Trump on Climate – 60 minutes

In case you missed it last night…

Donald Trump talks climate change on ‘60 Minutes’: ‘I don’t think it’s a hoax’

Yahoo! News – October 15, 2018

On Sunday’s 60 Minutes, correspondent Lesley Stahl sat down with President Trump to cover an array of topics including Hurricane Michael, which has claimed 19 lives in the Florida Panhandle. Stahl asked Trump if he still thinks climate change is a hoax.

“Look, I think something’s happening. Something’s changing and it’ll change back again,” Trump said. “I don’t think it’s a hoax, I think there’s probably a difference. But I don’t know that it’s manmade.”

So it appears that Trump, who has called climate change a hoax and nonexistent in the past, seems to have changed his tune. A little.

For Trump, the issue seems to be more about money and politics. Past tweets suggest that he thinks other countries, like China, will overtake the U.S. as the leading world economy.

“I don’t want to give trillions and trillions of dollars,” Trump said. “I don’t want to lose millions and millions of jobs. I don’t want to be put at a disadvantage.”

But Stahl was more interested in hearing what Trump had to say about the actual proof of a changing climate. When she said she wished he could go to Greenland to watch huge chunks of ice falling into the ocean and raising sea levels, Trump wasn’t having it.

“You don’t know whether or not that would have happened with or without man. You don’t know,” Trump said.

Stahl, who conducted a great interview in spite of the interviewee, tried one more time to inject facts into the mix by asking him about all the scientists who say that climate change is worse than ever.

“You’d have to show me the scientists, because they have a very big political agenda, Lesley,” Trump said.

Advertisements

120 thoughts on “Trump on Climate – 60 minutes

  1. They cut catastrophic, anthropogenic, global, and warming corners to reach “climate change”. This reminds me of the campus joke: D means degree.

  2. A climate science dunce being interviewed by a climate science idiot makes for (entertaining?) viewing but does nothing to improve anyone’s knowledge of the relevant facts.

    I am, however, gratified to see our President try to put the interests of Americans first for a change. Which is what we usually elect them to do.

      • Well, compare this with what would have been the result if the interviewee had been Lord Moncton. Trump more or less has a belief — fortunately a belief that counters the idiocy going on with the climate change belief, but it’s a belief nevertheless. Moncton, on the other hand, has KNOWLEDGE and would be able to answer the questions in an authoritative manner.

        • Knowledge means nothing in the climate debate. That is what Trump is trying to avoid. You can’t argue with Stahl with knowledge. After all, listen to the stupid comment about big chunks of ice falling off Greenland like it is proof of climate change. What do you suppose she thinks the Titanic ran into if it wasn’t a big chunk of ice falling off Greenland? Wasn’t that before carbon dioxide was a menace to the world? I think he is trying to take politics out of the climate debate since it really doesn’t belong in it. If you can take politics out of the debate, so to speak, there is nothing left to debate since there is no recognizable human factor in climate change. Mother Nature doesn’t listen to the debate either, and she just keeps on doing what she always has, cycling the climate from cold to warm to cold again.

          • Tom O: Please remember, in climate debate(?), besides knowledge, facts are forbidden, as well as logic, sense, and that the concept of time includes durations longer than weeks, years, and “to the extreme” decades. Using terms like centuries, thousands of years, and millions of years are not allowed.

          • Tom O

            I don’t think Trump is interested in talking to the politicians or scientists. They only make up 15%(?) of the American population. He’s after the other 85% to vote for him, so he simplifies the subject to appeal to the layman.

            Sceptics have been talking the language of science for decades now with little success. Trump knows where his support comes from, the great majority of the American voter, not the scientists and politicians.

            China becoming the world leader, job losses, handing over trillions of $’s for an unproven concept etc. All language that appeals to, and can be recited by the layman.

            The guys cunning and has clearly surrounded himself with the right advisers. He’s bringing the subject of climate change into the public domain instead of it being cloistered behind an impenetrable wall of academics.

            Simple concepts and simple language. It takes a clever man to accomplish that from the complexity conjured by scientists and politicians.

        • Yes, Mr. Simpson, you are absolutely correct.
          However, what would the result have been if Stahl asked Lord Moncton about the effects of interest rates, exchange rates, devaluation and so on on the economy?
          What if she had asked the Lord what he thought was the best way to get Kim of NoKo to come to the table, something that other Presidents have not been able to get NoKo to do in 75 years unless it meant giving them billions for nothing. Do you think the Lord would have said send insane tweets to scare the bejesus out of him? You have noticed that Kim is no longer tossing missiles over Japan and around the Pacific like confetti at a ticker tape parade, haven’t you?

          Perhaps you missed it but Trump said he felt like a fool sending those tweets out to Kim but he knew they would work. They did, didn’t they? Would Moncton have ever thought of that?

