vote for the candidate who would have done that.


It's almost as if the differences between Trump and Clinton extend beyond a single issue.


----------



## Enteking (Jun 4, 2017)

Climate always changes. From warm age to ice age to warm age and so on, it is an endless cycle (that is a fact). Humanity may have speed up the process but the link between CO2 and warming is not scientifically proven. The models used are arbitrary and cannot predict the past or present climate right (that is a fact). Another fact is that CO2 is essential for life and leads to global greening. But the overall mechanisms are extremely complex and we do not nearly understand it because there are so many, partly unknown variables involved.

The poles will melt anyway (by definition of the warm age) and we cannot stop that. So we better should prepare for the changing climate. The two degree goal is completely unrealistic, if the climate really changes temperatures will go much higher and we can do nothing about it. Paris with it's 0.2 degree Celsius proposed effect will not be sufficient anyway and is not worth the effort. We would need to completely abandon cars and oil to stop a potential human effect which will not happen in the near future.

The only thing we can do and should do is prepare for the changing climate.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Jun 4, 2017)

grossaffe said:


> It's almost as if the differences between Trump and Clinton extend beyond a single issue.



This also doesn't Trump want a better deal for the USA? I don't see that as a bad thing.


----------



## bi388 (Jun 4, 2017)

Lacius said:


> A solid majority of people in the poll believe the US should stay in the Paris agreement, but many of those people also didn't vote for the candidate who would have done that.


As probably one of the people in the discrepancy you are referring to, I will say at least for me I didnt vote for clinton because that sends the message that I excuse her actions during the primary. Instead I voted for a candidate with even better views on climate change, and if others didnt thats their fault as far as Im concerned.


----------



## kehkou (Jun 4, 2017)

It is not something one can believe or disbelieve. It simply _is_.


----------



## Viri (Jun 4, 2017)

Lacius said:


> It's hard to reconcile the results of this poll with the results of the presidential election poll.


B-but it was her turn! The most qualified candidate with a 98% chance of winning according to Huffington Post!


----------



## Foxchild (Jun 4, 2017)

Well, if you look at it from an cold, logical, unbiased viewpoint, does it really matter if our species comes to an end sooner rather than later?


----------



## kehkou (Jun 4, 2017)

Viri said:


> B-but it was her turn! The most qualified candidate with a 98% chance of winning according to Huffington Post!


That's probability for ya! That last 2% can be a pain in the neck 1 out of every 50 times.


----------



## ItsMetaKnight (Jun 4, 2017)

Mansize said:


> Just know that Germany does trade in nuclear generated energy, but just doesnt want to produce it   ...


This isn't even true. Germany is still exporting energy...


----------



## Clydefrosch (Jun 5, 2017)

Memoir said:


> The thing that bothers me more is that people believe Trump pulled out because he doesn't care about the impact it may or may not have. He even stated himself that he wants to renegotiate the terms to better benefit us as a country.



thats such a thinly veiled attempt at trying to address peoples concerns, it's stupefying that you actually believe he means it (like literally every other attempt at damage control).

the paris accord was not a deal with terms anyone was bound to by more than word, moral and dedication to future generations (thats why one of the two countries that didn't sign it, didn't sign it).
it was basically a gentlemens agreement that idiot could have ignored without pulling out of it for idiot reasons.

the thing is, you can't reasonably  slow down climate change without it affecting the industries that pollute the planet the most.
he wants no kind of regulation that might just so much as inconvenience any of those industries.
so any 'renegotiation' would come down to 'we're not doing anything different'

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Viri said:


> B-but it was her turn! The most qualified candidate with a 98% chance of winning according to Huffington Post!


the thing about pools is, they happen to reach people who never make it to the voting booth.
and they sadly can't account for non-scandals being brought up a few days before the election day. and they cant account for idiots being like 'what do i care about all the bs trump said and did that would have disqualified literally any other candidate in the last 50 years, trump will make a great president'

about 25% of eligible voters voted for trump. just short of half the eligible voters actually went and cast their vote.
in a world where every voter was forced to vote (or even just in a world where americans voted on a sunday), there wouldn't have been either, a president trump or a president bush jr.
and there's a reason that specifically the republican party is pushing for all kinds of laws that make voting more of a hassle (basically, they want all those regulations and rules and overhead they so hate in stuff like business and the market when it comes to elections, because thats basically the only way they can reasonably stay in power)


