The Idea You are Least Likely to Believe

Scott Adams' Blog ^ | 11/30/2016 | Scott Adams (of Dilbert)

[Hugh the Scot]

Wrong again. This was, in reality, a revolution of the people. Trump didn’t fool people into voting for him with some sales technique... Hell, he didn’t choose us... We chose him

[HiTech RedNeck]

If you are worried how a President Trump will address climate change, here’s what to expect. You can expect him to dissect the topic in terms of the facts that matter and the ones that don’t. You can expect him to eventually agree with scientists who say human activity is contributing to climate change. But when it comes to the prediction models, and America’s ability to fix the problem at a reasonable cost, expect him to be more skeptical than the general public.

That's an understatement... there is a lot of gimmick in the prediction models. He'd end up agreeing in the sense that if I drop a rock in the ocean, it'll send ripples out for miles... but someone who is miles away should not care. And he may even end up leading the scientists themselves through his rigorous scrutiny.

[HiTech RedNeck]

“The lot is cast into the lap, but its decision is of the Lord.”

[gunnyg]

Thankfully, President Trump is atop the situation thus far and prolly will continue so!

No doubt many real Americans (Not AINOs) out there are anxious to see this $h!t! brought to a swift and just climax!
So be it.

Semper President Trump!
Dick.Gaines: AMERICAN
aka: Gunny G
++++++++++

[NorthMountain]

You can expect him to dissect the topic in terms of the facts that matter and the ones that don’t. You can expect him to eventually agree with scientists who say human activity is contributing to climate change.

If facts eventually do matter, as the author proposes, then Trump will eventually agree with scientists who say human activity is irrelevant to climate change.

[ChildOfThe60s]

Adams is full of crap regarding Trump being in error in his estimate of illegals voting.

So, apparently Adams can also ignore facts.

[HiTech RedNeck]

I think Donald is trying to maneuver Hillary into a suitable moral resolution. He started with the sweet talk. With her defying him in spite of it, he now has built a stronger moral foundation for acting against her.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Also, the “God model” would have predicted the possibility, if not the surety, of the Trump win... and would have gotten surer as time drew closer to the election.

[HiTech RedNeck]

The effect is probably very little.

[Hostage]

I followed Trump from Summer of last year and was one of his earliest supporters on FR. I watched hundreds of hours of his rally videos and appearances on social media.

I didn’t miss a thing.

What I do object to is Adams insinuating that Climate Change is man-made and that Trump doesn’t have the facts on it, and a slew of other ‘facts’ that Adams declares Trump missed.

Clearly, Adams is self-absorbed too much and doesn’t know where to draw a line.

Give him credit for supporting Trump but draw a line for him to know where negative credits are waiting for him.

[HiTech RedNeck]

On Weather Underground, they’re now begging for support for “increasingly embattled” “climate scientists.”

Turns out our recent peak was short term climate related after all, and this feverlet is cooling off now.

[Hugh the Scot]

Well played.

[Uncle Miltie]

What was “The Apprentice” short of getting ready by being famous?

[Uncle Miltie]

“What I do object to is Adams insinuating that Climate Change is man-made”

I don’t think Adams believes that. I think him agreeing to that in public is a ploy so that he can even have a conversation with the True Believers of that Religion.

[Mr. Douglas]

I’m pretty impressed, though I’d not call him a genius. He’s got a good eye for one of the reasons Trump is successful.

[Behind the Blue Wall]

“In the long run, if Trump pretends to believe in the globally warming religion but doesn’t do anything about it, I’m cool with that.”

I really loved Trump’s comment on this in the NYT interview. The global warming religion as you aptly describe it is hyperfocused on getting everyone to profess a “belief” that the climate is warming because of human activity. The trick is that it’s actually literally true. The climate has warmed by about a degree over the past century (the precise amount may be less because of instrumentation errors and fudging the data, but overall there has been some warming), and human beings have played a role in it in so far as we’ve been converting carbon trapped in the earth into heat-trapping gaseous form.

So you look “anti-science” if you deny those basic facts that do indeed conform with our basic understanding of physics, geology, etc. So, Trump says basically, “yeah that’s probably true, but the real question is one of degree relative to the cost of trying to stop it”. What if the amount of warming that has occurred and is likely to occur is insignificant? What if our role in the process is insignificant? What if the amount of damage that trying to alter would do to our way of life is very significant?

The climate hysterics really don’t have good answers to these questions. They don’t even agree among themselves about how significant it is, and what costs should be borne to stop it. The fact is that hardly anyone things it’s significant enough to make any real changes in their personal lives. Some rich people will buy Tesla’s, penny-pinching professionals will buy a Prius, but ask a climate “believing” liberal if they’d give up their car entirely, or agree to a nuclear power plant being constructed nearby in order to save the planet from certain catastrophe, and you’ll get a blank stare. The expect people in Appalachia to sacrifice their livelihood for the cause, but won’t walk to the bus stop themselves.