          You misunderstand what great Executives do. They are not and cannot be experts in every field but they know how to pick the people who are the experts in their fields. Trump has picked an excellent advisor to guide him on the science. He does not need to know it all and, besides, this is not a scientific, knowledge-based debate, it is a political/religious one. The science of Climate is way over Stahl’s head. It’s pointless to argue it with her.
          I am quite sure that no President, including JFK, except, maybe Carter, could have explained how a rocket ship escapes earth’s gravity, but JFK set us on the path to space and the moon. Carter would have seen nothing but the difficulties and been afraid to try.
          Leaders are great because they have a vision and can motivate people to achieve their visions, and select the best people to make them happen, not because they know the specifics and nuts and bolts of how to get there themselves.

          • Very well put. Trump noted in the interview how vicious a place D.C is and how he does not trust all he has gathered there. Lincoln did’nt either.
            Reagan proposed SDI to the USSR – he did not know the details of fusion, nuclear lasers…
            Could it be scientists are too Cartesian – I think therefore I am (what are they when they think about a turkey dinner?).
            I think therefore I act for good principles, like Trump says, might be the motto?

    • Trump is advised on science and climate by Will Happer.

      Happer is brilliant. That’s how Trump knows that no one knows the cause of the changing climate or whether CO2 emissions are causing any of the recent warmth.

      ‘No one knows,’ is exactly correct and a conclusion quantitatively supported by the (lack of) science.

      • Trump said it was a hoax perpetrated by China.

        Trump is an idiot, he says what people want to hear and doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

        Next week, he’ll say Santa Clause is causing AGW.

          • Wallaby, I can get a one night stand for a lot less than $170,000
            ..
            That makes Trump an idiot, and me a heck of a lot smarter.
            ..
            PS, my daddy didn’t leave me a fortune.

          • Mike Borgelt, that you can get a one night stand for a lot less than $170,000 does not make you smarter. Why not? Because you just painted yourself as a misogynistic a**hole. How is that better?

          • Trump allegedly paid her 130 grand in hush money. I’m guessing that he didn’t pay her $40,000 for the actual one night stand. If indeed that’s all they had.

            I mean, Obama’s SS guard got off easy (so to speak) with the tell all Colombian, umm, native guide, whom he stiffed (so to speak).

            Compared to the Clintons’ payout of 850 grand for Bill’s abuse of Paula Jones, Trump made an artful deal.

          • Mike that you both pay to “get some”, only shows you are both equally idiots the only difference is 1) the size of your bank accounts and 2) that you don’t know the difference between a payoff (the “hush” money to cover Stormy D’s blackmail) and paying for sex.

            both of those two difference make Trump out to be smarter than you
            1) that Trump’s back account remains much, much larger than yours suggests he knows how to handle and make money regardless of where his starting funds came from. And that you are paying for cheap hookers shows that you don’t know how to handle money, as those who do know how to handle money wouldn’t be wasting it in that way.
            2) that Trump knows the difference between payoffs and paying for sex and you don’t shows, again, who the smarter of the two is (and it isn’t you).

        • Obama said (so-called) “climate change” was the “biggest challenge” to humanity, despite a complete lack of any empirical evidence that what he’s talking about even exists.

          Obama is an idiot. He says what supports his political agenda, despite the damage the proposed policies would do to the country, and he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

          Next week, if anyone is listening, he’ll blather on about how many years/months/weeks we have (THIS time, after countless other “deadlines” have passed without anything happening and how many “tipping points” have occurred without any dramatic change whatsoever) to “act” to “save” the planet (from the NON-EXISTENT “catastrophe”).

          • But you don’t undestand these deadlines and tipping points. The really bad, catastrophic, outcomes aren’t supposed to happen the day after the missed deadline, or the day after we hit the tipping point. The issues is, to the folks so worried about these dates, that if we don’t act to curb massively our CO2 output by those dates, then bad things will happen out there in the future sometime, like 2100. The proponents of CAGW and CCC got burned by making predictions with near-term dates, and then looked pretty foolish when the terrible event didn’t transpire. So, now, the push is to cut CO2 drastically by a near-term date so that bad things don’t happne some time after we will all be dead, and they don’t have to be shown to be fools. Essentially, they are saying that after such-and-so deadline or tipping point, bad consequences in the future are “baked in” by our profligate misuse of fossil fuels.

            Makes sense to them, and their followers.

        • The late Maurice Strong had connections with China. Perhaps this carried over into United Nations affairs?

        • “Trump said it was a hoax perpetrated by China.”

          The truth is that China benefits and perpetuates climate alarmism for its own financial gain. Any hoax originates at the UNFCCC trickling down to the IPCC.