----------



## _Chaz_ (Jun 5, 2017)

What's with all this talk about weather?
Sorry, but I don't like to concern myself with the Devil's magic and neither should you.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Jun 5, 2017)

Foxchild said:


> Well, if you look at it from an cold, logical, unbiased viewpoint, does it really matter if our species comes to an end sooner rather than later?


well then, go ahead and shoot your parents/siblings/children dead because by that logic, nothing matters and humans should have come to an end pretty much a second after they first appeared on the scene because if nothing that happens tomorrow matters, then nothing that happened today matters and neither mattered anything that happened yesterday or any day before that


----------



## spotanjo3 (Jun 5, 2017)

This page is going to be endless pages!


----------



## Clydefrosch (Jun 5, 2017)

bi388 said:


> As probably one of the people in the discrepancy you are referring to, I will say at least for me I didnt vote for clinton because that sends the message that I excuse her actions during the primary. Instead I voted for a candidate with even better views on climate change, and if others didnt thats their fault as far as Im concerned.


so now your vote sent the message that you wanted trump as president.
 you voted trump. you knew a vote for whomever but clinton was a vote for trump and thats all there is to it.
this isn't the early 1900's anymore, where people could reasonably vote for whomever because the outcome was half of a mystery until the votes were being counted.

you have more information than that, you know which votes counted and you opted to voted in a way to make the least desirable option possible the most likely option to occur.


----------



## bi388 (Jun 5, 2017)

Clydefrosch said:


> so now your vote sent the message that you wanted trump as president.
> you voted trump. you knew a vote for whomever but clinton was a vote for trump and thats all there is to it.
> this isn't the early 1900's anymore, where people could reasonably vote for whomever because the outcome was half of a mystery until the votes were being counted.
> 
> you have more information than that, you know which votes counted and you opted to voted in a way to make the least desirable option possible the most likely option to occur.


No, I didnt. Voting for Trump is the ONE AND ONLY thing that sends I message I want Trump. Voting for someone that is neither of them sends the message that I refuse to support either of them, and unless Im given a 1st party candidate better than what I was given I wont vote first party. Dont deal with shit bag politicians who will cheat their ass off to run the country. Trump is far less desirable, I agree but im not going to say I want Hillary, which is literally what voting for her does, when I can vote for someone I ACTUALLY WANT. Its a matter of principle and sending a message to the dem party "next time, send someone better because I have proven I WILL refuse to support anyone if its someone like Hillary" where as voting for her says you will give in and support a scumbag like her if the opposition is even worse, and the dem party establishment can and will take advantage of complacency like that.


----------



## Jax_Ripper (Jun 5, 2017)

I am a Democrat and I didn't vote 'cause I wasn't going to vote for Hillary and I didn't like trump.
Still don't .

Jax

Sent from my SM-S120VL using Tapatalk


----------



## Viri (Jun 5, 2017)

Clydefrosch said:


> and there's a reason that specifically the republican party is pushing for all kinds of laws that make voting more of a hassle


Really? Like what?


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 5, 2017)

Enteking said:


> Another fact is that CO2 is essential for life and leads to global greening. But the overall mechanisms are extremely complex and we do not nearly understand it because there are so many, partly unknown variables involved.


The globe can only "green" if we stop cutting down the rainforests, dumping shit in the ocean that prevents algae growth, and flattening land for urban development

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



_Chaz_ said:


> What's with all this talk about weather?
> Sorry, but I don't like to concern myself with the Devil's magic and neither should you.


