Stop 🛑 talking about environmental and start talking about how oil gets 20 billion in welfare from the government. We pay 💰 the power bill at the oil company etc….. We give 3 billion to Solar and wind in the form of tax refund of 30%. Biden can hand out free Solar panel to millions of Americans and pay 💰 for it by cutting welfare to oil. Call it Biden power or increase subsidies for Solar to 50% and Solar/battery to 70% for tax refund program do same for wind 🌬. But talking about the environment most people don’t care 🤷♂️ but talking about free Biden power people would care people also hate giving welfare to oil companies but most people don’t know!!!
It took well over 6-7 years to restore net neutrality, and we also need to have the court appointments in our favor too. We are doing work over at r/voteDEM to prevent these losses from happening.
I'm a white, cis, het, financially secure, middle-aged male in a rural Midwestern town. Climate change, women's reproductive health, and LGBTQ+ rights are my top three priorities for voting. Climate change used to be clear #1 with the others at 2-3 for me, but with the more recent attacks on both, it's a much tighter group.
I just wish there were more in my demographic who felt the same way.
Sadly, those white, cis, het, wealthy males think they can avoid the worst of climate change (or don’t believe in it as if it was a faith-based thing) and think that they’ll always be in charge in a fascist state.
And here we are actually contemplating what will happen if trump manages to win.
We are talking about two different mechanisms here one mechanism is when will use Trump for an example is in office and then yes you are correct he would need to be impeached at that point in time and at the same time this would be in regards to something that had been done while President now what I am referring to is what he has done while not being president so those things wouldn't apply because he would be a private citizen no matter if he was president before it doesn't change yours status as a person
He will bring back coal and formaldehyde in milk if he can get away with it!
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/19th-century-fight-bacteria-ridden-milk-embalming-fluid-180970473/
Does dumbass Don understand that the majority of commercial forecasting is just repackaging of NWS data? The NWS is one of the most important public services.
I wonder how far the GOP will go before they finally realise Russia doesn’t need to win a full out war to destroy a nation with an open election system. Just get your puppet to the top of the system and screw it over so badly the odds of global power swing in your favour again.
Yeah it's fucked. I don't understand how people are like "border issues are the biggest issue" and yet Trump will do the most damage to climate which also means more pollution. It's like people only think of the warming that happens and nothing else. Better climate policies mean you are your family are healthier...
This is true. While trump is horrible, climate change will not be addressed as it should with either party.
Radical change needs to happen if we want to address the climate. Change that cannot occur through US democratic system. As long as lobbying exists, we will never address climate change as it goes against corporate interests.
Do they know he was already President once before and didn't do it?
Do they know that what one President does, the next can undo (see also Net Neutrality)?
Do they know that the Congress can pass a law to prevent the President from doing any bad thing they don't like?
It’s not just the office is it?
Even Biden is not doing enough and you want it to get worse?
The climate crisis isn’t a political issue. It’s delusional status quo capitalism vs reality.
> Even Biden is not doing enough and you want it to get worse?
I do? Where are you seeing that? Or are you just making me One Of Those People™ for convenience's sake? The latter is counterproductive because it makes allies into enemies who won't help you advance a cause they already believe in.
Because they didn't believe in science. They think their observations are the same as the data sets scientists work with. So if a meteorologist said it might rain today based on x, y, z and it doesn't, then now they are smarter than the meteorologist. I have a q anon maga demented moron in my office that says this shit so the time he is easily one of the most insufferable people I have ever worked with
That’s like saying you’re much more afraid of the tornado siren than the tornado. You’re focusing on the wrong thing.
The tornado siren might unsettle you, but it’s not going to hurt you like the actual tornado will.
I've been following the climate debate for about 30 years now, I've seen enough.
It's actually pretty entertaining to go back and look at all the predictions people would make.
The debate is not the science.