          China is no more complicit in the broken science than any other country on the receiving end of climate reparations. They just recognize a beneficial opportunity. Ironically, most of the broken science originates from organizations in the victim countries of climate change extortion.

          • I can’t believe I’m saying something that would even appear to defend Trump, but if you watch the whole video clip, my paraphrase of his stumbling half-sentences would be, it’s not a hoax, but if you judge the whole affair solely on its effects, Climate Change might as well be a hoax perpetrated by China. That was based on a video clip I saw way back early in the campaign when the final Republican nominee was still in doubt. Unless you believe that the lame-stream media would never take a single phrase out of context and attempt to make the interviewee look bad, particularly if that interviewee was marching under the Republican banner. Then, yeah, that could be the only interpretation.

        • Actually in the interview he stated that he no longer believed that it was a hoax and that the changes occurring could not be attributed to humans. Perhaps you should watch it again.

          • Well the reality is that it is a hoax; or in Dr. Ball’s terms the most massive deception in the history of mankind. It truly lays bare the division between the populace into 2 camps. Those that can think for themselves and those that can’t. However “climate science” is only 1 faculty of science (even though the most corrupt). The larger problem is the corruption of all science (medicine and physics being 2 other prime examples) by pal review.

        • Wallaby, I can get a one night stand for a lot less than $170,000
          That makes Trump an idiot, and me a heck of a lot smarter.

          Not really. Not if you don’t know the difference between a one night stand, and blackmail.

          Trump has the innate sense that AGW is a non-problem and has never bothered to study the subject. He’s been busy with what he considers more important issues. So, yeah, in his frequently in-artful manner, he dismisses the subject in a goofy way .. cuz he considers it a goofy subject.

          • News flash! A Federal Judge just threw out the Porn Stars’ case and ruled that
            She had to pay Trump’s legal fee’s. It just gets better and better.

            In all of the polls of what the voters consider the most important problems to address,
            Global Warming is dead last.
            The only people who care are the ones who are in position to steal all the money.

        • Read the context.
          China is building more coal plants than ever, and tricking gullible climate kooks into thinking that “climate change” is something they take seriously.
          You are one of the gullible, apparently.

        • Trump is an idiot yet he beat Hillary Clinton, Soros and the entire Democrat Party machine money and the MSM plus conservative NeverTrumpers, who spent three times what he did on the election, what does that make the Democrats?

        • Well he has come a long way for an idiot wouldn’t you say?

          His idiotic concern for the wellbeing of America and Americans seems to be a very good thing too.

          In his idiotic way he has successfully weathered every attack mounted against him yet there are folk like you who think he’s an idiot. No doubt your objection to Trump are based on outcomes you don’t like or are you just another guy with TDS who values process over product?

          Trump is changing America and the world for the better. So far it has been a very exciting and fascinating ride. Every day I find myself becoming increasingly optimistic about the future thanks to President Trump.

        • As always, the left defines intelligence as agreeing with them.
          Trump has made your heroes look like idiots, and in order to save pride you have decided to make yourself look like an idiot as well.

          You have succeeded.

        • I can’t take seriously the deranged rants of an idiot that thinks “Santa Claus” is spelled “Santa Clause”. Mike, here’s a hint, it you are going to call someone else an idiot, it doesn’t help your case when your posting contains the simplest of errors that make you look like an idiot.

          As for Trump, if he’s an idiot (for spending 170k on blackmail in comparison to what you would spend on a cheap hooker, and apples to oranges comparison that only makes you look like an even bigger idiot than your Santa Clause posting did) what does that make his democratic opposition who massively outspent him in the 2016 election and still lost to him?

          • Now watch Mike try to pick apart the typos in my post (yes, there are some) showing that not only is he an idiot but an unoriginal idiot as well.

        • Re Mike
          ***Next week, he’ll say Santa Clause is causing AGW.***
          That has already been done by the CAGW crowd. They were telling kids to donate as santa’s home ground was melting at the pole.

        • Useful idiot cliché Michael. This cagey multibillionaire won an election handily over the type of empty clones (Clinton, sad Soros, Steyer and the other all of the “Progressive” media, Hollywood, Euro тотаliтагуаиs, empty headed academics…) you admire. All the “clever” pundits and political tealeaf readers who got it so wrong.

      • Yes it is the right conclusion. The trouble with “climate science” is that it is far too politicized and populated with scientists with egos far too large to admit that they know next to nothing about the climate and what drives it.

        Geologists know far more about climate than the cadre of “believer” idiots who refer to themselves as “climate scientists” and play with their computer models which are nothing more than a circle jerk of confirmation bias and circular reasoning.

    • <

      I am, however, gratified to see our President try to put the interests of Americans first for a change. Which is what we usually elect them to do.

      You might ver well think that: I couldn’t possibly comment…:-)

    • President Trump has demonstrated he is no dunce.
      Stahl has demonstrated she is nothing more than a shallow idiot.

