I never said Global Warming was a hoax

>I never said Global Warming was a hoax

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

It's still a hoax

Trump odela henne totalt.

Han snakket om virkelige planer og politikk mens Clinton snakket bare om Trump.

Han hadde henne hengende i tauene hele tiden. Alt hun kunne gjore var smile arrogant mens hun tapte. Det var flaut for henne og det Demokratiske partiet.

Nesten alle målinger bortsett fra LOL (((CNN))) er enige.

Trump dominerte debatten.

Climate Change = Global Warming?

>climate change = global warming
I thought "the science is settled", leaf?

Nice of you to bring that up.

That gives me the chance to post to take the fangs out of one of Trump's most controversial points.

Here it goes, a series of posts I prepared about that (and other) Trump statements about global warming.

It will be long by twitter standards and even by Cred Forums standards but you guys are intelligent and can handle a longish read every now and then.

What Trump says:

> the concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive

What some articles and his detractors says Trump said:

> Trump has called climate change a hoax, claiming that China created the myth in order to surpass the U.S. economically.

Saying the ***concept of*** (emphasis 1) ***global warming*** (emphasis 2) is a tool to benefits the Chinese in detriment of the U.S. Is not calling "climate change" a hoax.

This started as a short text that nobody probably will read and became a full blown essay about the subject. I apologise for that and I'll post anyway, it is a small dose red pill and may help people to understand better the objections a part of the right leaning individuals and organisations have with regards to the whole climate change debate.

The summary is: THE CLIMATE CHANGE DEBATE WAS COOPTED BY THE LEFT AND BY THE GLOBALISTS IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION ON A GLOBAL SCALE, BENEFITING CHINA AND HURTING THE U.S., EUROPE AND OTHER DEVELOPED COUNTRIES.

This post will be divided in parts so, before resorting to the leftists and globalists tactic to dismiss my point without analysing the whole reasoning try to read it.

(continues)

Really? That's your bright line distinction?

The crux of the discussion is the "anthropogenic" (man made) cause of climate change. Some clarifications:

> climate is not weather. Weather is local and have a short cycle, climate is global and have a long cycle
> there are plenty of studies and a clear explanation linking certain gases to the greenhouse effect and a potential global climate change

Now, and here are the points of debate:

> 1. is the planet going to a process of climate change?
> 2. if so, is it natural and part of a natural cycle or is it man made?
> 3. also, if so is it detrimental or beneficial?
> 4. assuming it is predominantly man made, is it possible to reverse it?
> 5. also, if so, at what cost?

Point 1 is more or less uncontroversial. People that don't understand the whole problem and argue on "gut feeling" tend to argue against this point to base their objection to what I'll argue about later. That's is a mistake because data points to the reality of climate change and arguing against it is pointless.

Point 2 is arguable but, just like point 1 there is a very good collection of data that points that man made greenhouse emission is a powerful contributor to the current global climate change pattern.

Point 3: this is the point ideology takes over science. "Scientific consensus" (an oxymoron, science should never be an appeal to authority, it should always stand on its own merits) not only states categorically that climate change is predominantly man made but also for years it predicts its catastrophic consequences on short and long term unless it is reversed.

That brings us to point 4: assuming all the previous points to be as the "scientific consensus" says, is it reversible? If so, how and (point 5) at what cost?

(continues)

Here comes the big problem, the one brought up (as succinctly as a 140 characters can fit) by Trump and by many in the "climate change skeptic” camp (something today so vilified by the media and by the left it is compared to flat earth proponents):

*** the main solution proposed by the left is to force (through government regulation) the reduction of emission of greenhouse gases by the industry. ***

They propose two main ways to achieve that:

> 1. To put a hard limit in the amount of greenhouses can be emitted, with hefty punishment for non compliance

> 2. To create the concept of "carbon credits", where the amount of greenhouse gases one can emit is allocated by the government, and companies that emit less than its share can sell its surplus to entities that want to emit more than its share.

This causes an obvious problem: there is no incentive to apply these measures at a national level, companies would simply move to other countries without the restrictions.

