Nuclear is good for a backup, yet gas and oil compete with nuclear.

Is gas really cleaner? Nobody really knows :p
http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/news/60392

Certainly not 50% compared to clean coal burning plants.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/energy/2015/10/151013-boundary-dam-test-for-clean-coal-one-year-later/

There's geothermal too, which doesn't depend on backups. Perhaps a good alternative instead of drilling deeper and deeper for oil. There certainly is enough drilling tech around I would think.

Ofcourse gas and oil are multipurpose, and easily exported for profit.

The EIA disagrees with you:

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=73&t=11

Geothermal has its own issues, namely insane cost and Earthquakes:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/geothermal-drilling-earthquakes/

Globally, "few people care" about climate change because 3 billion+ people live in poverty; therefore having more pressing concerns. Living in a first world country, we have most of those figured out, so we can start focusing on issues that don't impact us on a daily basis.

Somehow I find this comment strange, in the context of Trump-Clinton, as the Clinton campaign was nothing but hate, at tha same time Trump campaign was focusing on socioeconomic matters.

Trump does not equal his supporters, but based on media, Trump supporters were much more civil than Clinton supporters, before and after the elections.

Norway is already selling hydroelectricity abroad. The nordic energy stock prices depend heavily on Norway's ability to produce power. Of course, the market is much bigger for Norway when it doesn't need to sell power via Sweden and Finland.

You know, Trump isn't throwing the science out of the window either (at least based on what the topic's about), as he's taking a neutral stand (=he does not it is happening, anymore than he's saying it is not happening). I already pointed out that the context is trade agreements (that are somewhat unfair) and the emissions requirements that are holding back growth. How things currently are is, that climate change is a tool in politics, instead of making politics to cut emissions.

Trump's neutrality towards pretty much everything can be good or a bad thing. Which will it be, we'll see in the future. I have my hopes high that this will return the talk back to science and facts.

Didn't hear any racial slurs and hate speech out of Clinton's supporters or campaigns. When a Trump supporter thinks it's okay to shout "Fuck them Niggers" we have to take a closer look at his supporters and their mindsets. Most of them are white males and older mid age to elderly whites that think this kind of language and understanding is normal. I didn't want someone who has supporters who promote and believe these terrible things to be my president. 

If the rising surface temperature of the earth is a product of cyclic temperature fluctuations, then what causes the fluctuations? We need cause and effect.

You know guys, there are few things that usually aren't taken into consideration. When we talk about the real world, things change a lot. Lots of energy produced comes from something that's considered waste anyway, and the most environment-frienly way to get rid of it is to burn it, and that's when you can make energy with no net emissions. This doesn't solve any problems, of course, but gives you an understanding that energy produced in certain way does not mean it's pollutive, even if the method itself was.

Or, what options do you have for certain energy source. Nuclear-free Germany buys lots of energy from Russia. Makes sense if you think Russia can produce cleaner energy than Germany.

How about electric cars? They're environment friendly, right? They are in the western world. Middle east, for example, burns oil to make electricity, when, in fact, cars with combustion engine would be better for environment over there.

Anyway, the biggest issue is food production, not that much the energy production. Worst food for environment is beef from South-America, right after (strictly energy wise speaking) lettuce. If you'd use cows to care the desert areas, you might be able to produce beef with negative emissions.

The point is, that talking only about method of production isn't giving us real world solutions, and often it is just moving the problem elsewhere.

That experimental clean coal power plant I linked already captures 90% of the co2 produced. But it's all very expensive and a bit shady
http://grist.org/climate-energy/turns-out-the-worlds-first-clean-coal-plant-is-a-backdoor-subsidy-to-oil-producers/
It’s effectively a very high carbon tax, charged only to SaskPower’s captive customers, with the revenue used to produce more fossil fuels. Maybe not the best mitigation strategy.

Gas is just lengthening the status quo, plus it's still the most efficient for heating and cooking. Why waste it on producing electricity. But perhaps switching to electric heating and induction stoves would be better too. I don't know what's more efficient, burn gas at the power plant to produce electricty, subtract the loss that comes from transporting elecitricity and have an electric heater, or keep using gas. I have a gas stove, dryer and central heating, much more cost efficient than electricity. Too bad the air conditioning doesn't run on gas, summers are getting more expensive with global warming ;)

Climate change and the media: NYC under water in 2015 due to rising sea levels? ABC’s “Earth 2100” (from 2008)

As one expert warns that in 2015 the sea level will rise quickly, a visual shows New York City being engulfed by water. The video montage includes another unidentified person predicting that “flames cover hundreds of miles.”

Then-GMA co-anchor Chris Cuomo appeared frightened by this future world. He wondered, “I think we’re familiar with some of these issues, but, boy, 2015? That’s seven years from now. Could it really be that bad?”

It’s June 8th, 2015. One carton of milk is $12.99.  Gas reached over $9 a gallon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pcZuSDq2SE

You didn't? Wasn't the whole of Clinton campaign nothing but racial anti-while male hate spewing? Every social movement that was anti 1. white, 2. male, you saw Clinton backing it. If you look at videos of Clinton supporters, they're supporting BLM as well, that's anarchistic racist movement, and even if they don't, you can find lots of people protesting against white males for some other reasons (feminism for example). 

If someone calls you a nigger and treats you equal, opposed to someone who calls you something politically correct and treats you shit, which one is the racist?

The Clinton campaign was roughly based on fascist rhetoric, where you attack a minority that supposedly holds the power from the "real people", this is close to populistic rhetoric that says the financial elite and (their) corrupted politicians hold the power from the people (think about Bernie Sanders rhetoric for example).

It's easy to see how everyone thought Clinton would win, as her campaign was targeted towards women and men of ethnic minorities, leaving Trump with only one minority. But in the end, the Clinton campaign could not touch the "Trump supporters", but Trump campaign targeting the working class, was able to touch the "Clinton supporters", no matter the ethnicity and sex.