  3. “seems to have changed his tune. A little.”

    And in a direction closer to main stream skeptics. Calling climate change a hoax is incorrect, even if the IPCC/UNFCCC is using the broken science to perpetrate climate reparations.

    You can’t disconnect the broken science from politics and money and part of Trump’s job is to make sure trillions of our wealth is not wasted, moreover; the fact that politics chose sides is why climate science is so broken.

    • “Calling climate change a hoax is incorrect”

      Well when left claims it’s progressive, that is a hoax.
      Humans aren’t changing global climate, and there are idiots who think governments should
      change global climate- and amounting change hundredth of degree [immeasurable amount] costing trillions of dollars. Joke or hoax, whatever.

      • “Calling climate change a hoax is incorrect” Yes it is incorrect. Calling Co2 induced Climate change a hoax is correct. Stop falling into “Alarmist” trap of Climate Change, Global Warming and Global Cooling.

        • Hoax (noun) Something accepted or established by fraudulent means or fabrication.

          Hoax (transitive verb) To trick into believing or accepting something false and often preposterous.
          …..(Webster’s Dictionary)

          I think its pretty apt…

      • The problem is the term hoax gets over applied with an emphasis on its application to facts to which it wasn’t intended, for example, that fact that the climate changes. Language is important, so to use a term as inflammatory as hoax, it needs to be much more specific. The specific deception is the value of the ECS claimed by the IPCC, but that’s too esoteric for most to understand. The economic foolishness is far more obvious.

        • But you are unilaterally disarming if you abandon the word hoax. There is a vast and prosperous industry that converts kilowatt hours into model predictions that purport to demonstrate that CO2 is the driver behind virtually all climate change in the last 50 years. There are, no doubt, many innocent people involved in all this, but the principal players know exactly what they are doing. The ClimateGate emails make this clear. If you want to see how extensive this hoax is, just Goggle “ClimateGate” and scan the first ten or twenty hits. A massive effort has be undertaken to undermine the notion that there was a conspiracy to silence opposing views. Words like “manufactroversy” are used to provide gravitas, presumably hinting at subterranean forces that are capable of warping plain English in the “stolen” emails. Words like “hoax” deserve to be protected and must not be abandoned.

  4. Stahl, who conducted a great interview in spite of the interviewee, tried one more time to inject facts into the mix by asking him about all the scientists who say that climate change is worse than ever.

    “You’d have to show me the scientists, because they have a very big political agenda, Lesley,” Trump said.

    Yahoo News news thinks that trying to refer The Lew’s 97% is a “fact”?
    Trumps answer is the fact.

    As was his answer to Greenland glaciers doing what they always do when they hit the sea, calving, is somehow unusual and Man’s fault.

    (Time to repeat an oldie. “When glaciers calve, alarmist have a cow. That explains all the bellowing!”)

    • The fact the climate scientists are seen as not acting impartial being stated you would hope might make a few of them stop and think about their activism.

        • Faith is necessary because it cannot be questioned.

          Consider:

          1/. The world was created by natural processes 14 billion years ago and it has no interest whatever in humans or humanity.

          2/. The world was created – natural laws, fossils and all, by a supernatural entity 6000 years ago entirely for His benefit and his progenies – mankind.

          3/. The universe was created as an experiment by pan dimensional white mice, and the Earth is a virtual reality prison planet where bad people are sent to suffer for a lifetime to teach them a bloody good lesson in being nice to each other.

          None of these propositions are in fact inconsistent with the known facts.

          None of these propositions can be proved to be true. Faith that one or more of them is true however enables people to function in the world more, or less, effectively.

          And indeed in the limit (sorry people who Believe In Science) none of them can be shown to be false either, since they are so all encompassing that they are all in the end metaphysical propositions.

          “Ah”, I hear you say, “but the Big Bang is scientific, so it can be disproven in theory”!

          Wrong.

          The big bang is an explanation that relies, as a matter of Faith, on the proposition that the laws of nature, and causality, entirely determine the flow of phenomena in time.

          Cast doubt on the time invariance of natural laws, or the ubiquity of causality, and the whole scientific edifice collapses.

          To go beyond faith you have to shift your understanding of science as something that uncovers the Truth, and see it simply as a sophisticated way to predict the future.

          That is science, by and large, WORKS. That is ultimately its sole value. Its truth-content is forever (sic!) indeterminable.

          The trouble with ‘climate science’ is that it doesn’t work. All its predictions have been wider of the mark than the proposition that “the climate will stay the same ± a couple of °C uncertainty over the next 400 years’.

          That is why its tenets – its metaphysical assumptions – are now a matter of faith. And the assumptions broadly are that Man is Sinful, and his greed and drive to be more comfortable and to breed, are damaging the habitat he depends on.

