Key Trump quotes to UN:
“The greatest con job ever perpetuated on the world.”
“If you don’t get away from the green energy scam, your country is going to fail.”
“The carbon footprint is a hoax made up by people with evil intentions and they are heading down a path of total destruction.”
“In the US we still have radicalized environmentalists … they want to kill all the cows.”
“All of these predictions made by the United Nations and many others, often for bad reasons, were wrong. They were made by stupid people that have cost their country’s fortunes and given those same countries no chance for success. If you don’t get away from this green scam, your country is going to fail, and I’m really good at predicting things, you know.
“They actually said during the campaign they had a hat, the best selling hat. ‘Trump was right about everything.’ And I don’t say that in a braggadocious way, but it’s true. I’ve been right about everything. And I’m telling you that if you don’t get away from the green energy scam. Your country is going to fail.”
“The primary effect of these brutal green energy policies has not been to help the environment. But to redistribute manufacturing and industrial activity from developed countries that follow the insane rules that are put down to polluting countries that break the rules and are making a fortune.
European electricity bills are now four to five times more expensive than those in China.
And two to three times higher than the U.S.
All in the name of pretending to stop the global warming hoax.”
So why are we building exorbitant SnowyII hydro storage for the fickles then?
Water taps risk running dry in vast swathes of Australia
Long general droughts already impact output from the existing original scheme you dummies.
What do droughts have to with solar panels and wind mills? Ought to be good news, less hail.
Well it’s like this with the original Snowy Scheme’s engineers grabbing the low hanging fruit with available water storage largely for irrigation in the Murray darling Basin. It was built on time and on budget but there was a bonus built in with a series of hydro generators and their pondages to pump water back uphill when the output of coal fired generators were not needed when everyone was asleep. Ready for the morning brekky rush but not rushing down into the MD Basin if you get the drift. There simply isn’t enough water for that.
As well as a water gatherer in winter and a dispenser in summer it’s also a giant battery fully committed but long general droughts can impact both functions already. SnowyII is marginal in that respect and already a budget of $3billion has grown another $10billion and counting but it’s more battery functionality the doomsters want for their fickles fantasy.
Like I asked, what does any of this have to do with solar panels and windmills? When you call someone a dummy, it implies you are objecting to what they said. Nothing was said against dams and hydro power, only about the global warm green scam of solar panels and windmills and no fossil fuels. So what does your drought have to do with any of that?
Marginal Cost vs Marginal Benefit: Easy to Understand Comparison
I’m pretty sure the facility in question was being built as “energy storage” to provide non-fossil fuel backup for worse-than-useless wind and solar, attempting to make up for the deficiencies of worse-than-useless wind and solar.
Building storage has been useful for fossil fuel plants for decades. The problem is that not all fossil fuel plants are good at load following, and the load is not constant during the day. Because of this, using pumped storage to store energy when demand is low and the release it when demand is high, has actually saved money.
It has nothing to do with the global warming scam.
Need more water to clean the dust off the panels and blades.
from your link… “are projected to”…. “could happen”….
YAWN !!!
Longest, most severe drought in Australia was the Federation drought around 1900
The main reason for potable water shortage in Australia is because we haven’t built any decent storage for decades, while the population has expanded, lots.
Chart below shows the dam capacity added per decade since the 1920s (dots at the 9th year in the decade)
2020-2029 will be similar to the 2010s
Is such stupidity by political leadership intentional? Does it matter?
Trump described much of what is happening, rightly so, as “unmitigated immigration disaster and fake energy catastrophe…”
97% of political leadership “stupidity” is 100% intentional.
That’s how you cover up high treason, conspiracies and sabotage for the sake of globalists.
Doesn’t necessarily mean that those politicians necessarily know what is going on as the lobbyists and other owners do not tell them the real intentions,
but those who pull the strings know exactly what they are doing.
Sabotage gets you imprisoned,lynched,killed.
“Stupidity” is being tolerated and forgiven,
therefore it is their most used and effective weapon.
The proof that not building new resorvoirs is intentional sabotage is simple.
More people = more water is needed.That’s basic knowledge.
But in this case they even pretend to believe in global warming and a climate crisis = a massive water storage increase as fast as possible is an absolutel must.
Yet absolutely nothing happens.
En contraire, they are destroying dams in desert areas like California.
=100% sabotage.
And they claim that dams change ecosystems. Yet they make new ecosystems.
Every time they take down an old dam, they destroy a new ecosystem.
Why don’t they care?
PS A beaver dam also makes a new ecosystem. Why aren’t they targeting beavers?
https://www.nps.gov/cuva/planyourvisit/the-beaver-marsh.htm
Vast arrays of solar panels make a new eco-system, and they are completely in favor of that.