Wut


----------



## Enteking (Jun 5, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> The globe can only "green" if we stop cutting down the rainforests, dumping shit in the ocean that prevents algae growth, and flattening land for urban development



According to satellite images, we right now have more green plants on earth than ever before, caused by CO2. This was a surprise for many scientist and is called global greening. But it still gets warmer and according to geology, the ice of the poles will melt completely in any warm age. And we are in a warm age right now. Stopping climate change is an impossible task and nobody knows the effect  of the expected magnetic field shift on climate.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Jun 5, 2017)

Viri said:


> Really? Like what?


really, like literally the thing i said after that part you quoted. because voting restrictions help them by preventing first and foremost, poor, elderly and lets say, racially diverse parts of the population, from casting their vote. (which are currently much more likely to support the democratic party)
but maybe you're more of a visual type, so here's an extremely simplified video that might explain the gist of it to you 



bi388 said:


> No, I didnt. Voting for Trump is the ONE AND ONLY thing that sends I message I want Trump. Voting for someone that is neither of them sends the message that I refuse to support either of them, and unless Im given a 1st party candidate better than what I was given I wont vote first party. Dont deal with shit bag politicians who will cheat their ass off to run the country. Trump is far less desirable, I agree but im not going to say I want Hillary, which is literally what voting for her does, when I can vote for someone I ACTUALLY WANT. Its a matter of principle and sending a message to the dem party "next time, send someone better because I have proven I WILL refuse to support anyone if its someone like Hillary" where as voting for her says you will give in and support a scumbag like her if the opposition is even worse, and the dem party establishment can and will take advantage of complacency like that.



it doesn't matter how you're trying to justify your decision to yourself and everyone around you after the fact. objectively, you voted for trump and because you would have known that, you can't argue 'MY VOTE WAS MEANT TO REPRESENT THIS THING OR THAT'. because it doesn't.
you're in a majority type of voting system. you could pull that stuff in germany, where its not majority and winner takes all. but you aren't.
your vote only had two possible purposes. help clinton or help trump. nothing else.
and you chose help trump, who's only chance to win, from the getgo, was idiots like you throwing their vote away in his favor.

and your vote didn't send any message to the dem party other than 'next time, send someone who's basically like trump'. you have not proven anything other than that you are among the people who'd throw their vote away and let their own country burn for their own egotistical reasons.
allowing that man to win is going to shape your countries political playing field for potentially decades to come and not in a good way. because the same way the parties believed 30 years ago that the optimal candidate had to be big with broad shoulders, they're going to learn that in some way, a donald trump represented qualities that are winning factors for the next candidates.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Enteking said:


> According to satellite images, we right now have more green plants on earth than ever before, caused by CO2. This was a surprise for many scientist and is called global greening. But it still gets warmer and according to geology, the ice of the poles will melt completely in any warm age. And we are in a war age right now. Stopping climate change is an impossible task and nobody knows the effect  of the expected magnetic field shift on climate.



unfortunately, a few shrubs don't happen to have the same impact on climate change as keeping trees that have grown and absorbed co2 for hundreds of years.
no scientist was truly surprised by co2 supporting plant growth. its still getting warmer because those shrubs can't absorb as much co2 meaning its all still mostly in the atmosphere, causing greenhouse effect (together with all that methane that happens to be a byproduct of the meatindustry)

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Jax_Ripper said:


> I am a Democrat and I didn't vote 'cause I wasn't going to vote for Hillary and I didn't like trump.
> Still don't .
> 
> Jax
> ...


good for you. watch the republican party pass restrictive voting laws over the next 4 years in all the states they won, so next time the dems throw in a qualified candidate that isn't hillary, he won't have a chance even with your vote


----------



## Hayleia (Jun 5, 2017)

kehkou said:


> It is not something one can believe or disbelieve. It simply _is_.


It does not mean people can't believe it's false. See how no one believed the earth was round a long time ago, even though "it simply _is_".


----------



## Lord M (Jun 5, 2017)

Maybe if the worst humans stopped to manipulate the climate.
Before some ignorant write to me "conspiracy", they must be informed that the act to alter the climate exist since before '70, made in Israel to cool off the climate to let them harvest.
The difference now is that its not used to cool off anymore...


----------



## Vipera (Jun 5, 2017)

Clydefrosch said:


> yeah it wont be enough as long as the industry gets exempted from most climate regulation rules anyway.


You do realize that China has the highest amount of pollution due to all the factories to produce the shit you use everyday, right? Check the list again.