          Ergo he is almost certainly doing something bad somewhere, and if you can’t see it, its because its invisible, like radiation or CO2, and if you can’t feel its effects that doesn’t mean it isn’t happening and won’t get you in the end.

          It’s a marvellous pseudo-scientific adaptation of the Doctrine of Original Sin, and so fits right into the Semitic religious mindset.

          People like to be told what is right and wrong, and if the priests aren’t doing that, in hopefully a benign way, someone else with less scruples will.

        • Religious question – what came before the Big Bang ? God was preparing Hell for those who ask that very question.
          The BB is based on 2 “pre-existing” Quantum fields. Where did they come from? They are a “given” in other words created. So the BB is a the greatest creation story Einstein ever heard, from a Jesuit Lamaitre. Question it and bear the wrath of the peers!
          Another religious belief, in economics – that the common good springs forth spontaneously, but unknowably how, from the friction of trade. That is the London School of Economics Mises Institute von Hayek belief who quoted straight from Bernard Mandeville of the Hell Fire Clubs of the British isles. Unfortunately the Fraser Inst., most of the GOP have this religion, never mind the Dems.

          • As for economics, it really boils down to human nature (as all economic activity is basically an exchange between the needs and wants of humans). Everyone inherently does what is in their best interests. Where two peoples interests overlap, they’ll take a course that makes both happy. Where their interests conflict, either one wins out over the other (thus one is happy and the other isn’t) or they compromise (thus both get some level of satisfaction from the transaction). over all there are more combinations of “good” (the happy/satisfied transactions) than the bad (the unhappy side to a transaction) at least on the micro level of two individuals:

            both get the desirable out come they want : good/good
            both compromise for a mutually desirable outcome: good/good
            One wins, the other loses: good/bad

            On the macro level (billions of individuals on the planet), the combinations get more complex and you can have one win vs many losing in the situation that results in bad outcomes but those are still are usually outweighed by the mutually desireable and compromise desirable outcomes.

            So it’s really not that big of a “leap of faith” as you seem to think, just an observation of human nature writ large.

          • That was an observation of modern western humans in the transatlantic casino economy, exactly what Trump has vowed to end.
            People want productive well paid jobs, manufacturing, and most of all a future with big plans. Think bigly.
            Economics (game theory of the casino) , the globalony of today, is exactly why Brexit, Italy, Trump, Germany political upheavals are happening.
            Both Keynes and Hayek’s alchemy are simply being ditched.

            China has adopted the American System of Alexander Hamilton (tariffs, national banking, production, progress) , and Trump is on the way to bringing that back home. Italy is on the way to do that now.

          • “So the BB is the greatest creation story Einstein ever heard, from a Jesuit Lamaitre”

            Friedmann predated Lemaitre. Friedmann’s original theory was not a Big Bang but a Big Bounce. Not a creation but a cyclical universe. The present BB theory is after the bang. Friedmann and Lemaitre agree on that. They differ on before the bang.

  5. The rank demagoguery surrounding the phrase “climate change” is stunning. To those who assume that climate is naturally invariable, the phrase itself denotes an anthropogenic cause. By contrast, those who are aware that natural climate is perpetually changing, don’t agree that change is, ipso facto, necessarily man-made. Stahl’s spin is plainly intended for double-digit IQ’s who don’t recognize that “hoax” refers to the anthropogenic attribution, not the natural change.

  6. Trump did fine. ” … the scientists … have a very big political agenda, Lesley.” He said the climate has changed (so “climate change” is happening, sure) and it will change back again (temperatures go up, … and.. they go down …). He didn’t really concede any ground at all.

    • “and it will change back again (temperatures go up, … and.. they go down …”

      I think that was exactly what Trump meant. He was describing the natural climate cycle.

  7. Global warming is exaggerated but Trump is still an horse’s backside. Stick to the science. That fellow is temporary.

    • Which “science”?
      The politically and financially profitable “climate science” that rejects any and all debates and skepticism that questions it’s profitable conclusions?
      Or the science that welcomes questions, debates and skepticism about it’s conclusions? The science that considers learning and understanding more profit enough?

    • “That fellow” is our first president to carve out a cornerstone of Energy policy that base load electricity generation is important. He is the first president to openly question subsidies to the bleating sheep. He (1) proposed a 90 day rule to ensure financial advantage for grid suppliers able to stockpile fuel against emergencies and disasters, then (2) when that failed, insinuated that he’d use presidential directives as necessary to place pressure on utilities so as not to retire reliable sources of energy. He has (3) advocated for nuclear power, at first in a very clever fashion by singling out its desirable attributes (also shared by coal) and then, finally announcing a new era of energy research partnerships.