What’s your point? That the climate elitists keep telling you to be afraid and you believe them?
From the article “The scientists used a large number of climate models to assess the timing and likelihood of day-zero droughts.”…these models have NEVER been validated, they are not ‘fit for purpose’, at least not the purpose of predicting climate.
The climatista’s have been wrong about every major prediction in the last 50 years, what makes you think they are correct this time?
Name one false prediction, please. (Hint: They’re aren’t any such false predictions by scientists)
There’s a long, long list of them in the title bar on this page. Click on “PREDICTIONS”.
First off, saying anyone involved in the AGW scam is a scientist, is a stretch.
Secondly, even though they benefit from the money and attention these “predictions” bring to them, not a single one of your alleged scientists has ever said a word to refute any of these “predictions”.
Totally agree Mr. President, and it reminds me of a few quotes from Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels.
“If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself.” (There is a climate crisis! There is a climate crisis! There is a climate crisis!)
“The most brilliant propaganda technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principal in borne in mind constantly – it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over.” (i.e. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and the Earth is warming.)
They went out on a limb too far. For example, a man cannot become a woman by saying so or by wearing a wig and bra. Pushing for the chemical castration and genital mutilation of children even behind their parent’s backs is against the moral senses of most people to accept.
Right on, Scissor. Upsetting to watch the greatest medical malfeasance of our lifetime.
“….and genital mutilation of children even behind their parent’s backs is against the moral senses of most people to accept.”
I sometimes get the impression that woke progressive parents believe having a transgender child is some kind of badge of honor. It isn’t.
GLOBAL WARMING IN VERMONT; very little in summer, somewhat more in winter, based on 40 years of NOAA station data
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/global-warming-in-vermont
.
The beautiful graphs are by Willis Eschenbach. See URL
.
Summer
Each year has peak temperatures during the summer months June, July, August. The below graph shows those peak temperatures in Vermont, for about 40 years.
Those temperatures were measured by the weather stations in Vermont of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA
Vermont has four weather stations; Burlington, St Johnsbury, Castleton and Windsor.
New Hampshire also has four stations
The peak temperatures increased by 1.5 F over 40 years, or 0.0375 F per year.
Almost all people cannot sense the difference of 77 F and 78.5 F
Winter
A similar graph shows the minimum temperatures during the months of December, January, February
The minimum temperatures increased by 4.2 F over 40 years, or 0.1 F per year. Most older Vermonters agree, winters in Vermont have been getting warmer.
Heating demand is driven by temperature difference, which was about (65 F, indoor – 9.8 F, outdoor = 55.2 F) in 1980, and became (65 F, indoor – 14 F outdoor) = 51 F in 2020
At present, it takes 7.6% less Btu for space heating a house than 40 years ago.
.
Vermonters Being Screwed/Impoverished by Climate Idiots
Already-struggling, over-taxed, over-regulated Vermonters, in a low/near-zero, real-growth Vermont economy, would be required to spend at least $1.5 billion per year (during high inflation and high interest times), starting in January 2023, for the next 27 years, to maybe reduce Vermont CO2 emissions to the 2050 target of the VT Comprehensive Energy Plan.
That extreme hardship spending would have ZERO impact on temperatures in Vermont, which is a near-invisible pinprick on a world map.
Vermont’s best approach is to be as energy efficient as economically feasible regarding:
1) Highly sealed/insulated housing
2) High-mileage gasoline vehicles
3) Closing down the less-than-25%-efficient, tree-burning power plants (the energy equivalent of 3 out 4 trees is wasted), such as McNeil and Ryegate.
Tree-burning power plants and heating plants/stoves are major contributors to Vermont’s CO2 and ground level air pollution from sub-micron particles, which are as toxic as those of coal burning, and most harmful to people, especially pregnant women, children, elderly, and those with cardio/vascular ailments.
.
These small temperature changes were exploited by climate scare-mongers finally admitting to DECADES of weather modification.
Meanwhile, the Human Rights Commission (made up of sanctimonious green lunatics) is going to save all us Australians from climate misinformation…Bastards!
https://humanrights.gov.au/about/news/combatting-climate-related-misinformation-and-disinformation
I made a submission to the Senate enquiry as well:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pD4Z310rnteBKbCLDUcqBCCas5XWn66l/view?usp=sharing
I doubt mine will be published on a government website though.
I suggested the tis for Australia we to set buoth their ABC and CSIRO free from the government payroll and let them fend for themselves.
Excellent presentation by The Donald. This destruction of the climate change scam needs wider publicity.
