# Post x_141946031049949184

- Post ID: `x_141946031049949184`
- Platform: X (Twitter)
- Posted: 2011-11-30T18:25:45.000Z (UTC)
- Deleted: no
- Repost: no
- Canonical URL: https://trump.fm/post/x_141946031049949184
- Analysis page: https://trump.fm/post/x_141946031049949184/analysis
- Audio narration: https://static.trump.fm/audio/x_141946031049949184.mp3 (a synthesized voice reading the post text, not a recording)

## Post text

> Newly released emails prove that scientists have manipulated data on global warming. The data is unreliable. http://t.co/DdW3Hsvn

## Engagement

- Likes: 22
- Reposts: 252
- Replies: 0
- Views: unknown
- Metrics collected: 2026-01-31T23:43:13.254Z (UTC)

# Analysis

_Machine-generated by trump.fm on 2026-02-04T19:34:53.209Z (UTC): a model's reading of this post, not his words. Its psychological terms describe the language, not a clinical assessment of him._

## Summary

This post exemplifies Trump's strategic climate denial during his 2012 presidential positioning. He opportunistically exploits the "Climategate 2.0" email release—despite eight investigations finding no scientific misconduct—to make false claims that scientists "manipulated data" and climate data is "unreliable."  **Psychologically**, the post demonstrates pathological-level defense mechanisms (denial and distortion of scientific reality), narcissistic grandiosity (claiming superior judgment versus expert consensus), and antisocial willingness to deceive for political advantage. Trump positions himself archetypally as Trickster/Truth-Teller exposing corrupt scientific establishment—projecting his own data manipulation onto climate researchers.  **Rhetorically**, he employs propaganda techniques including false certainty, sweeping generalization, and authority undermining. The post serves tribal signaling (conservative identity marker), builds anti-regulation credentials, and establishes distrust in expertise that might constrain his interests.  **Clinically**, this reflects malignant narcissism's characteristic features: epistemic grandiosity, conspiracy-adjacent thinking, exploitation of public trust, and reality distortion to serve self-interest. The definitive assertion ("prove," "unreliable") without expertise demonstrates pathological-level denial and lack of epistemic humility.  **The danger** lies not in immediate violence but in systematic science denial. By legitimizing rejection of climate evidence, Trump contributes to political obstruction of urgently needed climate action—representing civilizational-scale threat. This also establishes authoritarian pattern: when evidence conflicts with ideology, attack evidence itself.  The post exemplifies how narcissistic pathology scales from individual psychology to societal harm when amplified by media platform and political ambition.