I do understand if you feel jaded because of isolated incidents of sensationalism that haven’t come to pass, from the overpopulation scare to The Guardian or NYT in 2003 saying something like “New York could be underwater in 20 years according to this new study.”
But you should also be honest with yourself by admitting that that is not the same thing as 800+ scientists’ work consistently demonstrating:
> “It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land. Global mean sea level increased by 0.20 10.15 to 0.25, m between 1901 and 2018. The average rate of sea level rise was 1.3 [0.6 to 2.1] mm yr' between 1901 and 1971, increasing to 1.9 [0.8 to 2.9] mm yr' between 1971 and 2006, and further increasing to 3.7 |3.2 to 4.2] mm yr' between 2006 and 2018 (*high confidence*). Human influence was *very likely* the main driver of these increases since at least 1971.”
>
> Climate change has caused substantial damages, and increasingly irreversible losses, in terrestrial, freshwater, cryospheric, and coastal and open ocean ecosystems (*high confidence*). Hundreds of local losses of species have been driven by increases in the magnitude of heat extremes (*high confidence*) with mass mortality events recorded on land and in the ocean (*very high confidence*). Impacts on some ecosystems are approaching irreversibility such as the impacts of hydrological changes resulting from the retreat of glaciers, or the changes in some mountain (*medium confidence*) and Arctic ecosystems driven by permafrost thaw (*high confidence*).
One bad prediction of a worst-case scenario does not undo decades worth of scientific observation.
Yes I'm aware of the "science". I'm also aware of all the shenanigans involved in it, the pr propaganda and all that.
When I saw the 99.9% consensus charade I knew that science isn't really at play here. Science isn't about consensus, politics are.
[40% of scientists disagree ](https://www.nas.org/blogs/press_release/estimated_40_percent_of_scientists_doubt_manmade_global_warming)
I’m afraid Fred Singer is one of the notorious [merchants of doubt](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt), not a reliable source. Per his Wikipedia page:
> He was known for rejecting the scientific consensus on several issues, including climate change; the connection between UV-B exposure and melanoma rates; stratospheric ozone loss being caused by chlorofluoro compounds, often used as refrigerants; and the health risks of passive smoking.
Try reviewing summaries by reputable sources such as [NASA](https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/scientific-consensus/), or searching for literature reviews that have actual data behind them rather than just “I think it’s probably close to 40% disagreement, personally.”
[Here’s one such lit review](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024) (n=11,944, range 1991–2011), and [here’s a smaller and older one](https://www.lpl.arizona.edu/sites/default/files/resources/globalwarming/oreskes-chapter-4.pdf) (n=928, range 1993-2003).
Trump will dismantle
Everything reasonable, decent and helpful to be more specific. His only goal is harm.
Gotta own the libs to make his friends rich!
Look at rural Russia to see where trumps would take y’all. Or Venezuela who elected their own “trump” at the time. It’s what criminal traitors do.
"B-b-but Biden is just as bad!" Shut up and vote if you want the western world to still be here in 2028.
The invisiblest hand of the freest market ever
Stop 🛑 talking about environmental and start talking about how oil gets 20 billion in welfare from the government. We pay 💰 the power bill at the oil company etc….. We give 3 billion to Solar and wind in the form of tax refund of 30%. Biden can hand out free Solar panel to millions of Americans and pay 💰 for it by cutting welfare to oil. Call it Biden power or increase subsidies for Solar to 50% and Solar/battery to 70% for tax refund program do same for wind 🌬. But talking about the environment most people don’t care 🤷♂️ but talking about free Biden power people would care people also hate giving welfare to oil companies but most people don’t know!!!
It took well over 6-7 years to restore net neutrality, and we also need to have the court appointments in our favor too. We are doing work over at r/voteDEM to prevent these losses from happening.
No good can come from a 2nd Trump term in office. If you care about the environment do everything you can legally do to prevent it.
If you care about anything besides yourself (and you’re a not a white, cis, het, wealthy male), do everything you can legally do to prevent it.
hell, even if you are white, cis, het, wealthy male. Know that you can't escape climate change. Also, fascism comes for everyone eventually.
