*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[CoccoBill]

Finally something we can agree on.

[OngBonga]

I'd be the CEO of whichever company gave me the most generous severance package. Then I'd go about getting myself fired, or whatever happens to a CEO. Vote of No Confidence? Whatever. Pension please.

[oskar]

Banana, I can't reply to that.
I truly don't understand what your point is. I'm not going to fact check or answer questions you could find the answers to with a google search, and you keep misinterpreting things I say, and you keep assuming that I will understand what you're saying when you say things like

For fuck's sake dude, you only need to exercise about 6 brain cells in unison in order to realize that immigration policies affect more than just immigrants.

That could mean anything. I can't read your mind.

Do you mean the economic climate models that consistently don't pan out?

Trump straight up denies that climate change is a thing. He called it a hoax. The economic models to combat it might not be ideal, but saying the economic models need to be worked on is different from saying it's nothing to worry about.

[BananaStand]

Banana, I can't reply to that.....I can't read your mind.

I don't believe I asked you to read my mind. I'll recap the open questions.

1) Please explain your use of the word "grave" to describe the fact that Trump has a loan from China. I asked you to use all the powers of your imagination to hypothesize a scenario where that could have serious consequences against America's national interests.

2) I'm wondering why you think that immigration policy doesn't affect me? I'm asking you to describe the logical thought process that led you to that conclusion.

3) What exactly do you think Trump's stance on DACA is? Is your perception of his stance materially different from my perception of his stance? Again, here is my understanding of Trump's stance on DACA.

Trump was willing to allow amnesty for 1.8 million people, which is twice the number of people the Democrats claimed were affected by DACA. In return, he wanted funding for a border wall. The Democrats decided that making that deal would be seen as too much of a Trump success and they would lose too much leverage in the next elections. So they sacrificed 1.8 million people in order to preserve their own political capital. And Trump's current position on the issue is to either wait for the Dems to come back to the table, or follow the law as it exists now.

4) Why does it bother you when a politician does something "to appeal to his voter base". People said "There's 11 million people here that shouldn't be. Fix it". And then Trump said "ok, vote for me and I'll fix it". And so they voted for Trump. Now explain to me why you think Trump would be wrong to follow through on his promise?

5) The history on the "muslim ban" (if you insist on calling it that), was that US intelligence agencies under Obama identified lapses in US immigration vetting processes specific to a handful of countries with known ties to terrorism. Similar to the above, Trump listened to voters who said "Don't let terrorists into this country". When he took office, he looked at the work that was already done and simply fulfilled the promise he made to voters. How anyone can construe that as a hate-motivated attack on Muslims, is something I need explained to me.

6) I would like you to speculate on potential crimes with regards to Russia and the 2016 election. I want to know what specific evidence you're citing to suspect Trump of wrongdoing. I want to know what you believe Trump actually received from Russia. I want to know what specifically you think Trump may have promised in return. I would like you to incorporate Trump's bombing of Syria and Trump's arming of the Ukraine as part of your response.

Furthermore, I would like you to explain how it's possible that Trump could have colluded with Russia, and after two full years of exhaustive investigations by every institution of journalism and law enforcement, Trump is still President.

7) And if there really is nothing to the Russia story, then please explain to me how firing Comey could be considered obstruction. Either A) Comey was incompetent by investigating Trump based on politically-sourced evidence. or B) He was politically motivated to investigate Trump. Both are fireable offenses.

[wufwugy]

He called it a hoax. The economic models to combat it might not be ideal, but saying the economic models need to be worked on is different from saying it's nothing to worry about.

The physics and chemistry are real. The measurements are probably solid. It's the complex climate models and economic models that have so far had no predictive power.

This means that the best of humankind's knowledge is that the planet is probably warming but there is no certainty about what that means.

[MadMojoMonkey]

The physics and chemistry are real. The measurements are probably solid. It's the complex climate models and economic models that have so far had no predictive power.

This means that the best of humankind's knowledge is that the planet is probably warming but there is no certainty about what that means.

This is a very concise way of wrapping up volumes of research.
Kudos.

I agree. The body of data is overwhelming. It's the implications that are hard to suss.

[BananaStand]

This means that the best of humankind's knowledge is that the planet is probably warming but there is no certainty about what that means.