# Psychological Analysis: Climate Change Denial Post (November 30, 2011)  ## Historical Context  This post references "Climategate 2.0" - a second batch of hacked emails from climate scientists at the University of East Anglia released on November 22, 2011. The post was made during Trump's book promotion period for "Time to Get Tough: Making America #1 Again" (released December 5, 2011), which positioned him for a potential 2012 presidential run.  The linked WSJ article (inaccessible but contextually identifiable) likely discussed the newly released emails. Multiple scientific investigations found no evidence of data manipulation, but conservative media framed the emails as proof of climate fraud.  ## Authorship Attribution  **Timestamp Analysis:** Posted at 18:25:45 UTC (1:25 PM EST), assuming Trump was in New York during his book promotion period. This is business hours, typically associated with aide-written content.  **Linguistic Markers:** - Complete, grammatically correct sentence structure - Proper punctuation and capitalization - Professional link sharing with contextual framing - No typos, emotional excess, or stream-of-consciousness elements  **Assessment:** This post shows **moderate confidence of aide authorship** (likely Dan Scavino or similar). The timing, polish, and strategic messaging align with professional social media management. However, the content aligns perfectly with Trump's established climate denial views, suggesting he at minimum approved or dictated the message.  **Score: 0.35** (leaning toward aide-written but with Trump's direct input on messaging)  ## Multi-Level Personality Analysis  ### Level 1: Dispositional Traits (Big Five)  **Openness to Experience: Very Low (Facet: Intellectual Rigidity)** - Rejects scientific consensus in favor of politically convenient narrative - Demonstrates closed-mindedness to evidence contradicting preferred position - Shows dogmatic adherence to anti-regulation, anti-environmental stance  **Agreeableness: Low (Facet: Distrust, Antagonism toward Expertise)** - Positions himself against scientific establishment - Frames experts as manipulators rather than truth-seekers - Adversarial stance toward institutional authority  **Conscientiousness: Low (Facet: Lack of Deliberation)** - Makes definitive claims ("The data is unreliable") without apparent investigation - No hedging, qualification, or acknowledgment of complexity - Conclusion-driven rather than evidence-driven reasoning  **Neuroticism: Moderate (Facet: Angry Hostility toward Perceived Deception)** - Underlying anger at perceived elite manipulation - Conspiracy-adjacent framing (scientists deliberately manipulating data)  ### Level 2: Characteristic Adaptations  **Dominant Motives:** - **Power/Dominance:** Positioning self as truth-teller against lying elites - **Status:** Claiming superior insight versus "fooled" masses - **Agency:** Autonomous thinker unbeholden to scientific consensus  **Schemas:** - **Self:** Astute observer who sees through deception - **Scientists/Experts:** Corrupt manipulators with political agenda - **World:** Fundamentally deceptive; institutions cannot be trusted  **Goal Structure:** This post serves multiple strategic goals during his 2012 presidential positioning: 1. **Signal tribal affiliation** with conservative base skeptical of climate science 2. **Establish anti-regulation credentials** (climate action requires regulation he opposes) 3. **Position as outsider** willing to challenge "corrupt" establishment narratives 4. **Build distrust in expertise** that might constrain his business/political interests  ### Level 3: Narrative Identity  **Protagonist Role:** **The Truth-Teller / Whistle-Blower** - Presents self as revealing what "they" don't want you to know - Hero who speaks forbidden truths against powerful interests  **Contrasting Other:** **Manipulative Scientists / Climate Establishment** - They manipulate data; he reveals truth - They deceive; he enlightens - They serve political agenda; he serves facts (ironically)  **Narrative Sequence:** **Exposure Narrative (Revelatory)** - "Newly released emails **prove**" - language of revelation/exposure - Hidden corruption brought to light - Trump as messenger delivering uncomfortable truths  **Identity Claims:** - "I see through deception others miss" - "I'm not fooled by expert consensus" - "I tell you what establishment hides"  ### Level 4: Clinical Indicators  **Consistency with Narcissistic Features:**  **Grandiosity/Special Knowledge:** - Presents definitive conclusion ("The data is unreliable") with certainty that exceeds his expertise - Implicit claim to superior judgment versus thousands of climate scientists - No acknowledgment of epistemic humility or domain expertise  **Lack of Empathy:** - No consideration of climate change's human impact - Dismisses scientific work without engaging substance - Focus on political advantage over environmental consequences  **Interpersonal Exploitation:** - Uses debunked controversy to mislead audience for political gain - Exploits scientific uncertainty for tribal signaling  ## Psychological Dynamics  ### Trigger Analysis  **Type:** Supply-seeking + Preemptive attack - **Supply:** Building conservative credibility during book launch/pre-campaign positioning - **Preemptive:** Attacking climate science that might justify regulations affecting his real estate empire  **Context:** The November 22, 2011 email release provided opportunistic ammunition. Trump seized the moment to signal tribal affiliation and build anti-regulation credentials.  ### Narcissistic State  **Grandiose Mode (Active)** - Confident, declarative assertion of truth - Superior positioning versus scientific consensus - Authority-claiming tone ("prove," "unreliable")  **No rage present** - this is strategic positioning, not reactive anger.  ### Defense Mechanisms Employed  **Denial (Pathological Level):** - Wholesale rejection of climate science consensus - Refusal to accept reality that contradicts preferred worldview - "The data is unreliable" - sweeping dismissal of decades of research  **Distortion (Pathological Level):** - Grossly reshapes scientific reality to meet ideological needs - Eight independent investigations found no scientific misconduct, yet Trump presents opposite as settled fact - Cherry-picks out-of-context emails while ignoring exonerating investigations  **Rationalization (Neurotic Level):** - Uses "newly released emails" as intellectual justification for pre-existing climate denial - Provides logical-sounding cover for ideologically-driven position  **Projection:** - Accuses scientists of "manipulation" while engaging in manipulation himself - Projects his own relationship with truth onto climate researchers  ### Malignant Narcissism Assessment  **Narcissistic Features: 0.65** - Epistemic grandiosity (superior knowledge claims) - Dismissal of expert consensus - Self-positioning as truth-revealer  **Antisocial Features: 0.40** - Deliberate misinformation for political gain - Disregard for consequences of climate denial - Exploitation of public trust  **Paranoid Features: 0.45** - Conspiracy-adjacent thinking (scientists manipulating data) - Distrust of institutional science - "Them versus us" framing  **Sadism: 0.10** - Not prominently featured in this post - No evident pleasure in others' suffering  ## Rhetorical Analysis  ### Propaganda Techniques  1. **Appeal to Scandal:** "Newly released emails" - leverages controversy for attention 2. **False Certainty:** "prove that scientists have manipulated" - presents contested interpretation as definitive 3. **Sweeping Generalization:** "The data is unreliable" - dismisses entire field based on cherry-picked incident 4. **Appeal to Distrust:** Activates pre-existing skepticism toward institutions/experts 5. **Confirmation Bias Exploitation:** Tells audience what they want to hear 6. **Source Laundering:** Links to WSJ (prestigious outlet) to legitimate fringe interpretation  ### Persuasion Strategy  **Tribal Signaling:** Climate skepticism as conservative identity marker  **Authority Undermining:** Systematic attack on scientific credibility serves broader anti-regulatory agenda  **Binary Framing:** Data is either reliable or unreliable (no acknowledgment of scientific uncertainty, error correction, peer review)  ### RAND Firehose Model Elements  **Volume:** Part of sustained anti-climate messaging campaign **Reality Distortion:** Presents debunked scandal as proof of fraud **Inconsistency:** Not prominent in single post, but part of broader pattern  ## Archetypal Analysis  ### Primary Archetypes  **Trickster (Dominant):** - Disrupts established scientific consensus - Breaks epistemic rules (claims without expertise) - Speaks "forbidden truth" that establishment suppresses - Appeals to those who feel scientific consensus is oppressive  **Warrior:** - Combat mode: fighting against climate "hoax" - Scientists as enemy combatants - Truth as battlefield  **Hero/Savior:** - Rescues public from scientific deception - Reveals what "they" hide - Protects people from fraudulent climate agenda  ### Shadow Projection  **What Trump disowns and projects onto scientists:** - **Data manipulation:** Trump manipulates information while accusing scientists - **Serving political agenda:** Trump's climate denial serves political/business interests while accusing scientists of same - **Deception:** Trump deceives audience while positioning scientists as deceivers  ## Order and Chaos Dynamics  ### Positioning  **Order Attacker:** - Attacks scientific establishment as corrupt order - Challenges consensus as illegitimate authority - Frames climate science as false hierarchy needing disruption  **Chaos Agent:** - Introduces uncertainty into settled science - Destabilizes trust in expertise - Creates epistemic chaos ("Who knows what's true?")  ### Asymmetric Application  **Who gets order:** Climate skeptics, business interests, "common sense" over expertise  **Who gets chaos:** Scientific establishment, environmental regulations, climate consensus  ### Grievance Structure  **Articulated Grievances:** - Scientists manipulating data (fabricated grievance) - Public being deceived by climate establishment - Implied: regulations based on fraudulent science  **Intensity:** Moderate (declarative but not rageful)  **Blame Target:** Climate scientists, scientific institutions  ### Hierarchy Dynamics  **Status Elevation:** Climate skeptics, "independent thinkers," business interests free from regulation  **Status Diminishment:** Scientific experts, climate researchers, environmental advocates  ## Reality Distortion and Gaslighting  ### Reality Distortions  1. **"Newly released emails prove that scientists have manipulated data"**    - **Reality:** Eight independent investigations found no evidence of scientific misconduct or data manipulation    - **Distortion Level:** Severe - presents opposite of investigative conclusions as fact  2. **"The data is unreliable"**    - **Reality:** Climate data comes from multiple independent sources globally, with robust replication    - **Distortion Level:** Severe - dismisses entire scientific field based on misrepresented incident  ### Gaslighting Elements  **Present but Mild:** - Attempts to make audience doubt scientific consensus - Presents fabricated reality with confidence - However, this is more propaganda than interpersonal gaslighting  **Epistemic Closure:** High - Creates alternative reality where climate science is fraudulent - Demands tribal membership requires accepting this distortion - "You're either smart enough to see the manipulation, or you're fooled"  ## Shared Psychosis Dynamics  **Reality Claim vs. Evidence:** - Claims scientific fraud despite investigations proving otherwise - Demands followers accept distorted version of Climategate  **Group Membership Test:** - Accepting climate denial becomes conservative identity marker - Rejecting science signals tribal belonging  **Escalating Disconnect:** - Part of trajectory toward complete science denial - Establishes pattern: when facts conflict with ideology, attack facts  ## Cognitive Status  **No significant markers of cognitive decline present.**  Post shows strategic, goal-directed thinking aligned with political positioning. Language production is normal (though likely aide-written). Content reflects ideological commitment, not confusion.  **Baseline comparison:** This represents consistent pattern from Trump's climate messaging across decades - not cognitive change but stable anti-science stance serving business/political interests.  ## Danger Assessment  **Danger Level: ELEVATED**  ### Danger Indicators  1. **Science Denial Infrastructure:** Systematically undermines trust in expertise essential for addressing existential threat 2. **Climate Delay:** Contributes to political obstruction of climate action with catastrophic long-term consequences 3. **Epistemic Corruption:** Normalizes rejection of evidence-based reality 4. **Institutional Delegitimization:** Attacks on scientific credibility enable broader authoritarian moves  ### Long-term Threat Pattern  While this specific post contains no violent imagery or immediate danger, climate denial at scale represents civilizational threat. Trump's platform amplifies misinformation that: - Delays urgently needed climate action - Increases likelihood of climate catastrophe - Normalizes evidence-rejection with authoritarian implications  ## Fact-Checking  ### Claim 1: "Newly released emails prove that scientists have manipulated data on global warming"  **Verdict:** **FALSE**  **Evidence:** - Eight independent investigations examined the 2009 "Climategate" emails, finding no evidence of scientific misconduct or data manipulation - The 2011 release was a second batch from the same 2009 hack, not new evidence - Investigations concluded the emails were taken out of context and misrepresented  **Sources:** - [Wikipedia: Climatic Research Unit email controversy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy) - [Union of Concerned Scientists: Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails](https://www.ucs.org/resources/debunking-misinformation-about-stolen-climate-emails) - [NPR: Second Set Of 'Climategate' Emails Hit The Web](https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2011/11/22/142671597/second-set-of-climategate-emails-hit-the-web)  ### Claim 2: "The data is unreliable"  **Verdict:** **FALSE**  **Evidence:** - Climate data comes from multiple independent sources: satellite measurements, ocean buoys, ice cores, tree rings, weather stations globally - Data shows robust replication across measurement methods - Temperature trends confirmed by NASA, NOAA, UK Met Office, and independent research institutions worldwide - The Climategate investigations found no evidence that data reliability was compromised  **Sources:** - [Skeptical Science: What do the 'Climategate' hacked CRU emails tell us?](https://skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm) - [TIME: Climategate 2: A Weak Sequel](https://science.time.com/2011/11/23/climategate-2-a-weak-sequel/)