By far the greatest speech ever delivered at the UN. By a man who defied all the odds, including an assassins bullet, and now dedicated to fixing the globalist rot.
Only a man with passion and courage who is loved and knows he is loved could deliver that speech in that forum with the power and certainty he invoked.
The fact checkers are exploding with rage and do not know what to attack.
Indeed. No doubt bleeding from their ears and eyes.
I imagine the reaction to Trump’s UN speech will be swift. After all, Trump is challenging the basic way these Lefties look at the world and telling them they are doing it all wrong.
I loved the speech. I figured he would give a speech like this at some time. I thought he might do it at his recent trip to the UK, but the UN forum was a better place to give it, I think.
I wonder if Trump reads WUWT?
Can Trump read?
Can you?
Hey Simon’s back. The trolls have had call in their 3rd string.
Simon fails even as a troll.
I’ve never heard something so magnificent in a long while.
Climate ”experts” will scramble to debunk in 5, 4, 3,
Don’t think so. Look at the leading mainstream national newspapers, and you will find no mention of it. Plenty of mentions of the paracetemol claims however. Check out for instance the UK Telegraph or Guardian, also the NY Times. I haven’t checked the Washington Post but would be surprised to see it covered there.
Trump is the first world leader of an important industrialized economy to say in a public forum not only that wind and solar are useless, but also that the theory of global warming on which the move to them depends is a scam.
But the reaction is not furious refutation. The reaction is to ignore it. Is it significant? Maybe. It changes a pattern in which politicians have inched closer to recognizing the uselessness, impossibility and expense of the move to wind and solar, while still paying lip service to the supposed climate crisis. But its going to take a lot more than one speech from a President whose statements the liberal press mostly denigrates or ignores.
The UK, the canary in the coalmine, shows some signs of a U-turn on Net Zero. Reversing itself on North Sea oil and gas, and permitting a couple of new London runways at Gatwick and Heathrow. Not to mention reversing the green hydrogen proposal in the North East in favor of AI build out. So maybe something is happening.
Perhaps Trump’s speech will embolden Tice and Farage of Reform to publicly come out as ‘deniers’. If we start to see more mainstream politicians in more Western countries publicly saying that there is no climate crisis, that might break up the logjam. Lets see.
The Guardian has an entire article story about Trump’s speech. See
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/23/trump-un-general-assembly-speech
As does the NY Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/23/us/politics/trump-un-aid-israel-gaza.html
so your claim that you will find no mention of it is clearly false.
You’re right. I missed the report of the Guardian climate change part because it was right at the bottom of the story, which focused on his other remarks. I didn’t see anything in the UK Telegraph, maybe it will appear later.
But I think the basic point is valid – the climate part of his speech is not being treated as anything of importance. Its not headlined. Whether it is very important, I’m not sure. Maybe it will be the start of other examples. We shall have to see.
Ignored in the (Glasgow) Herald.
The thing that will bring down the climate house of cards is renewables. There’s no logical reason why when the renewables move fails it should discredit CAGW. The two are logically completely independent, there could be a climate crisis even if the renewables move is impossible and unaffordable.
But the way public opinion goes, it seems likely that when, as now seems to be happening, renewables fall, that will take the CAGW panic with it. It may not be logical, but that is probably the way public opinion moves work. I guess the spectacle of tens of thousands of people flying to COP doesn’t help either, but the failure of renewables is probably going to be the key driver.
The connection between climate change alarm and renewables is strong and direct: the former is used to funnel taxpayers” money – lots of it – into the latter.
CAGW has already been discredited. They have been braying about a “crisis” which has demonstrably failed to materialize for three and a half decades.
And has always been based on a gigantic LIE – the ridiculous notion that a warmer climate is worse, when in fact it is BETTER.
That would make a fine roadside political poster: “Warmer is Better”
They are connected in as much as the same people are pushing both scams.
Most people don’t have the background and access to data to disprove the AGW scam, however they can see with their own eyes how renewable are failing, despite the assurances of those who push it.
While THEORETICALLY you are correct in that the concept of CAGW isn’t tied to unreliables (I refused to call them renewables as they aren’t) in REALITY the climatista’s have tied them together. And its not surprising to know why, both things are scams. Since both are scams when one falls the other will too. If its CAGW followed by the fall of unreliables or vice-versa I don’t much care.
As I noted in a comment above, if these climatistas had REALLY believed their own propaganda they would have fully backed the use of nuclear, nat gas & clean coal…but they don’t believe their own propaganda at all, they only wanted to use it to control the populous and how you do that is by removing people’s freedom, especially their economic freedom…a well off populous is impossible to control…
“renewables … CAGW. The two are logically completely independent”
It is possible to have either without the other.