To solve that for many years countries (spearheaded by the left) meet trying to agree on a common framework to reduce emissions globally and at the same time. These talks (look up Kyoto protocol) happened on *** the Bill Clinton administration *** and the agreed upon measures are very damaging for U.S. industry, to the direct benefit of China.

> The Protocol is based on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities: it puts the obligation to reduce current emissions on developed countries on the basis that they are historically responsible for the current levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol

In short: developed countries (US, Canada, Europe, Australia) must reduce emissions while underdeveloped countries (like China, India, Brazil) gets a pass.

(continues)

Global warming is a hoax you goon.

It is clearly detrimental to the U.S. (and to Europe) and it clearly benefits China even if the later economy (and consequently industrial output and emissions) will reach and maybe surpass the former in the next decades.

Even conceding all the 4 points enumerated above (it's happening, it's man made, it's detrimental and it can be reversed) the solution proposed by the left and so detrimental to the national interests of the U.S. that no national politician in its right mind would consider supporting and implementing.

So, why does the left tries to push it with all their influence (monetary, political and mediatic)?

The answer, my friends, is because the whole proposal is an attempt to implement wealth redistribution, at a global level, from the richer countries to the poorer ones.

By allocating carbon credits not In the proportion of current industrial output but based on the fact that "on the basis that they [the developed countries] are historically responsible for the current levels of greenhouse gases" the left creates the perfect mechanism to force richer countries, if they want to keep at their current levels of productivity, to buy these "carbon credits" from poorer countries.

WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION. At a global level. From the developed countries and productive countries to the underdeveloped ones.

With China counting as underdeveloped.

Trump 140 characters can explain his objection to it at length, even these 7000 or so cannot fully. But, and that’s where people underestimate him, he have closed deals in most countries in the world and is certainly well versed in the art of spotting a bad deal.

I hope it helped you guys to understand well how the proposed remedy to "global warming" is a ploy to benefit China and other underdeveloped countries in detriment to the interest of the United States and other developed and productive ones.

tl;dr:

Even if one concede the main points of the globalist left that climate change is man made, detrimental and reversible the left is using it to implement socialism at a global level.

It is the old trick:

> You deny global warming? You are no better than flat earth proponents
> OK, you accept it? Then the only solution is our solution
> It involves making US and Europe paying poor countries in order to keep industrial production
> Wait, that's wealth redistribution? Pure coincidence!

who fucking cares, nobody will doing anything about global warming. Everyone talks about it, and continues to eat red meat, drive cars, use copious amounts of coal derived electricity, and buy shit from China that is made in factories with low regulations then shipped across the sea.

Yes Global warming is real but climate change is used more often now due to normies thinking it has to be excruciatingly hot outside or else it's a hoax. Global Warming refers to the general increase in average temperature seen within the last century, which is undeniable. Climate change refers to the change in climate which encompasses global warming and other shifts in the climate which might vary between different regions (but overall be warmer;global warming).

>It takes a Portuguese user to point this out
Thank you

>Climate Change = Gloabal Warming

Do you pretend to be retarded? Oh wait a fucking leaf

That's a very sophisticated, well-reasoned and well-supported response. But it doesn't seem quite the same as Trump's stated position which is "it's cold outside today, I guess global warming is a hoax."

literally this

its a socialist ruse to tax people for farting

She implied his current position was that it was a was Chinese conspiracy.
leave leaf
Sage

See
Global warming is climate change.

excellent point portubro

Trump is an idiot and no one on Cred Forums is going to admit it because they all hold the same beliefs.

It's one thing to be against the carbon tax, but republicans continuously try to defund NASA research on climate change. Congressmen and women with no scientific background are playing scientist and deciding that the drastic increase in global temperature over the last century should just be ignored, even after it's been proven not to be cause by solar activity (which has been below average).

'global warming' refers to the long-term trend of a rising average global temperature,

'Climate change', again as the name suggests, refers to the changes in the global climate which result from the increasing average global temperature. For example, changes in precipitation patterns, increased prevalence of droughts, heat waves, and other extreme weather, etc.

Thus while the physical phenomena are causally related, they are not the same thing. Human greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming, which in turn is causing climate change.

These posts unironically made me think and I saved them.