More importantly, it doesn't matter what it means. Imagine Al Gore's wet dream came true and all the science proved beyond any doubt that car exhaust and plastic bottles were solely to blame for the earth warming. And since we're still in Al Gore's dream, let's also assume that congress would unanimously pass legislation that would completely eliminate America's contribution to climate change.

China, Russia, and India will do no such thing. So the only result would be that America hamstrings it's own economy with oppressive regulations, and the planet still goes to shit. As the flesh melts off the skulls of every member of the human race, the Americans will be able to virtue signal to the very end saying "This would have happened three months sooner if it wasn't for us. You're welcome".

If you follow things to their logical conclusions, it's clear that the Al Gore dream I just described is actually the best case scenario for the liberal politicians playing the "zomg! Climate Change!" game.

Make absolutely no mistake folks. When you hear someone talking about Climate Change, there is probably a 97% percent chance they don't actually give a shit about the planet, and they're only after power. It works in their favor if the science is ambiguous and inconclusive.

[oskar]

Banana, just keep it to one point. I don't get a lot out of talking to you. This is too much.
1 - really?
2 - didn't say that
3 - google trump and daca
4 - it bothers me if it negatively effects people for no reason other than catering to his voter base. You also falsely stated earlier that this was an obama policy: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/07/toug...-families.html
5 - it had no basis in reality. There was no reason for the travel ban other than cater to xenophobes.
6 - it's illegal to receive foreign aid in a presidential campaign. That's why they lied about the trump tower meeting. I'm not going to repeat myself on the 2nd part.
7 - https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...nts-grand-jury

[oskar]

The physics and chemistry are real. The measurements are probably solid. It's the complex climate models and economic models that have so far had no predictive power.

This means that the best of humankind's knowledge is that the planet is probably warming but there is no certainty about what that means.

If you go against the scientific consensus, you should have a very strong basis on why you do. If you don't, then the default position should be that you don't know.

[oskar]

China, Russia, and India will do no such thing. So the only result would be that America hamstrings it's own economy with oppressive regulations, and the planet still goes to shit. As the flesh melts off the skulls of every member of the human race, the Americans will be able to virtue signal to the very end saying "This would have happened three months sooner if it wasn't for us. You're welcome".

The US are the only world power currently not in the paris climate agreement.

[BananaStand]

Banana, just keep it to one point. I don't get a lot out of talking to you. This is too much.

Fine. It all boils down to one single question that I have asked twice, and still haven't gotten an answer. I'll ask a third time now...

Name one objectively terrible thing that's occurred as a direct result of Trump's presidency.

or if you wanna get into the nitty gritty....

1 - really?

yes really. Really really really.

2 - didn't say that

Yes you did. Your exact words were "I dont know if you care about things that don't affect you...". Now I'm asking, for a third time...why do you think that immigration policy doesn't affect me?

3 - google trump and daca

No. I'm very much aware of the situation regarding Trump and DACA. I've explained my understanding in explicit detail. If you have a source that refutes that, please present it.

4 - it bothers me if it negatively effects people for no reason other than catering to his voter base.

Define "catering"? Explain why it's bad? Because all I see is a duly elected official enacting policies that address the needs and concerns of his voting constituency. Why do you have a problem with that? Why are the needs and concerns of Trump voters not worthy of being "catered" to?

You SERIOUSLY need to explain why you say this Oskar. Because honestly, it just reeks of spoiled, whiny, entitlement. "Waaa, this politician is being nicer to people who voted for him than he is being to me, waaah". C'mon man.

You also falsely stated earlier that this was an obama policy: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/07/toug...-families.html

No I didn't.

5 - it had no basis in reality. There was no reason for the travel ban other than cater to xenophobes.

There's that word again, "cater". As for a basis in reality...I'll reiterate. It was the Obama administration that identified the lapses in vetting procedures and identified which particular countries are the most likely sources of terrorist travelers. What is un-real about that? And why is caring about it xenophobic?

Honestly man, this game is tiresome. You don't like a policy, so you just broad-brush cast everyone who does like the policy as something deplorable. That's weak, and intellectually lazy.

6 - it's illegal to receive foreign aid in a presidential campaign

No it's not. And what specific foreign aid are you referring to? Specifically, what did Trump get? Specifically, what makes that illegal?