----------



## bi388 (Jun 5, 2017)

Clydefrosch said:


> it doesn't matter how you're trying to justify your decision to yourself and everyone around you after the fact. objectively, you voted for trump and because you would have known that, you can't argue 'MY VOTE WAS MEANT TO REPRESENT THIS THING OR THAT'. because it doesn't.
> you're in a majority type of voting system. you could pull that stuff in germany, where its not majority and winner takes all. but you aren't.
> your vote only had two possible purposes. help clinton or help trump. nothing else.
> and you chose help trump, who's only chance to win, from the getgo, was idiots like you throwing their vote away in his favor.
> ...


No, I literally didn't vote for Trump. This isn't opinion, it's fact and you're factually wrong. I cast a vote and it wasn't for Trump. And the Democratic and Republican parties both see votes not for either of them, and realize if they want those votes in the future they will have to send someone better in order to get them. Also, you want to talk about vote not counting, in my state the result was set in stone so really there was nothing my vote could do besides send a message because of our electoral system where only a few states votes actually matter and the majority are essentially preset outcomes. So no, you're factually wrong and your logic doesn't hold up, and congrats you essentially told the Democratic party "Ya you can give us a shithead who doesn't care one bit about us, wants to bomb innocent foreign families, voted for invading Iraq and was trying (and for the most part succeeded) to rig the primary, but as long as she isn't Trump I will vote for her" where as I said "give me someone who cares about me and I'll vote 1st party." A vote for a third party candidate helps neither candidate. Fact. The candidates have to earn my vote, no one gets it by default so I didn't deprive Hillary of a vote. Fact. Hillary didn't earn my vote. Fact. I'm not trying to justify anything, I'm trying to explain to you that just because you like someone doesn't mean she's untitled to my support when there's another candidate who is actually a decent human being.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Jun 5, 2017)

bi388 said:


> And the Democratic and Republican parties both see votes not for either of them, and realize if they want those votes in the future they will have to send someone better in order to get them. Also, you want to talk about vote not counting, in my state the result was set in stone so really there was nothing my vote could do besides send a message because of our electoral system where only a few states votes actually matter and the majority are essentially preset outcomes.



and you are so extremely wrong about this, its not even funny anymore.
parties barely care about people who dont vote or who vote for candidates with 0 chance. 
those votes are pretty much lost causes to them and since, again, this is a majority kind of voting system, they don't really matter. you just need the majority of the important votes because these lost cause votes never happen to band together to become a threat to the only two choices that matter.

they care for the ones that cast votes that matter. which is why they will pander to them and no one else. your vote did not send a message the way you want it to be received (to do that, you'd have to get politically active and get in contact with those people in charge).

and the state flipping right this election does probably say a lot about this entire set in stone business.


----------



## bi388 (Jun 5, 2017)

Clydefrosch said:


> and you are so extremely wrong about this, its not even funny anymore.
> parties barely care about people who dont vote or who vote for candidates with 0 chance.
> those votes are pretty much lost causes to them and since, again, this is a majority kind of voting system, they don't really matter. you just need the majority of the important votes because these lost cause votes never happen to band together to become a threat to the only two choices that matter.
> 
> ...


Ok so say my vote said literally nothing. I'd rather that than my vote say I support Hillary. And you know what, a third party candidate could win if everyone stopped having the mentality that they cant. Literally the reason they don't is because people don't think they will. And my state was set in stone. There was 0% chance of the outcome being different from predicted so my vote couldn't do anything other than send a message about who I will and won't support. And using your own logic, I voted for Hillary since you said a vote not for a candidate is voting for their opposition. So I guess I voted for Trump, and Hillary, and third party. Wow I must be pretty damn important if the government gives me 3 votes lol.


----------



## Mansize (Jun 5, 2017)

ItsMetaKnight said:


> This isn't even true. Germany is still exporting energy...



One doesnt exclude the other; they trade in energy to make money. I know this as I work for a very large German energy company.


----------



## AmandaRose (Jun 5, 2017)

Vipera said:


> Are you afraid of global warming? Here is what you can do to solve it:
> 
> - Don't drive a car
> - Use public transport
> ...