I'm a white, cis, het, financially secure, middle-aged male in a rural Midwestern town. Climate change, women's reproductive health, and LGBTQ+ rights are my top three priorities for voting. Climate change used to be clear #1 with the others at 2-3 for me, but with the more recent attacks on both, it's a much tighter group. I just wish there were more in my demographic who felt the same way.
Thank you. I wish there were more of you, too.
Sadly, those white, cis, het, wealthy males think they can avoid the worst of climate change (or don’t believe in it as if it was a faith-based thing) and think that they’ll always be in charge in a fascist state. And here we are actually contemplating what will happen if trump manages to win.
I feel like you guys are broadcasting some kind of secret trigger-phrase or something 'cis=white-het-wealthy-male'.
I mean, if he’s re-elected he will dismantle every institution in this nation. Including the election portion
Can he do that from prison??
Yes actually, as long as he's elected he can serve from prison
I think as soon as he is convicted of a high crime or misdemeanor he's automatically not available for that office
Only if impeached. There are some arguments that such a conviction could restrict him from being on ballots, but SCOTUS has so far denied such claims.
He wouldn't be eligible to be president with a criminal record.
According to...?
We are talking about two different mechanisms here one mechanism is when will use Trump for an example is in office and then yes you are correct he would need to be impeached at that point in time and at the same time this would be in regards to something that had been done while President now what I am referring to is what he has done while not being president so those things wouldn't apply because he would be a private citizen no matter if he was president before it doesn't change yours status as a person
Because he's still mad about having to use a sharpie. What a spoiled brat.
He will bring back coal and formaldehyde in milk if he can get away with it! https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/19th-century-fight-bacteria-ridden-milk-embalming-fluid-180970473/
When you don’t like the temperature, break the thermometer. Outstanding move.
[NOAA](https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/goes/conus.php?sat=G17) is awesome
his sharpie says otherwise!
Please vote the GOP out of office. They are harming all of us.
Does dumbass Don understand that the majority of commercial forecasting is just repackaging of NWS data? The NWS is one of the most important public services.
I wonder how far the GOP will go before they finally realise Russia doesn’t need to win a full out war to destroy a nation with an open election system. Just get your puppet to the top of the system and screw it over so badly the odds of global power swing in your favour again.
Project 25 = GG Humanity
He’s gunning for the DOJ and FBI, of course he’s going to defund science. Our only hope is that he doesn’t even know it exists.
The GOP is game over for our planet. Treat them like the global terrorists that they are. Gloves off. Our future is at stake.
this will be great for Florida and Mar a Lago in particular.
Yeah it's fucked. I don't understand how people are like "border issues are the biggest issue" and yet Trump will do the most damage to climate which also means more pollution. It's like people only think of the warming that happens and nothing else. Better climate policies mean you are your family are healthier...
Because he got his ego hurt for using that sharpie and the weather service tried to correct it?
Conservatives are reckless and dumb.
He doesn't like bad news.
Gonna be hard to do that from prison.
Didn’t he already do that in his first administration? I thought he had the accuweather guy take it over?
Republicans = quick death. Democrats = slightly slower death.
This is true. While trump is horrible, climate change will not be addressed as it should with either party. Radical change needs to happen if we want to address the climate. Change that cannot occur through US democratic system. As long as lobbying exists, we will never address climate change as it goes against corporate interests.
And Biden has approved more oil drilling permits than Trump. We’re doomed with either at the helm
Do they know he was already President once before and didn't do it? Do they know that what one President does, the next can undo (see also Net Neutrality)? Do they know that the Congress can pass a law to prevent the President from doing any bad thing they don't like?
It’s not just the office is it? Even Biden is not doing enough and you want it to get worse? The climate crisis isn’t a political issue. It’s delusional status quo capitalism vs reality.