That's why they lied about the trump tower meeting. I'm not going to repeat myself on the 2nd part.

Really? You have insisted that you are unable to read my mind. Yet here you are claiming clairvoyant powers with insight into the specific internal motivations of multiple people whom you only know through the bias news media.

By all accounts, nothing came from the Trump tower meeting, and talking about it would just encourage the rabid media dogs to speculate wildly about all kinds of crazy bullshit. Yeah, he lied. That's not great. But I'm also a reasonable person who can understand why he might try and sweep something like that under the rug when he KNOWS that the media is just salivating for any salacious bullshit with a Russian flavor. So I'm not going to immediately jump to the conclusion that it's definitive evidence of guilt and culpability in a massive international conspiracy that was successful in undermining the worlds greatest democracy. Sheeesh. Get a grip.

And you do realize that if something deplorable did happen in that meeting, Manafort could just say so and instantaneously free himself and become incredibly more wealthy than he already is. You get that right? Why are you choosing to ignore that fact in your assessment of the contents of that meeting?

7 - https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...nts-grand-jury

I don't see how this addresses #7 at all. But I read it anyway. Here's the best part.

So far, no Trump associates have been specifically charged with any crimes relating to helping Russia interfere with the 2016 election.

[oskar]

Fine. It all boils down to one single question that I have asked twice, and still haven't gotten an answer. I'll ask a third time now...
Name one objectively terrible thing that's occurred as a direct result of Trump's presidency.

I already did, and I'm not even reading the rest. Consider yourself victorious.

[BananaStand]

I already did, and I'm not even reading the rest. Consider yourself victorious.

No, you didn't. You gave some subjective anecdotes.

I miss Poopadoop. At least a demagogue could be forced to contend with his own utterances. You're worse Oskar. You're the guy who believes the demagogue is telling you the truth.

[BananaStand]

This feels like one of those situations where someone has made claims that are either patently false, or easily debunked on the basis of incompleteness or misunderstanding. And rather than contend with those realities, this person is just going to invoke the "banana is an ass hole" defense and use it to invalidate everything I say. That is such a weak-sauce cop out. It's fascinatingly disappointing to see someone purport to be participating in an intellectual discussion, and then use such an intellectually cowardly tactic to avoid defending his own statements.

Let me be clear. I do not believe that there is such a thing as differences in opinions when it comes to the types of matters we've been discussing. When two people disagree, it's because one of them is missing a fact.

Oskar is wrong because he is missing facts. Either that or he has convinced himself to believe fake-facts given to him by biased and deranged demagogues.

Examples of Missing facts:
-Why hasn't Manafort flipped?
-What could possibly be in the loan contract between Trump and China that could actually undermine America's national interests
-What exactly did Trump get from the Russians?
-What exactly did Trump promise the Russians in return?
-If Trump is conspiring with Russia, why would he arm the Ukraine? Why would he attack Syria?

Examples of fake-facts that Oskar has self-demagogued himself into believing
-Trump enacted "the muslim ban" out of sadistic xenophobic racism, and not the well documented recommendations of US intelligence agencies.
-If you're not an immigrant, then immigration policy doesn't affect you, and you would only care if you're motivated by sadistic xenophobic racism.
-It wasn't the democrats who bailed on a DACA deal. It was the sadistic xenophobic racist.
-When duly elected liberal politicians enact policies that support the needs and wants of their voting constituencies, it's called democracy. When duly elected conservative politicians enact policies that support the needs and wants of their voting constituencies, it's called sadistic xenophobic racism
-Trump lied about the meeting in Trump tower to cover up treasonous election fraud, and not in a misguided attempt to side-step a public relations shit-storm. Something something sadistic xenophobic racist.

[wufwugy]

If you go against the scientific consensus, you should have a very strong basis on why you do. If you don't, then the default position should be that you don't know.

In politics, the default position of "don't know" is that climate change is a hoax. This is because political discourse doesn't include much of the science. "Climate change" and "global warming" in a political context mostly refer to the non-scientific models.

[wufwugy]

Obama's years long spying on a political opponent is the biggest political scandal in US history? Yes or no?