While I agree with most of this in some countries the public phone thing is just a big no. Here pretty much every public phone has been removed and if I was to use one the nearest one is belive it or not roughly about 120 miles away from my home to make a trip to use it would be terrible for the environment lol unless I walked to it that is and that's a long way to walk only to find the phone is out of order.


----------



## death360 (Jun 5, 2017)

Not that it made any difference if the U.S. stayed in the climate change pact.  Yes I do believe humans are to blame for if not most of what is causing global warming.  Anyone know what geoengineering is and if you don't I suggest you research it its very real.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 5, 2017)

death360 said:


> Not that it made any difference if the U.S. stayed in the climate change pact.  Yes I do believe humans are to blame for if not most of what is causing global warming.  Anyone know what geoengineering is and if you don't I suggest you research it its very real.


While it was mostly a formal agreement, us leaving does send a very strong (and not positive) symbolic message of "we don't give a fuck, and neither should you"


----------



## Vipera (Jun 5, 2017)

Marko76 said:


> While I agree with most of this in some countries the public phone thing is just a big no. Here pretty much every public phone has been removed and if I was to use one the nearest one is belive it or not roughly about 120 miles away from my home to make a trip to use it would be terrible for the environment lol unless I walked to it that is and that's a long way to walk only to find the phone is out of order.


If people would stop using phones, public phones would be around once again.


----------



## THYPLEX (Jun 5, 2017)

I believe only in gravity


----------



## Hayleia (Jun 5, 2017)

THYPLEX said:


> I believe only in gravity


You could believe in the gravity of the issue that climate change represents


----------



## Deleted-355425 (Jun 5, 2017)

Vipera said:


> If people would stop using phones, public phones would be around once again.



the public phones here all smell like piss and are smashed up. I prefer my mobile phone lol.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jun 5, 2017)

mech said:


> the public phones here all smell like piss and are smashed up. I prefer my mobile phone lol.


You live in London too? 
Those things completely suck.

Also, what the hell is going on?


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 5, 2017)

Vipera said:


> If people would stop using phones, public phones would be around once again.


There's no downside to using cell phones as long as the energy used to charge them is clean and batteries/internal components are recycled or safely disposed of


----------



## Vipera (Jun 5, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> There's no downside to using cell phones as long as the energy used to charge them is clean and batteries/internal components are recycled or safely disposed of


Except the vast majority of phones are built in factories that produce a lot of pollution from underpaid workers.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 5, 2017)

Vipera said:


> Except the vast majority of phones are built in factories that produce a lot of pollution from underpaid workers.


Then support change in the economy, not a ban on the products. Contact legislators 'n stuff to tighten restrictions on pollution regulations


----------



## kehkou (Jun 5, 2017)

Hayleia said:


> It does not mean people can't believe it's false. See how no one believed the earth was round a long time ago, even though "it simply _is_".


Yes, I should have elaborated this. Of course you can disbelieve, but that won't make it go away...


----------



## Jax_Ripper (Jul 3, 2017)

Clydefrosch said:


> really, like literally the thing i said after that part you quoted. because voting restrictions help them by preventing first and foremost, poor, elderly and lets say, racially diverse parts of the population, from casting their vote. (which are currently much more likely to support the democratic party)
> but maybe you're more of a visual type, so here's an extremely simplified video that might explain the gist of it to you
> 
> 
> ...



I agree, but the Dems can do the same in retrospective.

Jax

Sent from my Z963VL using Tapatalk


----------



## Clydefrosch (Jul 3, 2017)

Jax_Ripper said:


> I agree, but the Dems can do the same in retrospective.
> 
> Jax
> 
> Sent from my Z963VL using Tapatalk



if they get house and senate majorities and win back states in the midterms, they could, potentially and dems have never been below gerrymandering (though never to such ridiculous extends as the reps during the last 6 years)

but in the current climate of the president spewing lies 5 times a day online, selling order signings as passing legal legislation (pretending that's what getting things done means), slandering the media to ridiculously degrees, republicans creating some of the craziest dirty adds in recent history (check those anti-ossoff ads), gerrymandering in many states absolutely on their side, it might literally become impossible for democrats to win future elections.
unless they sink as low as the gop does. and honestly, if they did, what would be the point?