      Not everyone is equipped to be a Lord Monckton in climate debate. But consider the low quality of the questions which were basically, are you a denier? But even could Monckton have ‘pushed back’ in so few words, in a way that survived CBS’ harsh edits?

      Back in 2016 I suggested to Candidate Trump in a letter,

      Unfortunately, we have passed beyond peak politeness. To force Energy [[and climate!]] debates to address practical solutions, bullies are needed. We must rout the occupiers and re-take the moral high-ground because we place a high priority on survival, and for the children’s sake. And because … well … “What a piece of work is a man! How noble in reason, how infinite in faculty! In form and moving how express and admirable! In action how like an angel, in apprehension how like a god! The beauty of the world. The paragon of animals…” And other such stuff.

      Trump either listened, or his interests happen to coincide with mine… or maybe it’s just common sense. I’ve even read language in DOE memos that acknowledges for the first time, the unique threat posed by grid reliance on just-in-time natural gas plants that echoes my 2017 sentiments to Energy Secretary Perry.

      Trump’s ‘interview’ on 60 Minutes was not an interview. It was a tight-edited press conference with one reporter barking at him. And it shows.

    • hornblower, what science? It’s been political ever since Hansen and friends turned off the AC and opened the windows to ensure a nice show of how hot it is before congress back in the 1980s.

    • “That fellow is temporary.”
      Aren’t we all.
      But it’s what we do while we’re here that counts.
      The topic of global warming provides a politician with the quickest way to lose votes and lowest chance to gain any.
      Those that understood only needed to hear a hint that he understood too.
      I saw Trump’s response to the ‘ice falling off Greenland’ question as a lesson in how this is done.
      The believers, those who don’t understand that they don’t understand, wouldn’t vote for someone who disagreed with them because they’d think he was either too stupid to understand or lying because of ‘big oil’ or something similar.
      Similarly, the ‘political agenda’ comment near the end wouldn’t have got many backs up but would have caught the attention of someone who’s quick but far too busy (or lazy) to delve into the byzantine labyrinth of climate ‘science’.
      I really enjoyed the ‘I’m President’ ending because he’d just explained why.
      Well done America!
      And as for us in the UK?

  8. Global warming is exaggerated but convincing people does not go through Trump. He hasn’t a clue.

    • amazes me….people that bash Trump have completely forgotten who the other choice was…and her positions

    • Hornblower,
      I’ll assume that this a a reply to my reply to your comment https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/15/trump-on-climate-60-minutes/#comment-2492936 .
      I’m a “layman” when it comes to “climate science”. But I smelled the politics in it back in 2007.
      I’m not a “politician” and, despite beating the best politician the Democrats could put forth, neither is he. But he has a good nose when it comes to climate “science”.
      They’ve used this bogus issue from day one for political gain.
      Trump has sniffed it out.
      He may be crude and rude but he’s on the mark that others, laymen and real scientist saw years ago.

      PS Obama didn’t have any better “clue” than Al Gore but it helped further “the cause”.

      • Obama was worse than useless on many topics especially global warming. He is still spouting ridiculous claims about AGW.

  9. This is a important point. Whenever the usual suspects mention Climate Change, we should say. Of course, its been changing ever since the planet first formed,. Next question please.

    MJE

    • The other nice benefit of such a reply is that it gives your usual “suspect” (if a relative or a friend) a way to back down over time from their extreme position.

      “Yeah, we both agreed that climate changes and we only disagreed on how much was caused directly by man.”

      A lot harder if the alarmist was clinging to “Global Warming” with temperature “tipping points” and the insistence we were all going to fry by 2020.

      • I never let them cling to climate change. I say to them “Oh you mean global warming. Are you worried about something? ” After their answer, I let them know what the real facts are.

  10. Back when candidate Trump first announced his running I researched him. I have a link on my computer – that I don’t on my phone to share it – that basically says Donald J. Trump is a genius…but he’s more than that. He has a 157 IQ by their assessments. That I remember.

    We know that Climate Change is just the new name for Anthropogenic Global Warming. So does Trump. Calling Climate Change a Hoax is like calling AGW a Hoax. But the mainstream has separated the two by their narratives. President Trump has only confirmed that he doesn’t believe that Climate Change is man-made. His stance has been proof of that by his policies and actions on opening up the Fossil Fuels Industries and the nixing Paris Accord. So he has said by this, that Climate Changes and doesn’t deny that it does…but there’s no proof that humans cause it.

    • Of course his “China hoax” comment was a “smart aleck” throwaway line at rally where the context was trade policy. (Like his call for China to return Hillary’s e-mails.) They were jokes, folks!

      (I’d be the first to tell him to watch his unscripted remarks, but that’s what makes Donald Donald.)

      The media scrutinizes everything he says, gives it a slight twist and significant editing to align with their narrative.