[wufwugy]

This is a very concise way of wrapping up volumes of research.
Kudos.

I agree. The body of data is overwhelming. It's the implications that are hard to suss.

Thanks. This is great because you're one of my go-tos for assessing whether or not I've made an appropriate claim.

[oskar]

In politics, the default position of "don't know" is that climate change is a hoax. This is because political discourse doesn't include much of the science. "Climate change" and "global warming" in a political context mostly refer to the non-scientific models.

Are you and banana having some kind of contest? I think you're winning.

[oskar]

Obama's years long spying on a political opponent is the biggest political scandal in US history? Yes or no?

Trump could appoint a special council today.

[wufwugy]

Are you and banana having some kind of contest? I think you're winning.

Consider the point instead of attack the person.

[oskar]

I didn't say what kind of contest.

[oskar]

But I did assume it was for the guinness book of fucking retards.

[oskar]

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

[BananaStand]

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

Like I said, anytime someone talks about climate change, they are most likely after power and don't actually give a fuck about the planet.

That's true for Trump, and whatever ass hole or ass holes are responsible for publishing that article

[wufwugy]

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

What do you think he is calling a hoax?

[Jack Sawyer]

What do you think he is calling a hoax?

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

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

Do I win a prize?

[Jack Sawyer]

*later he claimed that particular tweet was a joke

A FEW MONTHS LATER

On Dec. 30, 2015, Trump told the crowd at a rally in Hilton Head, S.C., "Obama's talking about all of this with the global warming and … a lot of it's a hoax. It's a hoax. I mean, it's a money-making industry, okay? It's a hoax, a lot of it."

LOL, dude's a stand up comedian

[Jack Sawyer]

I love this one though

On Tuesday, a US District Court Judge for the District of Columbia issued a memo (PDF) saying that the EPA must comply with PEER’s request by July 2, offering any EPA documents that helped Pruitt come to the conclusion that he shared on CNBC last year. If certain documents can not be provided, an explanation for their absence must be provided by July 11.

In the Tuesday memo, Judge Beryl A. Howell described a slew of excuses used by the EPA to justify a refusal of PEER’s request. The EPA contended that PEER’s FOIA request was overly broad, that it was actually “an impermissible attempt to compel EPA and its administrator to answer questions and take a position on the climate change debate,” and that complying with the request would be burdensome.

In its own explanation to the court, the EPA argued that complying with PEER's FOIA request “would require EPA to spend countless hours researching and analyzing a vast trove of material on the effect of human activity on climate change” which amounted to “a subjective assessment upon which reasonable minds can differ.”

Scott Pruitt donning his MAGA hat!

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018...climate-claims

[Jack Sawyer]

Kind of important for the Environmental Protection Agency to, you know, protect the environment right?

Spending countless hours researching and analyzing a vast trove of material on the effect of human activity on climate change kind of sounds like to be their goddamn job


Imagine if they'd actually had to work

[Poopadoop]

Kind of important for the Environmental Protection Agency to, you know, protect the environment right?

Spending countless hours researching and analyzing a vast trove of material on the effect of human activity on climate change kind of sounds like to be their goddamn job


Imagine if they'd actually had to work

Yes, but protecting the environment requires having and enforcing regulations, and that would be bad for business, and ergo bad for stock market, and ergo bad for the common man. Just because e.g., Flint doesn't have clean drinking water doesn't mean the common man isn't benefiting; you have to see the big picture. Like with the tax cuts that help the wealthy, removing regulations makes life better for everyone.

[Poopadoop]

Also, lolz

[BananaStand]

Also, lolz

I know, right? Can you believe the democrats fucked things up badly enough for this guy to be elected president?

[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.

[wufwugy]

Yes, but protecting the environment requires having and enforcing regulations, and that would be bad for business, and ergo bad for stock market, and ergo bad for the common man. Just because e.g., Flint doesn't have clean drinking water doesn't mean the common man isn't benefiting; you have to see the big picture. Like with the tax cuts that help the wealthy, removing regulations makes life better for everyone.

Do you believe this is an accurate characterization of views about effects of regulation?

[wufwugy]

*later he claimed that particular tweet was a joke

A FEW MONTHS LATER




LOL, dude's a stand up comedian

Would you like to have the credibility of opinion that comes along with acknowledging what appears to be an obvious truth in that global warming is a money-making industry?