----------



## Jax_Ripper (Jul 3, 2017)

Clydefrosch said:


> if they get house and senate majorities and win back states in the midterms, they could, potentially and dems have never been below gerrymandering (though never to such ridiculous extends as the reps during the last 6 years)
> 
> but in the current climate of the president spewing lies 5 times a day online, selling order signings as passing legal legislation (pretending that's what getting things done means), slandering the media to ridiculously degrees, republicans creating some of the craziest dirty adds in recent history (check those anti-ossoff ads), gerrymandering in many states absolutely on their side, it might literally become impossible for democrats to win future elections.
> unless they sink as low as the gop does. and honestly, if they did, what would be the point?


I don't disagree with you , it's quite the opposite. You see some Dems are open minded, as me.

Jax

Sent from my Z963VL using Tapatalk


----------



## rileysrjay (Jul 3, 2017)

Clydefrosch said:


> if they get house and senate majorities and win back states in the midterms, they could, potentially and dems have never been below gerrymandering (though never to such ridiculous extends as the reps during the last 6 years)
> 
> but in the current climate of the president spewing lies 5 times a day online, selling order signings as passing legal legislation (pretending that's what getting things done means), slandering the media to ridiculously degrees, republicans creating some of the craziest dirty adds in recent history (check those anti-ossoff ads), gerrymandering in many states absolutely on their side, it might literally become impossible for democrats to win future elections.
> unless they sink as low as the gop does. and honestly, if they did, what would be the point?


Can we just wait to talk about the 2018 midterm elections please until 2018? I live in Georgia north of Atlanta and I had to listen to all the bullshit about handel and ossoff for months on end in the special election. And when I left the state for vacation it was plastered all over national news, there was no escaping it. I also don't think either one was fit for the job, with ossoff not even living in the district and getting almost all his money from outside of Georgia and handel having a lot of bad claims about her past being thrown at her throughout the election.


----------



## Jax_Ripper (Jul 3, 2017)

Now that's what am talking bout.
Kudos my friend.

Sent from my Z963VL using Tapatalk


----------



## Joe88 (Jul 3, 2017)

Clydefrosch said:


> if they get house and senate majorities and win back states in the midterms, they could, potentially and dems have never been below gerrymandering (though never to such ridiculous extends as the reps during the last 6 years)
> 
> but in the current climate of the president spewing lies 5 times a day online, selling order signings as passing legal legislation (pretending that's what getting things done means), slandering the media to ridiculously degrees, republicans creating some of the craziest dirty adds in recent history (check those anti-ossoff ads), gerrymandering in many states absolutely on their side, it might literally become impossible for democrats to win future elections.
> unless they sink as low as the gop does. and honestly, if they did, what would be the point?


They have been on a downward spiral since obama got elected







Even the past 4 special elections they went 0-4, its not going to change looking at it currently unless something happens to stop it. But the corruption will continue...



rileysrjay said:


> Can we just wait to talk about the 2018 midterm elections please until 2018? I live in Georgia north of Atlanta and I had to listen to all the bullshit about handel and ossoff for months on end in the special election. And when I left the state for vacation it was plastered all over national news, there was no escaping it. I also don't think either one was fit for the job, with ossoff not even living in the district and getting almost all his money from outside of Georgia and handel having a lot of bad claims about her past being thrown at her throughout the election.



Its been getting national coverage particularly on liberal msm because they think it will start their whole trump resistance movement and so far there has been nothing to show for it, the recent special election for example the ossoff campaign the money spent was crazy (alot of it coming from rich people in california and new york) people who have no interest in the people who actually live there and just want a democrat to win.


----------



## rileysrjay (Jul 3, 2017)

Joe88 said:


> They have been on a downward spiral since obama got elected
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Pretty much I agree with you. However it wasn't just on all the liberal outlets, it managed to make it onto freaking conservative ones also. I even saw coverage on everyone's favorite news source, fox news. There was no way of escaping it. Also some of the attack ads on ossoff we're hilarious. Particularly the truth strikes back and the California's/San Francisco's congressman ones.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 3, 2017)

Joe88 said:


> They have been on a downward spiral since obama got elected


This can be attributed to several factors:

A president's party almost always loses seats in midterm elections.
In part because of the above fact, Republicans did very well in 2010. Because that was a census year, they gerrymandered the redistricting process to give Republicans a general advantage for ten years.
That's why in 2012, for example, Republicans won 54% of the House seats while only getting 48% of the vote (Democrats earned 49% of the vote). If we focus on a heavily gerrymandered state like Pennsylvania in 2012, Republicans won 72% of that state's House seats while only getting 49% of the vote (Democrats earned 50% of the vote).