## Fact Verification

| Claim | Verdict | Evidence |
|-------|---------|----------|
| "Newly released emails prove that scientists have manipulated data on global warming" | **False** | Eight independent investigations examined the 2009 'Climategate' emails and found NO evidence of scientific misconduct or data manipulation. The 2011 release was a second batch from the same 2009 hack, not new evidence. Investigations concluded the emails were taken out of context and misrepresented by climate skeptics. |
| "The data is unreliable" | **False** | Climate data comes from multiple independent sources globally: satellite measurements, ocean buoys, ice cores, tree rings, weather stations. Data shows robust replication across measurement methods. Temperature trends confirmed by NASA, NOAA, UK Met Office, and independent research institutions worldwide. The Climategate investigations found no evidence that data reliability was compromised. |

Overall Veracity: 0%

## Longitudinal Context  ### Pattern Consistency  Previous posts (Nov 29-30) show sustained attack on Obama: - "very inconsiderate" - "habitual vacationer" - "laughing at everybody"  **Pattern:** Consistent oppositional stance toward Democratic president, establishment, and now scientific consensus. This climate post fits broader anti-institutional, anti-Democratic messaging during 2012 campaign positioning.  ### Trajectory Assessment  **Stable:** This represents Trump's consistent climate denial position, not escalation or deterioration. The anti-science stance remains unchanged from 2011 through his presidency.  ## Summary  This post exemplifies Trump's strategic climate denial during his 2012 presidential positioning. He opportunistically exploits the "Climategate 2.0" email release—despite eight investigations finding no scientific misconduct—to make false claims that scientists "manipulated data" and climate data is "unreliable."  **Psychologically**, the post demonstrates pathological-level defense mechanisms (denial and distortion of scientific reality), narcissistic grandiosity (claiming superior judgment versus expert consensus), and antisocial willingness to deceive for political advantage. Trump positions himself archetypally as Trickster/Truth-Teller exposing corrupt scientific establishment—projecting his own data manipulation onto climate researchers.  **Rhetorically**, he employs propaganda techniques including false certainty, sweeping generalization, and authority undermining. The post serves tribal signaling (conservative identity marker), builds anti-regulation credentials, and establishes distrust in expertise that might constrain his interests.  **Clinically**, this reflects malignant narcissism's characteristic features: epistemic grandiosity, conspiracy-adjacent thinking, exploitation of public trust, and reality distortion to serve self-interest. The definitive assertion ("prove," "unreliable") without expertise demonstrates pathological-level denial and lack of epistemic humility.  **The danger** lies not in immediate violence but in systematic science denial. By legitimizing rejection of climate evidence, Trump contributes to political obstruction of urgently needed climate action—representing civilizational-scale threat. This also establishes authoritarian pattern: when evidence conflicts with ideology, attack evidence itself.  The post exemplifies how narcissistic pathology scales from individual psychology to societal harm when amplified by media platform and political ambition.  ---  **Research Sources:** - [Wikipedia: Climatic Research Unit email controversy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy) - [Union of Concerned Scientists: Debunking Climategate Misinformation](https://www.ucs.org/resources/debunking-misinformation-about-stolen-climate-emails) - [Skeptical Science: What do the Climategate emails tell us?](https://skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm) - [NPR: Second Set Of Climategate Emails](https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2011/11/22/142671597/second-set-of-climategate-emails-hit-the-web) - [TIME: Climategate 2: A Weak Sequel](https://science.time.com/2011/11/23/climategate-2-a-weak-sequel/) - [Wikipedia: Time to Get Tough](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_to_Get_Tough)

## Authorship Analysis

**Uncertain** (score: 35%)

### Indicators

- Business hours timing (1:25 PM EST)
- Grammatically complete, polished sentence structure
- Professional link sharing with contextual framing
- No typos, emotional excess, or stream-of-consciousness
- Strategic messaging aligned with book launch period

## Psychological Profile

### State

**Grandiose State**

**Trigger:** Supply Seeking (Book launch and 2012 presidential positioning period)

Sentiment: -0.65

### Clinical

**Malignant Narcissism:**
- Narcissistic: 65%
- Antisocial: 40%
- Paranoid: 45%
- Sadism: 10%

**Defense Mechanisms:**
- denial (pathological)
- distortion (pathological)
- projection (immature)
- rationalization (neurotic)

**Cognitive Complexity:**
- Complexity: 65%

**Parasocial Techniques:**
- Truth-teller positioning (revealing what 'they' hide)
- Tribal signaling (climate skepticism as conservative identity marker)
- Epistemic intimacy (sharing 'forbidden knowledge' with audience)
- Us-versus-them framing (audience and Trump versus lying scientists)

## Danger Assessment

**ELEVATED**

### Indicators

- Science denial infrastructure: Systematically undermines trust in expertise essential for addressing existential threat
- Climate delay: Contributes to political obstruction of climate action with catastrophic long-term consequences
- Epistemic corruption: Normalizes rejection of evidence-based reality, enabling authoritarian moves
- Institutional delegitimization: Attacks on scientific credibility undermine democratic governance
- Civilizational-scale threat: Climate denial delays urgently needed action on existential risk