[Poopadoop]

Do you believe this is an accurate characterization of views about effects of regulation?

It is of my views yes.

Waiting for the counterargument that with their increased income those people can afford to buy bottled water, fucking sissies.

[Poopadoop]

Would you like to have the credibility of opinion that comes along with acknowledging what appears to be an obvious truth in that global warming is a money-making industry?

Isn't there an equally obvious truth that discounting global warming as a hoax is a money-making industry?

There's also an obvious truth that encouraging people to quit smoking makes money for people who make nicotine patches. The point being just because someone can make a profit off of something doesn't in itself make it a bad idea.

[oskar]

Do you think Trump thinks the physics is a hoax?

I don't think Trump thinks in the conventional sense of the word. When he says "So Obama is talking about all of this with the global warming and-a-that, and a lot of it, it's a hoax, it's a hoax, I mean it's a money making industry, okay? It's a hoax." I believe that that is what he thinks, and not a whole lot more. I don't think that there is a great duality between someone's thoughts and words. I don't think there's a way that someone can consistently talk that way and have brilliant thoughts behind those words. I don't know how you can listen to him, or his environmental advisor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uULeImcpjrE
or his head of the EPA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJsg6nUKEjE and believe that these people have an informed opinion that is based on anything but the interest to protect the bottom line of Trump and his billionaire friends.

[Jack Sawyer]

Do you think Trump thinks ...

You are outsmarting yourself wuf

[oskar]

http://www.newsweek.com/pruitt-trump...s-trump-962703

"Environmental Protection Agency"

At this point you have to wonder if it wouldn't be easier to literally dig up Geroge Orwell, turn him over and bury him again. Or maybe fix him to some type of rotary device for a permanent solution.

[wufwugy]

Isn't there an equally obvious truth that discounting global warming as a hoax is a money-making industry?

There's also an obvious truth that encouraging people to quit smoking makes money for people who make nicotine patches. The point being just because someone can make a profit off of something doesn't in itself make it a bad idea.

All true.

For somebody to have credibility, he or she has to acknowledge things that are true instead of just picking sides.

[wufwugy]

It is of my views yes.

Thanks for the reply.

I don't know anybody who holds the view in question.

Since I know a lot of people who are said to hold that view in question, and because I have put a great deal of thought into the view, if I may present what I think the real view is:

Regulations by monopolies hurt the common man because the regulations are not subject to a robust trial and error mechanic.

The stock market is an effect more than a cause. Theory on this is not perfect, yet there isn't yet anything better. The relationship between stocks and the "real world" is that stock values represent a close approximation of information in the real world. Indices do not perfectly align with the "real world", but performance is still top notch.

Flint not having clean drinking water is terrible for the common man. In terms of applying fault usefully, monopoly regulation is at fault.

"Tax cuts that help the wealthy" is a misunderstanding journalists perpetuate. A good rule of thumb is to not listen to anything the media says about taxes. They don't know.

[wufwugy]

http://www.newsweek.com/pruitt-trump...s-trump-962703

"Environmental Protection Agency"

At this point you have to wonder if it wouldn't be easier to literally dig up Geroge Orwell, turn him over and bury him again. Or maybe fix him to some type of rotary device for a permanent solution.

Why's that?

[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?

[wufwugy]

I don't think Trump thinks in the conventional sense of the word. When he says "So Obama is talking about all of this with the global warming and-a-that, and a lot of it, it's a hoax, it's a hoax, I mean it's a money making industry, okay? It's a hoax." I believe that that is what he thinks, and not a whole lot more. I don't think that there is a great duality between someone's thoughts and words. I don't think there's a way that someone can consistently talk that way and have brilliant thoughts behind those words. I don't know how you can listen to him, or his environmental advisor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uULeImcpjrE
or his head of the EPA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJsg6nUKEjE and believe that these people have an informed opinion that is based on anything but the interest to protect the bottom line of Trump and his billionaire friends.

Fair assessment.

My question is what is he actually referring to? He could be referring to all sorts of different things based on those words he said. Is he talking about the physics or the political agenda? Is he talking about the data gathering practices or the poorly performing complex models?

