Donald Trump: What Do the Scientists Say?

[RooksAndBooks]

Donald Trump is a candidate running in the 2016 POTUS race. On 9/20/2016, 375 scientists signed an open letter regarding Donald Trump. I think it's interesting to read, since personally I do not see Trump as a viable candidate and the open letter addresses climate change and the United States. Scientists who have signed the letter include former Professor E.O. Wilson of Harvard University, Stephen Hawking of Cambridge University, and more.

News Article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/scientists-donald-trump_us_57e1ac04e4b0e80b1b9eda3d

Open Letter:
http://responsiblescientists.org/

I think I agree mostly with the Huffington Post article, save for one contention. In the article, it states that, "The Republican presidential nominee, who once claimed global warming is a hoax 'created by and for the Chinese' . . . " However, Trump has mentioned that his tweet was not entirely serious (CNN video). I don't believe that the mentioning of his claim without the mentioning of his statement of facetiousness is entirely honest. It seems that he is skeptical of climate change, but was facetious when stating that it was China who invented it.



Transcript (2:40):

Tapper: "Um, back, uh, in 2012, you tweeted quote, 'The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.'"

Trump: "Well, of course I'm being sarcastic, you know, I mean I love to—"

Tapper: "That's not to be taken seriously?"

Trump: "No, it's a little bit serious. There's a little bit of seriousness there."

What are your opinions of the article? What are your opinions of the open letter?

 

[phinds]

I do not see Trump as a viable candidate

Then you have not been paying attention to what is going on. Frighteningly enough, he is a VERY viable candidate (in terms of getting elected). Beyond that I can't say much about Trump without violating the forum rules on language and courtesy.

 

[RooksAndBooks]

Then you have not been paying attention to what is going on. Frighteningly enough, he is a VERY viable candidate (in terms of getting elected). Beyond that I can't say much about Trump without violating the forum rules on language and courtesy.

Of course I know that http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/, I guess I need to work on my word choice. When I said that he's not "viable," I mean I don't believe his policies would be for the better of the United States.

I'll be careful to use better word choice next time.

 

[phinds]

I'll be careful to use better word choice next time.

That's a good idea on this forum. Scientific questions and discussions depend on precision of language so folks around here are more sensitive to that than the average social media forum

 

[RooksAndBooks]

That's a good idea on this forum. Scientific questions and discussions depend on precision of language so folks around here are more sensitive to that the the average social media forum

I have noticed. At least (most?) people write with tact.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I would assume there be few serious scientists that would support Trump. Is this really news? Can anyone point to a top scientist who openly supports Trump?

 

[Vanadium 50]

Can anyone point to a top scientist who openly supports Trump?

Can anyone point to one who supported Romney?

 

[TurtleMeister]

Can anyone point to a top scientist who openly supports Trump?

Most all top universities in the US are extremely liberal. I doubt that anyone in that environment who supported Trump would openly admit it.

 

[Evo]

Sorry, but posts in this forum have to be actual recent news events (if your post was deleted).

 

[Bystander]

Can anyone point to a top scientist who openly supports Trump?

Can anyone point to one who supported Romney?

I doubt that anyone in that environment who supported Trump would openly admit it.

"The letter warns that the consequences of opting out of the Paris agreement would be severe and long-lasting for our planet’s climate and for the international credibility of the United States." --- from the OP.

Can anyone point to a "top scientist" who supports Clinton? Or Sanders? Or Gary Johnson? Or Jill Stein?

 

[RooksAndBooks]

Sorry, but posts in this forum have to be actual recent news events (if your post was deleted).

This is the first time I have posted this thread. I haven't deleted anything.

 

[phinds]

This is the first time I have posted this thread. I haven't deleted anything.

Then she was not addressing you and you need not have responded.

 

[DiracPool]

Again, and this is my personal opinion, here is a good opportunity to separate the wheat from the chaff when it comes to broad understanding of world affairs. Donald Trump knows next to nothing about them and, more importantly, doesn't care. That's the rub. But go ahead and vote your conscience, Bystander.

 

[Bystander]

vote your conscience,

My conscience? Leave the office vacant.

 

[RooksAndBooks]

I try not to be too political, but I'll put myself out there an say that if you are really thinking of voting for Donald Trump, then you're an ignoramus. This guy is a clownshow. It's really pathetic and embarrassing that this state of affairs exists. Donald Trump is a cheesy used car salesman/game show host. That's it. He knows absolutely nothing about domestic or international diplomacy. Wake up. Lol. Are you really going to vote for this clown? I'm not.

As far as I know, the only person on this site that's going to vote for Donald Trump is JIM HARDY. But we may forgive him because he knows not what he does. Or maybe he does. Perhaps he can enlighten us.

I try to not generalize (anymore). A lot of people I know (whose names I will not disclose) support/will vote for Trump because of their unfavorable views on Clinton, but still view Trump unfavorably. While I believe that it's still a bad reason--a candidate should stand on his/her own merits rather than someone else's downfalls--it's different than supporting his policies. If you did vote for Trump because you agreed with most (or all) of his policies, though, I might give you a funny look unless/until you gave me good reasons (those backed with empirical evidence) to support his positions.

 

[phinds]

This thread is devolving into personal comments to other PF members and is getting off track.

EDIT: I see the problem solved after thread was closed for a bit

 

[Kevin McHugh]

This scientist says Trump is a moron. However, I think the moron would make a better president than his opponent. I'm just PO'd that I have to make a choice between a lying, power greedy, narcissist, and a lying, mysogonistic, xenophobic narcissist.