*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[wufwugy]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...95292191248385



Do I win a prize?

Do you think Trump thinks the physics is a hoax? Do you think he thinks the data are a hoax? Do you think he thinks the models are a hoax? Do you think he thinks the political agenda is a hoax?

Each of those are different things, and each of them can mean "global warming". When in political contexts, it might be likely that the science is not in question as much as the models that have not predicted well that are still used as a base of belief by some.

[Jack Sawyer]

Do you think Trump thinks ...

You are outsmarting yourself wuf

[wufwugy]

You are outsmarting yourself wuf

Did you previously imply that you know what Trump is thinking? If that was my read of what you said, was I right to ask you to expound?

[Jack Sawyer]

Did you previously imply that you know what Trump is thinking? If that was my read of what you said, was I right to ask you to expound?

I cannot know what trump thinks at any point in time whatsoever, I can only go by what he publicly claims.

Let's rewind though

Do you think Trump thinks the physics is a hoax? Do you think he thinks the data are a hoax? Do you think he thinks the models are a hoax? Do you think he thinks the political agenda is a hoax?

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...95292191248385

Please explain as to how you can derive from this particular tweet, or any of the other public statements he spouted on the topic (which there is a lovely compiled list right there for your perusal, unless you want to take the "see no evil" route, which is totally understandable) as to which of these he thinks is a hoax? How can we know what trump thinks, which is apparently usually contrary to his public statements?

Also, isn't "all of the above" also a possible answer?

Which of those, that you claim could be possibilities, can we definitely, completely and without any shadow of a doubt demonstrate he knows enough about to understand what is going on and not falsely claim it to be a hoax, alex jones style? How can we know this for sure?

Each of those are different things, and each of them can mean "global warming".

*MY OPINION*
You are giving a non-thinking man far too much credit as to what he is actually thinking and or referring to. It appears to me to be that you actually think that he thinks something different than what he actually states. Something specific, despite him claiming generalities and global (pardon the pun) stuff. Somehow.

The "outsmarting yourself" part is highlighted in bold above. Again, these statements (thanks oskar)

http://uk.businessinsider.com/everyt...-change-2017-1

are the best we can publicly find giving us insight as what he actually "thinks" about global warming/climate change. But, I guess for every statement he makes on twitter you can find an equal and opposite one by himself, again on twitter. Dude contradicts himself more than the actual bible
*/MY OPINION*

*FACT*
Also, putting Scott Pruitt in charge of the EPA has proven not to be the smartest move.




This dude is in charge of the environment. A Trump nominee. Can you believe it? Do you still think Trump gives at least a quarter of a fuck about the climate, and then appoints the one dude that does not do his job at all to do this job?

When in political contexts, it might be likely that the science is not in question as much as the models that have not predicted well that are still used as a base of belief by some.

I have nothing for this. I am a science guy, and go by data. I like to analyze shit. I am a subscriber to r/dataisbeautiful. I can not understand any mindset which takes data and research in its face, see it does not adhere to one's agenda, and dismiss it outright. In order to take a political stance on something, you have to have some kind of research done on it of some kind, preferably by non biased (read: people who DO NOT actually have a reason to dismiss any finding that upsets the status quo) in order to reach an INFORMED policy decision, rather than just looking how to give money to buddies.

Research SHOULD help bolster policy or even lack thereof. When you realize that there is a problem in the data you have in front of you, double check the data then look for a solution, rather than trash it all. Ostrich policies should only be practiced by ostriches.




PS.

Oh, and BTW, ITT there came a point about the Global Warming being a business in itself, rather than being caused by businesses (industries) who refuse to monitor nor regulate their pollution output (usual suspect environment pollutants, I hear too many cows is a big one nowadays now that there is CO2 emissions restrictions, but LOL restrictions and regulations in this era. CFCs were given the proverbial boot; imagine if people just did not give a fuck at all back then).

I assume that this or similar is what is being referred to in that case (to illustrate for those outside these particular rabbit holes/bubbles)

https://www.investors.com/politics/e...limate-change/

[wufwugy]

About the global warming = hoax comment:

It's close to something I would say in political contexts, because in political contexts, the context isn't science, but political agendas.