President Donald Trump spoke at the United Nations last week in an address that the world needed to hear. It was, of course, picked apart, particularly his claims about global warming. [emphasis, links added]
He twisted facts and made “false claims,” say the gatekeepers of the Great Climate Narrative.
Is this so? Let’s look:
Trump called the global warming scare a “hoax.” Not a word we would use, but he’s closer to the truth than the climatistas. It’s obvious to those with open minds that the global warming tale is the product of academic fraud, gross exaggerations, and an effort to lie to the public to move opinion and force politics into what should be a scientific debate.
Trump said renewable energy sources “don’t work,” are “too expensive,” and a “joke.” They work, but not as advertised. Renewables are unreliable, and they are far too costly (without taxpayer-funded subsidies, they’re dead). “Joke” is another word we wouldn’t use, because the damage done by the blind drive to net zero emissions is not funny.
“All of these predictions made by the United Nations and many others, often for bad reasons, were wrong,” Trump said. “They were made by stupid people.” They are not stupid. But they are conniving, deceitful, shameless, wrong, and vicious. They are also dangerous (see the point above).
Trump called the global warming account “the greatest con job perpetrated by the world.”The predictions of doom have not materialized. The models they are based on are overheated. The real motive for clamping down on fossil fuel use is not to save the sky but to break capitalism, phase out human existence, force a false religion on others, and take control of the economy. Sure, it’s a con, and it’s worked fairly well. As Elon Musk recently said, “legacy media propaganda is very effective at making people believe things that aren’t true.”
Wind turbines, the president said, are “so pathetic.” Still not a word we would use, but we agree with the greater point. The world is shunning wind and solar power. More than 1,000 proposed projects have been blocked globally. In addition to the inferior nature of renewables, land-use conflicts are constraining their growth, as are investors, who don’t want to squander their capital on investments that won’t earn them a profit.
“Now,” said Trump, “[the zealots] just call it climate change, because that way, they can’t miss. It’s climate change, because if it goes higher or lower, whatever the hell happens, there’s climate change.” He’s correct. The green jihad was rebranded because the warming argument wasn’t working – the climate was not cooperating with fantastic tales about an overheating planet.
The media “fact-checkers” counter with nonsense such as:
“There is overwhelming scientific evidence and consensus from thousands of scientists worldwide that climate change is occurring, is human-caused and poses significant risks to human health, the environment, and the global economy.”
Not true.
One, science does not work by consensus. Two, the argument that the evidence is overwhelming is based on disinformation. It then follows that the rest of the “fact check” is bunk.
Top photo of Trump hosting Rose Garden event. Official White House Photo by Molly Riley.
Read rest at Issues & Insights
Trump manages to sound like Archie Bunker, and he is not very persuasive. Even if you agree with everything he says, he’s a terrible spokesman.
The 99.9% consensus is that global warming is happening and main causes are manmade: CO2 emissions and less air pollution.
The smaller consensus that global warming will be dangerous has been wrong for the past 50 years.
A consensus is not science is a meaningless platitude.
Scientists tend to have a consensus, or majority opinion, on almost every subject. The majority opinion is not always wrong, or always right.
A correct consensus has to be based on evidence and withstand a long test of time.
The 99.9% consensus that CO2 emissions impede Earth’s ability to cool itself has existed for 129 years. That consensus is based on evidence.
People who criticize climate models seem to know nothing about them.
They are mainly a range of guesses on the long term effects of CO2 emissions. In the mid 1970’s, the average climate model predicted global warming of +0.2°C per decade. The average model represents a consensus of guesses. The actual surface warming rate from 1975 to 2025 was +0.2°C per decade. Let’s call the average climate model a lucky guess.
More important is that we had 50 years of global warming and it harmed no one. Unless you object to warmer winters.
I wonder if Trump is rational enough to realize that the difference between hypotheses generated by computer modelling fall short of theory?
What’s your take on ignoring Einstein’s physics which was the basis for the modern peer review process?
Would you have considered Biden rational enough to know anything while pushing his left-wing climate agenda? I’ll take Trump and his advisors over the previous administration as well as what the MBA-educated Greene who has no actual background in the sciences around climate.
And Richard sounds a lot like Meathead. There is no such thing as 99.9% consensus on any climate-base science. Did you poll all 100% of those scientists who work on fields related to climate sciences and found that only one out of 1000 of them don’t agree?