[OngBonga]

People talk about climate change deniers like they are on the same intellectual level as flat earthers.

Of course, the difference is we can prove beyond any doubt whatsoever that the earth is an oblate sphere.

[OngBonga]

"beyond any doubt whatsoever"

Well actually it could be a 4-dimensional hypersphere, and we're merely observing the 3-dimensional projection, but I'm splitting hairs here.

[MadMojoMonkey]

People talk about climate change deniers like they are on the same intellectual level as flat earthers.

Of course, the difference is we can prove beyond any doubt whatsoever that the earth is an oblate sphere.

If they're in denial of climate change, then they are on the same intellectual level as flat Earthers.

The data are in, and are astoundingly compelling.
A) The climate is changing, and has been for 3.5 billion years.
B) There is a significant rise in the rate of warming which correlates with the rise of modern human technology.

Correlation is not necessarily causation, but that's beside the point. Denying that there is a trend of warming is nonsense.
Denying that humans are responsible for the cause or the solution, or even whether a solution is warranted is a totally different discussion.

[CoccoBill]

^Agreed. It might well be that the warming is caused by something entirely different, like dark energy interacting with human male genitalia. It is also true that everything we know about anything points to greenhouse gas emissions being the culprit, and the models are fitting the data perfectly. I'm not quite sure what the failing models are. Obviously there are different projections since we don't have all the variables, some predictions are bound to be less accurate than others.

I could put here a snide remark about poorly performing macroeconomic models but I'll refrain. But staying on this topic, how large portion of the global economic growth of the past couple hundred years can be attributed directly or indirectly to population growth? Point being, what's gonna happen to economic growth in a couple decades when the population growth will stagnate?

[wufwugy]

^Agreed. It might well be that the warming is caused by something entirely different, like dark energy interacting with human male genitalia. It is also true that everything we know about anything points to greenhouse gas emissions being the culprit, and the models are fitting the data perfectly. I'm not quite sure what the failing models are. Obviously there are different projections since we don't have all the variables, some predictions are bound to be less accurate than others.

I could put here a snide remark about poorly performing macroeconomic models but I'll refrain. But staying on this topic, how large portion of the global economic growth of the past couple hundred years can be attributed directly or indirectly to population growth? Point being, what's gonna happen to economic growth in a couple decades when the population growth will stagnate?

This has a lot to do with measurement problems. "True" growth (since a better term doesn't exist) per capita has been very big over this time.

As to an effect of negative population growth on the economy, I don't know but I'd say it's a strong guess to say it wouldn't have the kind of negative effect some worry about.

[wufwugy]

If they're in denial of climate change, then they are on the same intellectual level as flat Earthers.

The data are in, and are astoundingly compelling.
A) The climate is changing, and has been for 3.5 billion years.
B) There is a significant rise in the rate of warming which correlates with the rise of modern human technology.

Correlation is not necessarily causation, but that's beside the point. Denying that there is a trend of warming is nonsense.
Denying that humans are responsible for the cause or the solution, or even whether a solution is warranted is a totally different discussion.

I heard that a lot of the data are proprietary, meaning that they're not truly peer reviewed.

Given the mass hallucination problem of global warming doomsday, it isn't farfetched to think that the data might not be as stellar as it seems. I hope that's not the case.

[oskar]

Why's that?

I am confused. Do you think asbestos is "100% safe" and that the fight to eradicate it was a "mob-run conspiracy," or have you never read 1984?

I am also dumbstruck by the notion that in the unlikely case climate change isn't man-made, we don't have to do anything about it. 'Earth's own fault if it's gonna kill me!' - What are you talking about?

And once again: I don't give a FUCK what Trump "actually" thinks. He's nothing but a simpleton to me. I have never heard the man say a single thing I thought was clever or thought provoking or funny. He's a bullshit artist peddling to the dumbest of the dumb. Give the man an enema and Putin could use him as a literal sock puppet.
You're raving about how liberalism would lead to marxism, and when you're pressed on what you think marxism is, you describe fascism. Now you have a potus with clear tyrannical aspirations and you go: yeah, that's it! That's what I always wanted!

[MadMojoMonkey]

I heard that a lot of the data are proprietary, meaning that they're not truly peer reviewed.

