*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[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?

[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.

[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

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[Poopadoop]

Also, lolz