      A minor example was the recent “news” that he called Robt E Lee “exceptional” in order to paint him a racist. (He actually was praising US Grant whom he called exceptional and said that both Grant and Lee were brilliant military minds.)

      The major example is the horrible distortions and editing of his remarks about the Charlottesville events.

      • “Of course his “China hoax” comment was a “smart aleck” throwaway line at rally where the context was trade policy. (Like his call for China to return Hillary’s e-mails.) They were jokes, folks!”

        Trump does that a lot. I recall him saying he would put solar panels on his border wall. Does anyone think he was serious? Well, as a matter of fact, some did.

        Trump has trolling the Left down to a science.

      • From here in oz I see Trump as being able to play the presstitutes like a fiddle ,every bit of bad press he gets doesn’t deter his base ,it reinforces their belief that the MSM are as corrupt as the Swamp the Don is trying to drain .

        • Robert

          Remember Jo Bjelke Petersen used to refer to meeting the press as “feeding the chooks”?

          I reckon Trump has raised that to an art form

  11. Obviously a slanted against Trump article.

    And Trump handled it perfectly. I could have done a little better.

    And please, the commentary from the UK who fiddles their data worse than NOAA, and is being taken over by Islam, your Trump bashing holds zero credibility in my book.

    • I read a report recently that stated that over 90% of news coverage of Trump and his administration has been negative.
      On the other hand around 90% of the coverage of the Obama administration was positive.
      I remember one famous comedian when asked why he never made any jokes about Obama, replied that he couldn’t, because Obama never made any mistakes.

      The left sees what they want to see and get mad when others don’t agree.

  12. I think of it as a classic case of needing to try and listen to what Trump means, not what he says, because he tends to think out loud even when speculating.

    Like when he said something about it being a Chinese hoax. I just took that to mean that he sees it as primarily benefiting China enormously at the expense of the USA, not that it was conceived and started by China.

    Of course, the media is delighted with any and every opportunity to misrepresent him when he has already done half their work for them. The MSM will sorely miss him when he is gone.

    • Sorry Michael, I should have read your comment before posting above. 🙁
      You said it more succinctly.

  13. Lesley Stahl, LOL, what a moron. She actually thinks calving glaciers is “proof” of manmade warming.

  14. Me? Miss 60 minutes?

    Actually I haven’t watched it in 20 years. Not since I caught them telling blatant lies about a story that I had personal knowledge of.

    • MarkW – There seems to be a quote for just about every situation. Here’s one for yours.

      Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for that rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. ~Erwin Knoll

      Erwin Knoll was an American journalist who was editor of The Progressive from 1973 to 1994. Wikipedia
      Born: 1931, Vienna, Austria
      Died: 1994, Madison, WI

  15. It would have been even better had Trump countered the Greenland glacier comment by saying he wished Stahl could accompany him to some part of the world where clear evidence of plate tectonics is on display (active volcanism, the Great Rift valley, San Andreas fault, etc…). And then asking her exactly what she thought that humankind could do about it and how to stop it! So, Leslie…how are we going to keep the Atlantic ocean from expanding and who will we expect to be separated from their hard-earned money in order to chase that wild goose?
    IMO this is the sort of logic that should be turned around on warmists because it actively attacks their lack of logic.

  16. Trump is 100% correct. He agreed that there is climate change but not global warming. That clearly justifies his Paris revolt. He agreed that there is natural variation. That is exactly what I am propagating for years in writting.

    Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

  17. The most stupid thing Lesley Stahl said was when she told Trump to go to Greenland and see the glaciers dropping big chunks of ice into the ocean and raising sea level. She needs to take a freshman geology class. Glaciers only “calve” and break off the front of the glacier if they are active glaciers receiving enough snow at the top to keep the glacier moving forward until the front is unsupported by land and breaks off into the sea. If the climate caused the glacier to quit moving it would simply melt or sublimate in place. Lesley the Dumb was watching active healthy glaciers.

  18. Here’s an excerpt from the transcript:

    “Lesley Stahl: I wish you could go to Greenland, watch these huge chunks of ice just falling into the ocean, raising the sea levels.

    President Donald Trump: And you don’t know whether or not that would have happened with or without man. You don’t know.

    Lesley Stahl: Well, your scientists, your scientists–

    President Donald Trump: No, we have–

    Lesley Stahl: At NOAA and NASA–

    President Donald Trump: We have scientists that disagree with that.”

    Trump questions that humans are causing the climate to change and says he has scientists that disagree with Leslie’s Alamist claims.

    That’s pretty much how we want him to be looking at things. He’s looking at it like we look at it.

  19. The alarmists have not made their case. Scientifically speaking. Simple as that. We are not obligated to give them the benefit of the doubt. And yet they clamor for it. Oh, how they clamor.