Given the mass hallucination problem of global warming doomsday, it isn't farfetched to think that the data might not be as stellar as it seems. I hope that's not the case.

There's nothing hidden or proprietary about data leading to the 2 conclusions I mention.

The doomsday thing is a weird one, and it's a problem, but what do you expect? Most people just want to be told what to think, and politicians are all too eager to tell them. Throw in something with huge economic implications and ... let the shit show begin.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I am also dumbstruck by the notion that in the unlikely case climate change isn't men-made, we don't have to do anything about it. 'Earth's own fault if it's gonna kill me!' - What are you talking about?

Global warming isn't going to kill people. Well, not a significant %-age of people. It's going to move climate zones, change coastlines, if it goes as the current trend indicates, there will be extinctions of non-humans.

Humans live in every climate on the planet (except Antarctic winter). We're not getting killed by climate change. Not en masse.

I mean... the sun's life cycle will lead to global warming on a scale that is as extreme as these things get on time scales of 100,000,000 years+, and that will drive all humans underground if we can survive that at all. Eventually, though, even that ends.

[oskar]

if it goes as the current trend indicates, there will be extinctions of non-humans.

AND THERE I WAS WORRIED
Only non-humans, huh?
ThAt'S GrEaT NeWs!

[OngBonga]

The data to prove the world is warming is not nearly as compelling as the data that proves the world is spherical.

I can make many observations that destroy flat earth theory. I'm yet to make an observation that proves to me that the world is warming.

I'm not even taking any side here on the climate change debate, I'm pointing out that it's all based on consensus, while spherical earth is based on facts and observation. To compare the two is disingenuous.

[OngBonga]

oskar, as much as I like the fluffy animals, extinctions are part of nature. If you were given a choice... 1) live for 50 more years and koalas become extinct, or 2) die and save the koalas, what are you choosing?

If we fuck the world up, whatever, there's plenty more around the universe. We're not that special that we need preserving. Someone somewhere didn't fuck it up, and there's koalas and humanoids all living in harmony.

[Poopadoop]

The data to prove the world is warming is not nearly as compelling as the data that proves the world is spherical.

I can make many observations that destroy flat earth theory. I'm yet to make an observation that proves to me that the world is warming.

I'm not even taking any side here on the climate change debate, I'm pointing out that it's all based on consensus, while spherical earth is based on facts and observation. To compare the two is disingenuous.

The evidence regarding the shape of the Earth is irrelevant - not sure why you keep bringing it up.

The consensus among experts is that the Earth is warming, in fact it's irrefutable as MMM said. You can argue the causes and whether it's reversible or not, but there is in fact a distinct warming going on since the industrial revolution. We're also in the middle of a mass extinction, only the sixth of such a magnitude in the Earth's history.

Trump saying 'it's a hoax made up by China' is simply conspiracy-theory level gibberish.

In terms of policy, most of the civilized world has agreed it's a concern, and that humankind is likely contributing to it through carbon emissions. The only liberal democracy not on board with this is the US since Trump.

[Poopadoop]

oskar, as much as I like the fluffy animals, extinctions are part of nature. If you were given a choice... 1) live for 50 more years and koalas become extinct, or 2) die and save the koalas, what are you choosing?

lol like those are the only two options.

If we fuck the world up, whatever, there's plenty more around the universe. We're not that special that we need preserving. Someone somewhere didn't fuck it up, and there's koalas and humanoids all living in harmony.

So, if you have the chance to stop a disaster but don't, that's ok?

[OngBonga]

but there is in fact a distinct warming going on since the industrial revolution.

I don't doubt it. How can I observe this by means of experiment? How can I demonstrate this is indeed a fact and not a posit?

So, if you have the chance to stop a disaster but don't, that's ok?

Sure it is. Nature doesn't give a fuck.

[oskar]

I'd genocide koalas, no false dilemma required. They are a vile and disgusting species.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrqRYSvfwhQ

[OngBonga]

We're a vile and disgusting species. Only, there's a danger we might one day escape the limits of our Solar System and infiltrate other regions of the universe. I'd genocide the planet, humans, koalas and all.

For the sake of all the much nicer creatures that live in bliss across the universe.

[oskar]

That's a great story.