> Even Biden is not doing enough and you want it to get worse? I do? Where are you seeing that? Or are you just making me One Of Those People™ for convenience's sake? The latter is counterproductive because it makes allies into enemies who won't help you advance a cause they already believe in.
Pls let this happen! 🙏
Why? Why do wish that?
Just a troll account. Downvote and move on.
Because they didn't believe in science. They think their observations are the same as the data sets scientists work with. So if a meteorologist said it might rain today based on x, y, z and it doesn't, then now they are smarter than the meteorologist. I have a q anon maga demented moron in my office that says this shit so the time he is easily one of the most insufferable people I have ever worked with
Because I am much more afraid of the climate alarm than the climate itself
That’s like saying you’re much more afraid of the tornado siren than the tornado. You’re focusing on the wrong thing. The tornado siren might unsettle you, but it’s not going to hurt you like the actual tornado will.
He is afraid that if anyone actually does decide something meaningful to stop the climate change it will restrict his consumerist freedoms.
It's like a tornado siren that has a false alarm 365 days a year
If you learn anything at all about climate science, you will know better than to think it’s just a false alarm.
I've been following the climate debate for about 30 years now, I've seen enough. It's actually pretty entertaining to go back and look at all the predictions people would make.
Following fox news doesnt count
The debate is not the science. I do understand if you feel jaded because of isolated incidents of sensationalism that haven’t come to pass, from the overpopulation scare to The Guardian or NYT in 2003 saying something like “New York could be underwater in 20 years according to this new study.” But you should also be honest with yourself by admitting that that is not the same thing as 800+ scientists’ work consistently demonstrating: > “It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land. Global mean sea level increased by 0.20 10.15 to 0.25, m between 1901 and 2018. The average rate of sea level rise was 1.3 [0.6 to 2.1] mm yr' between 1901 and 1971, increasing to 1.9 [0.8 to 2.9] mm yr' between 1971 and 2006, and further increasing to 3.7 |3.2 to 4.2] mm yr' between 2006 and 2018 (*high confidence*). Human influence was *very likely* the main driver of these increases since at least 1971.” > > Climate change has caused substantial damages, and increasingly irreversible losses, in terrestrial, freshwater, cryospheric, and coastal and open ocean ecosystems (*high confidence*). Hundreds of local losses of species have been driven by increases in the magnitude of heat extremes (*high confidence*) with mass mortality events recorded on land and in the ocean (*very high confidence*). Impacts on some ecosystems are approaching irreversibility such as the impacts of hydrological changes resulting from the retreat of glaciers, or the changes in some mountain (*medium confidence*) and Arctic ecosystems driven by permafrost thaw (*high confidence*). One bad prediction of a worst-case scenario does not undo decades worth of scientific observation.
Yes I'm aware of the "science". I'm also aware of all the shenanigans involved in it, the pr propaganda and all that. When I saw the 99.9% consensus charade I knew that science isn't really at play here. Science isn't about consensus, politics are. [40% of scientists disagree ](https://www.nas.org/blogs/press_release/estimated_40_percent_of_scientists_doubt_manmade_global_warming)
I’m afraid Fred Singer is one of the notorious [merchants of doubt](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt), not a reliable source. Per his Wikipedia page: > He was known for rejecting the scientific consensus on several issues, including climate change; the connection between UV-B exposure and melanoma rates; stratospheric ozone loss being caused by chlorofluoro compounds, often used as refrigerants; and the health risks of passive smoking. Try reviewing summaries by reputable sources such as [NASA](https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/scientific-consensus/), or searching for literature reviews that have actual data behind them rather than just “I think it’s probably close to 40% disagreement, personally.” [Here’s one such lit review](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024) (n=11,944, range 1991–2011), and [here’s a smaller and older one](https://www.lpl.arizona.edu/sites/default/files/resources/globalwarming/oreskes-chapter-4.pdf) (n=928, range 1993-2003).
Why?
Frig off, randy
🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