Does Donald Trump Really Think That climate change is a hoax?

I remember the morning of November 9th, 2016 as if it were a meal ago. As I opened my eyes to welcome the new day I felt my minds immediate reluctance to reintegrate into the physical as I was immediately thrown into what I thought at the time was a fight for my very survival. As I slowly came to, the events from the night before faded in and out as if they were ghosts travelling between my subconscious and conscious minds, one memory after another came forth as vague abstract representations; each softly introducing themselves only to once again fade away, replaced by another even more surreal recollection. I couldn't confirm the validity of any of it. I couldn't distinguish between what was real and what was just the remnants of a dream. The only thing I knew with one hundred percent certainty was that the pain I was experiencing at that particular moment was most definitely real, much too real.

My body felt like a shriveled piece of over-marinated meat tossed into a dark corner to be forgotten forever and my mind was being ruthlessly consumed by an aggressive, relentless runaway fire that one can only get from drinking two bottles of sugar filled rose. I remembered at that very moment why I seldom drink. After a few moments, I awkwardly arose to my feet. Still drunk, I somehow managed to navigate the spinning hallway, past the bathroom to the kitchen and poured myself a tall glass of water. Seconds felt like days as I found peaceful, painless refuge between every pulsing beat of my heart and I began to put the pieces back together. As I stood alone in the kitchen, glass in hand, the memories all slowly began to amalgamate and I found only three questions being repeated in my head. Did that really happen? Is Donald Trump really the president of the United States? And, more importantly to my cause, did Hillary Clinton really lose that magnificently?

To preface, my reasons for opposing Clinton's attempted high-jacking of the White House are multitudinous to be sure, and probably best left for another time, but my support of the Trump campaign needs to be explained and it is here, within these pages that I will. Primarily, my motivations were inspired by Hillary and her husband's long-lasting blatant disregard for the law that had spanned three decades. I had wanted to see justice for what I contend to be obvious transgressions going all the way back to their days in Mena, Arkansas. And when I witnessed the vicious media campaign being waged against her opponent it made the choice of endorsing Trump - despite my distrust of the entire democratic process - a no-brainer. It is merely a matter of fact that the media has been complicit in covering up the many scandals committed by the Clinton crime family; however, once she had declared herself a candidate for the presidency in early April of 2015, I was immediately struck by the overt nature with which the mainstream media, Hollywood and politicians of all shapes and sizes were devoutly against Donald Trump.

One after the other, mass media was unabashedly advocating for her, celebrities were endorsing her, important members of academia became staunch apologists of her insidious past. In fact, nearly anyone of any cultural importance was falling over themselves to shield the viewers against the stench that surrounded her, often times using the exact same key phrases and words in defense of her inadequacies (vast right-wing conspiracy being my favorite), equaled in coordination only by their efforts to vilify, castigate and destroy her opponent(often illogically). A more organized propaganda campaign I had not seen in my forty-five years; it's breadth and width was awe inspiring. A strategic campaign of lies that borrowed heavily from the rule book of one of her heroes, and for whom was the subject of her college thesis, Saul Alinsky and his Twelve Rules for Radicals.

Rule # 5. Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.

It would be nothing new to say that the Left has invoked this rule of ridicule against Donald Trump for the entirety of his campaign. Whether it be his alleged ties to Russia, the accusations of sexual misconduct, his proposal to 'build a wall', his imposition of a proposed 'travel ban', his attack on mainstream media as 'fake news', his issues with Barack Obama's birth certificate, his 'wiretapping' allegations against the Obama administration, his campaign motto of 'Make America Great Again', his 'Lock Her Up' and 'Crooked Hillary' rallying platforms or even most ridiculously, his hair, family and reality television career. He has been met at every turn by relentless media attacks.

Alinsky's Rule # 8, Keep the pressure on. Never let up.

For the progressives, it matters not if there is any efficacy to these barbed, scattered attacks, it only matters if the public believe them. And believe them they do. And the most critical ingredient for the success of any of these Alinskian tactics is in fact, an ignorant populace. This is why the critical thinkers and intellectuals that defend Trump are relentlessly attacked, labelled as white supremacists, xenophobes, or deplorables, because they are immune to such adolescent games of semantics. The minds of the educated are impenetrable to the obvious switching of subject and predicate; or the manipulation of the antecedent and perversion of the pronoun. The over-extension and abuse of the ad hominem, or argumentum ad populum.

It is only when one recognizes these tactics does one begin to see the situation for what it is. All of these allegations, assumptions and conjecture thrown against him are just that. They are unsubstantiated, irrational claims - nearly every one. Many of them fabricated from whole cloth, and in an effort to prove this I offer one example that has remained thus far unmentioned on purpose. Something I call the 'global warming climate change flip-flop'. Tfhis is the key that opened the door to all the mainstream mind games and I remember the moment I first witnessed it just as vividly as I do the morning of November 9th because it literally stopped me in my tracks.