If you insist that a scientific theory is worthless without being directly demonstrable through experiments, I have to ask you where you stand on evolution.

[OngBonga]

It's certainly a lot more viable than alternative theories.

I never said climate change was worthless. I'm saying that it's not nearly on the same page as flat earth, which incidentally is directly comparable to creationism.

I can see evolution all around me. In my garden there are coal tits and blue tits. Titties a-plenty. I can see that a) they are different species, and b) they are very similar, they share a common ancestor. Can I prove this? Well no, because maybe God just made it that way. Well awesome, God can shit all over any theory, including so-called spherical Earth. Any observation you make that contradicts it is God fucking with you.

Evolution is by far the best theory out there. But maybe it's just Newton's gravity. Maybe it's 22/7, not pi. Fuck knows. I'm not dissing evolution, not until something better comes along.

I'll happily diss climate change though because it's so politically charged and very much in question. Of course we're doing bad shit to our atmosphere, but our atmosphere is pretty fucking huge, and nature has ways of dealing with it. You speak of evolution... if the atmosphere becomes rich in CO2, then plant life thrives that little bit more. Nature finds a way to balance it all out.

Climate change is not on the same page as evolution.

[Poopadoop]

I don't doubt it. How can I observe this by means of experiment? How can I demonstrate this is indeed a fact and not a posit?

Thermometers. That's one way. There's also a lot of other methods like drilling ice cores, etc..

Sure it is. Nature doesn't give a fuck.

Nature can't give a fuck because it isn't sentient. So it's up to us to give a fuck.

[Poopadoop]

Climate change is not on the same page as evolution.

It's a complex phenomenon that doesn't lend itself to simple explanations. That doesn't mean you can just discount the evidence that it is happening and not bother to estimate its effects and not deduce that it's probably wise to do something about it.

[Poopadoop]

Meanwhile, Trump is meeting with America's barely-still-friends to see if his new friend can join them.

[OngBonga]

Thermometers. That's one way. There's also a lot of other methods like drilling ice cores...

Thermometers. Nice. I do actually have one of those, and I can see global warming happening right now. I took it outside, and it said 17 degrees. I came back in the house, and just ten minutes later it's 22 degrees. Fuck me, in an hour or two I'll be dead..

Are you aware that our thermometers have been getting better and more accurate over the last century or so? Are you also aware that the number of places around the world that we measure the temperature has increased massively over the last century or so?

[comment deleted due to cognitive dissonance]

Nature can't give a fuck because it isn't sentient. So it's up to us to give a fuck.

Lion-type animals in a galaxy far, far away don't give a fuck.

[Poopadoop]

Thermometers. Nice. I do actually have one of those, and I can see global warming happening right now. I took it outside, and it said 17 degrees. I came back in the house, and just ten minutes later it's 22 degrees. Fuck me, in an hour or two I'll be dead..

Your house and the space around it today are not a representative sample of the Earth's climate over the past 150 years or so.

Are you aware that our thermometers have been getting better and more accurate over the last century or so? Are you also aware that the number of places around the world that we measure the temperature has increased massively over the last century or so?

I guess your argument is that thermometers must have been systematically underestimating global temperatures until we refined them enough to finally take accurate measurements?

By that logic, if you go to a museum and find an old thermometer and test it against a modern one, the modern one should show a higher temperature. And this should be true for a range of old and modern thermometers. The older ones always show colder than the modern ones. Moreover, as you go through your historical lineage of thermometers, reported temperature should correlate strongly with the years the thermometer was in use.

That is quite the creative theory.

Lion-type animals in a galaxy far, far away don't give a fuck.

Why should they? They don't live here. We do.

[Jack Sawyer]

Thermometers. Nice. I do actually have one of those, and I can see global warming happening right now. I took it outside, and it said 17 degrees. I came back in the house, and just ten minutes later it's 22 degrees. Fuck me, in an hour or two I'll be dead..

LOL Banana would be proud with this kind of trolling

[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]

Trump's superpower: making his opponents think ridiculous things.

[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.

[wufwugy]

The measurements of climate change are probably good. The probability that they are not is >0 and probably >10%. The certainty demonstrated by some on the measurements in the face of the uncertainty could be emotion speaking.

[wufwugy]

Simply spectacular