Joe88 said:


> Even the past 4 special elections they went 0-4, its not going to change looking at it currently unless something happens to stop it. But the corruption will continue...


While the losses are disappointing to Democrats, these special elections were in conservative strongholds. The fact that they were competitive should be disconcerting to Republicans. In other words, if deep red districts were competitive, what does that say about the future of light red and purple areas?


----------



## Clydefrosch (Jul 3, 2017)

Joe88 said:


> They have been on a downward spiral since obama got elected
> 
> 
> 
> ...



ok, first off, considering ossoff ran in a state that was deep red for 40 years, getting as close to the majority as he did, was crazy, even if you considerr the money spent. and if it wasn't for ads such as this:  
meant to scare joe everyman into action, he probably would have made it, even if it would've been close regardless.

yes, the dems have lost a lot of seats once they got in the white house. and it probably has everything to do with the republican party aggressively pursuing those seats and governorships in a very coordinated team effort.
the one thing the gop has over the dems is, they all get together and multiply the same (if not always true) message when it comes to their party and their politics. unlike the dems, that do have a tendency to, at times, stand against one another, the gop together with the fox network manage to throw out one talking point coordinated from one day to the next. literally, they know very well how to exploit humanity when it comes to campaigning.

the dems don't. which is why some, like say, bill maher, keep calling for dems to put on the brass knuckles too, to fight as dirty as them, to make it a gang effort.

also, its not exactly uncommon for the party in the whitehouse to lose seats in the midterms. its an almost crazy epidemic in us politics. its unfortunate though, that of all people, donald trump could be the one in power when that stops being the norm. 
many a policy was stopped because the party in the white house was not the party in the senate and house (and the party in the senate and the house has always had an interest in stopping the one in the white house from getting things done, so they could campaign on their inability to get things done)
however, as it stands, trump might be the president to not get things done despite his party being in absolute power, so...

really, as an outsider looking in, i just hope enough of you guys notice when you're conned in time. i mean, jesus, there wouldn't have been a holocaust or WW2 if hitler had acted just half as crazy on his way to power.


----------



## rileysrjay (Jul 3, 2017)

Clydefrosch said:


> ok, first off, considering ossoff ran in a state that was deep red for 40 years, getting as close to the majority as he did, was crazy, even if you considerr the money spent. and if it wasn't for ads such as this:
> meant to scare joe everyman into action, he probably would have made it, even if it would've been close regardless.
> 
> yes, the dems have lost a lot of seats once they got in the white house. and it probably has everything to do with the republican party aggressively pursuing those seats and governorships in a very coordinated team effort.
> ...



Even without those types of ads he probably would've lost imo. From what I saw the main thing that ultimately stopped him from getting the seat was the fact that he was an "outsider" who didn't live in the district and didn't have a lot of experience. And also iirc the presidential election there had a 1% difference with Republicans edging it out. So the district could've easily been won I think by the Dems if they had a different candidate that lived in the district and had much more experience, because handel was a weak opponent but ultimately ossoff was even weaker in my eyes.


----------



## Nevermore (Jul 3, 2017)

Yeah, it's called seasons.


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 3, 2017)

Nevermore said:


> Yeah, it's called seasons.


Seasonal changes are not climate changes. Seasons changes are temporary changes based on a hemisphere's general location/position from the sun. Climate is the fixed weather patterns for that location. Basically locations getting all 4 seasons like the Norther part of the Americas are expected to get set patterns in their seasons according to their climate. Climate change on the other hand is when these patterns are broken and the seasons no longer change properly, examples being that these same locations are now getting shorter winters compared to previous years. Although this is a very basic explanation and doesn't do justice for the topic as whole.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Sep 20, 2019)

People who dont believed the change are the fools.


----------