I was watching Daniel Dale detail his list of thirty-seven false claims made by Trump from the debate that had taken place the night before. We all remember the one, it was the final debate in which Hillary Clinton claimed that "Donald Trump thinks that climate change is a hoax", to which Donald Trump famously replied, "I did not say that". And, as the audience's incredulous laughter slowly subsided I remember asking myself, "Now why would Trump say that? He most certainly has said that exact thing a multitude of times, even I have heard him say it." In fact, this question confounded me for several weeks during the campaign, right up until the very moment Dale made his infamous appearance on the CBC. When I awoke to this sly game of semantics it was as if I was looking directly into the belly of the beast, into the very dark heart of the establishment media. It was as if I fell down Alice's rabbit hole and landed face to face with the Deep State itself. I felt like Indiana Jones face to face with a cobra. I immediately logged onto my twitter account, found Daniel Dale and tweeted him, "Did I just see you flip-flop the terms 'climate change' and 'global warming'? ....On national television?!"

Within five minutes of his segment finishing, he had blocked me from his account and it took my breathe away. Everything that I had witnessed during the campaign came rushing back as if I was inside a motion picture dream sequence, it all came together like only the final piece of a puzzle can. As I sat down, I began to contemplate everything the media had been claiming about Trump and noticed that they were doing the same thing in almost every instance. They were pushing invalid conclusions, violating every rule of the syllogism and ignoring the proper process of logical thinking. When Trump says he wants to extradite 'illegal immigrants committing crimes', the mainstream media complex would say that he wants to rid America of 'legal immigrants'. When Trumps says 'travel ban', they say he says 'muslim ban', he says 'global warming is a hoax', they claim that he says 'climate change is a hoax'. And this word game being played on the American public goes even further but for the benefit of staying on topic I revert back to my initial point.

After my twitter encounter with Daniel Dale, I immediately began an online search of all of the times Trump tweeted about 'climate change', and found that almost exclusively he uses the term, 'global warming'. Even when he publicly speaks on the topic he is always careful to say 'global warming is a hoax', I couldn't find one example of him saying outright that he believed that 'climate change is a hoax'. Not one. This is why he defiantly exclaimed in rebuttal to Clinton's accusation on the final debate night that he had never said it, because he never did. I then went to look at all of the articles that were written regarding Trump and climate change and all of the articles were doing the same thing. The headline had interchanged the subject 'global warming', for 'climate change', even using his 'global warming' tweets within the body of the article as evidence to his ignorance of a changing climate as well as to substantiate their accusation against him, knowing full well that the public generally only read the headlines, and even if they did read the article, they wouldn't be smart enough to catch on.

Now most may think this a trivial point, but in fact it is not, far from it. And it is upon this belief of triviality that the mainstream is able to deceive the apathetic public. To build up an argument that seemingly defeats an opponents viewpoint when it does not is what in logic is called the reductio ad absurdum, most closely associated with what we know today as the strawman fallacy. It is a contradiction in terms, a lie.

And to those that think that climate change and global warming are interchangeable, I assure you that they are most definitely not. While we can all agree that the scientific community is at each other's throats in disagreement over the 'global warming' debate, and the validity of the claim that we as humans are to blame, they all stand in consensus when asked whether they consider the two terms to be the same thing, they will all concur that they are not. Thus the two different definitions, two different meanings and two different terms.

The other argument that I receive when discussing this topic is that "Trump is too stupid to know the difference' to which I say, "Then why is he so careful to use only one term?" Speaking from vast experience, it is only the general public that irresponsibly interchange them, especially those on the Left. Hundreds of people since have only found failure when debating me on this topic and all of them, strong defenders of the leftist ideology, lack any sufficient fact or evidence to sway me; their argument eventually degrading into an irrational effort to read Trump's mind. Moreover, to surmise that Trump - a multi-billionaire New York real estate magnate who has just pulled off perhaps the greatest 'upset' of all time - is a stupid man is an example of extreme naivete, confirmation bias, or an untreatable case of cognitive dissonance. The man is actually quite intelligent and crazy like a fox.

In conclusion, anyone with sense enough to make up their own mind and refuse the false mainstream narrative sees this blatant attempt to brainwash the public mind not only on the subject of Trump and climate change, but on several others mentioned above. Each one of these misunderstandings containing sufficient facts and evidence with which Trump has based his conclusions that the public are apparently unaware of. Each one perhaps a worthy topic for further writings. Until then, I encourage the reader to research the claims made herein. It is time to turn off the television for good. And, as I believe to have adequately answered the question being asked above in the negative, it is directly to those that I propose my final question. Whether you attribute this quote to Mark Twain or not does nothing to diminish it's relevance considering the topic:

Is it easier to fool a man than it is to convince him that he has been fooled?