  20. Climate change is a bandwagon that everybody BUT the common man has found advantageous to jump upon.

    It is a crime, but only against the ordinary man.

    You know, the people the Liberal Left are supposed to represent.

  21. The only way the intent of this part of the interview could be more obvious would be if she had called him a big poopyhead.

  22. Trump got to the point here. Yes, the climate changes but we don’t know why and certainly it’s not a reason to destroy the economy.

  23. “Look, I think something’s happening. Something’s changing and it’ll change back again,” Trump said. “I don’t think it’s a hoax, I think there’s probably a difference. But I don’t know that it’s manmade.”
    “You don’t know whether or not that would have happened with or without man. You don’t know,” Trump said.
    “You’d have to show me the scientists, because they have a very big political agenda, Lesley,” Trump said.

    I’m actually encouraged by this. Calling climate change “a hoax” was silly. Probably all sceptics accept that climate change / global warming has happened, while knowing that much of climate science is junk and close to fraudulent.
    With these statements Trump puts himself pretty well in the main stream of climate scepticism. I love his comment about political agendas – how right he is!
    Maybe some of the knowledge of his advisers, presumably including Happer, has finally rubbed off onto him!

    Thank you Mr Trump, and I passionately hope you serve a second term.
    Chris

  24. “Stahl, who conducted a great interview in spite of the interviewee”

    I watched the interview (or at least the first part about Climate Change because my wife made me turn it off because she was afraid I’d have a stroke). Stahl did not ‘conduct a great interview’ she conducted an attack. She had no intention of ‘interviewing’ him. She constantly interrupted Pres Trump when he was trying to answer a question to ask more/different questions/argue with him – a standard tactic when the interviewer (or prosecutor) wants to make the interviewee appear confused/stupid. I sneaked into the ‘man cave’ and watched a few more sections of the interview and she never changed.

    The prima facia evidence that she had no intention of conducting an ‘interview’ was her banging the drum repeatedly to try to force him to ‘pledge’ not to fire Mueller. He responded that he wouldn’t ‘pledge’ to do anything, but had no intention of firing Mueller, but she kept at it. She wasn’t interviewing, she was attacking.

    • I remember when Bush the Elder walked out of an interview after being interrupted repeatedly.
      The reporter (Dan Rather???) just sat there with a blank look on his face until the producer had the intelligence to go to commercial.
      One of the great moments in political theater.

  25. When asked about first lady mistrust, Trump replied : I feel the same way. I don’t trust everybody in the White House…. I’m not a baby. It’s a tough business. This is a vicious place. Washington, D.C. is a vicious, vicious place. The attacks, the– the bad mouthing, the speaking behind your back. –but– you know, and in my way, I feel very comfortable here.

    Meanwhile Lawrence Kudlow , NEC National Economic Council, stresses the need to question, examine idea of manmade climate change.

  26. The USA Liberals hate Trump because his support base is not as well educated as they think they are.

    They have a political agenda and its clear what that is, to support the United Nations and its properganda entity the IPCC. So what is the UN’s long term desire ? Its obvious that of world government and the Black and Brown races will be the majority with the UN being the rulers.

    But before that long term goal, they will continue to pretend that they care. Does not really matter just what they car e about, but they do truly CARE.

    MJE

  27. “Stahl, who conducted a great interview in spite of the interviewee…..”

    Where to go for some factual or at least level headed reporting nowadays?

  28. Stahl, who conducted a great interview in spite of the interviewee

    said someone who either
    1) didn’t watch the “interview”
    or
    2) doesn’t know what a great interview looks like.

    Stahl is a hack.

  29. Daily Caller : Lesley Stahl’s Discovery:
    From her interview in 2016 where Trump “was in total shock” to this week :
    “Right now, he’s so much more confident. He is truly president, and you felt it, I felt it, in this interview.”

    As diGenova said now : “This is a different President. He is now in full control of his Presidency. He is playing everyone in his orbit. He knows exactly what needs to made public, and is holding it close to his vest. He is playing it like a masterful Stradivarius–for when it will have maximum impact; to use it at the maximum moment. Trump is in full control of his Presidency. You saw it last night with Lesley Stahl, when he said, “I’m President, and you’re not.” Throwing it in her face….

  30. To fault Trump for making a misstatement is to misunderstand how he moves the debate.

    By making a bold statement like “Climate change is a Chinese hoax” he gets the media involved in a debate with him. The media jumps on his statement and there is back and forth between the MSM who carry water for the alarmists and those who are more skeptical. (I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump tweets out a link to this site)

    Eventually more people find out that while the statement is not literally factual, there is much truth to the general contention that the climate actions proposed by alarmists to stave off disaster are a hoax and would have little effect on temperatures but big effects on bank accounts of American taxpayers.

    I expect that the President will move this debate more than all the skeptical scientists have so far.

Comments are closed.