### Gaslighting

- Presents fabricated reality (scientific fraud) with absolute confidence despite investigations proving otherwise
- Attempts to make audience doubt scientific consensus through false certainty
- Creates epistemic test: accepting climate denial signals tribal belonging, intelligence
- However, this is more propaganda/tribal signaling than interpersonal gaslighting

## Fact Checks (2)

_The model's verdicts from 2026-02-04._

> Newly released emails prove that scientists have manipulated data on global warming

**FALSE**

Eight independent investigations examined the 2009 'Climategate' emails and found NO evidence of scientific misconduct or data manipulation. The 2011 release was a second batch from the same 2009 hack, not new evidence. Investigations concluded the emails were taken out of context and misrepresented by climate skeptics.

Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy; https://www.ucs.org/resources/debunking-misinformation-about-stolen-climate-emails; https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2011/11/22/142671597/second-set-of-climategate-emails-hit-the-web

> The data is unreliable

**FALSE**

Climate data comes from multiple independent sources globally: satellite measurements, ocean buoys, ice cores, tree rings, weather stations. Data shows robust replication across measurement methods. Temperature trends confirmed by NASA, NOAA, UK Met Office, and independent research institutions worldwide. The Climategate investigations found no evidence that data reliability was compromised.

Sources: https://skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm; https://science.time.com/2011/11/23/climategate-2-a-weak-sequel/

Overall Veracity: 0%

## Tags

- malignant_narcissism (75%)
- epistemic_grandiosity (85%)
- low_openness (90%)
- denial_pathological (85%)
- distortion_pathological (80%)
- projection (65%)
- science_denial (95%)
- propaganda (75%)
- tribal_signaling (80%)
- trickster (85%)
- truth_teller (75%)
- epistemic_corruption (80%)
- climate_denial (95%)
- campaign_positioning (70%)
- supply_seeking (75%)

## That day

_From trump.fm's machine-generated digest of the day, not his words._

**A Billionaire in Traffic: Trump's Seven-Post Obama Barrage Reveals Deep Status Envy on Fundraiser Night**

Trump spent the day obsessively attacking Obama over a New York City fundraiser that caused Manhattan traffic gridlock, returning to the topic in seven of ten posts. The mood started measured in the morning but grew noticeably angrier by afternoon, with the final posts showing genuine emotional agitation rather than calculated political messaging. He also pushed climate science denial tied to the Climategate email release, made a confidently wrong prediction about upcoming jobs numbers while promoting his book, and blamed Obama for a Fitch credit downgrade. The overall picture is of a private citizen fixated on a sitting president's power and visibility in his own city, channeling personal resentment into populist grievance.

Full digest for 2011-11-30: https://trump.fm/date/2011-11-30/analysis

## Citation

- APA: Trump, D. J. (2011, November 30). Newly released emails prove that scientists have... [Social media post]. X (Twitter). trump.fm. https://trump.fm/post/x_141946031049949184
- MLA: Trump, Donald J. "Newly released emails prove that scientists have..." X (Twitter), 30 Nov. 2011. trump.fm, https://trump.fm/post/x_141946031049949184. Accessed 9 Oct. 2026.
- Chicago: Donald J. Trump, "Newly released emails prove that scientists have...," X (Twitter), November 30, 2011, archived at trump.fm, https://trump.fm/post/x_141946031049949184.

## For agents

- Site overview: https://trump.fm/llms.txt
- API specification: https://trump.fm/openapi.json
- MCP server: https://trump.fm/mcp (search and fetch tools, no auth)
- This post as JSON: https://trump.fm/api/posts/x_141946031049949184
- Analysis as JSON: https://trump.fm/api/analysis/x_141946031049949184
- All citation formats: https://trump.fm/api/cite/x_141946031049949184
- Same day: https://trump.fm/date/2011-11-30
- The record alone, without the analysis: https://trump.fm/post/x_141946031049949184.md?analysis=false

_Markdown view of a trump.fm page. Post, analysis, date, feed, contradictions, search and about pages answer in markdown at their URL with `.md` appended (`/index.md` for the home page), or when sent `Accept: text/markdown`._