But saving the world was a justifier for accepting high costs and tech development subsidies.
So I think “could have been independent, and I also think “were not independent”.
When the first extended blackout occurs in the dead of winter and tens of thousand of people suffer, perhaps then the torches and pitchforks will appear on the front pages of the news media.
Didn’t the NY Times win a Pulitzer prize for their story on Russia collusion 😂
That’s all you have to say about the public refutation of the entire Alarmist narrative?
Apropos of almost nothing…how does a comment with evidence contradicting a minor observation get rated DOWN ‘-11’ (at the time of my posting). This post is hardly about a controversial subject and demonstrates that the original poster was at least partially wrong…who is sitting in the background down voting this kind of thing????
Izaak called someone’s comment “clearly false“.
I evaluated the original post as an honest attempt to contribute a thought.
I think Izaak may have been overzealous in calling out the commenter, even if he was correct (and he was correct).
It’s refreshing to see WUWT readers downvote a “good guy” to defend a “not good guy” in terms of the prevailing blog culture. The incident implies that WUWT fans are reading critically and attempting to judge intent. Failure to see that Izaak wasn’t trying to be a d— requires that you’ve heard him on the podcast and understand he’s an advocate of truth, not another thoughtless culture enforcer.
These articles are behind a paywall.
“If we start to see more mainstream politicians in more Western countries publicly saying that there is no climate crisis, that might break up the logjam”
This is the salient observation. I’m hopeful, but by no means sure, that by publicly calling out the green scam for what it is this this will embolden opposition leaders in many western countries to start to go straight for the jugular instead of pandering & side stepping the obvious elephant in the room. They don’t necessarily have to start with ‘its all a big scam’ but use the numbers we know are true and the actions of the climatistas to show lead there and eventually get to ‘its all a big scam’. Carney in Canada is killing industry, trying to promote a ‘climate ready economy’ (note the new language), meanwhile flying all over the planet, emitting tremendous amounts of supposedly ‘harmful CO2’…
Its time to push back harder than ever before, Trump is leading the way, we can hope others follow.
CNN did a report and just about every place possible told readers Trump was way wrong on the climate crisis. Instead of just reporting what he said, the included their editorials as news.
Say what you like about him, you have to love Trump when he speaks the truth and tells global elites to F-off.
I fear, though, that he has missed a trick.
Instead of saying that the thing is a scam “in my opinion”, he should have said “in the opinion of tens of thousands of highly respected scientists who never get mentioned in the media” and he should have gone on to site some of them. The result is that this part of his speech has been ignored in many of the papers this morning and was ridiculed by the BBC yesterday evening.
I don’t think he should get into the “numbers,” as that is meaningless in the field of (real) science.
The right way to express it would be “in the opinion of highly respected scientists who have better arguments based on reality who never get mentioned in the media.”
Then you think wrong.
If your opponent comes with numbers, you better use them too.
AGW has nothing to do with (real) science
and even real science is about numbers or as Planck said “Science progresses a funeral at a time ”
The opinion of highly respected scientists may be elegant and right
but it has significantly less impact.
If I tell you ” Highly respected scientists do not believe the official 9/11 story”
you will start laughing and say ” So what.There is a handful of crazies and sellouts eveywhere”
But if I tell you that there are many thousands,
and 3000 of them organized as “Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth”
you will listen.
If someone tells you about the Great Barrington declaration in regards to Covid
you’ll forget it in 5 minutes,
but telling you that 13000 experts sign it will massively raise your attention.
The numbers are an important factor.
Of course he/we should use numbers and he did…(paraphrased) “37% reduction in CO2 in Europe at the cost of your industry and trillions of dollars…meanwhile the world increased carbon emissions by 54%”…demonstrating UNEQUIVOCALLY the scam…at all junctures we need to point out the stupidity…e.g. “cold kills more than heat, in fact a paper in the Lancet shows that the reduction in cold deaths exceeded the increase in heat deaths”…”by almost every measure the planet is better able to sustain itself and humanity today than ever before” (…insert graphs of increases in almost every staple food …heck every food product…)…AND you point out their hypocrisy …”they insist that every minor increase in temperature and CO2 matters but they fly all over the planet to useless meetings and conferences”…
AGW:
Trump does not do numbers well if talking off-the-cuff, so you are right.
I just read his UN speech transcript and he seemed to be riffing until the end. [The teleprompter was not working] He got the numbers wrong on immigration & heat related deaths but his points were otherwise correct.
I like your suggestion on how to express the rationale as to why he believes what he does on climate.
Maybe he should refer everyone to the “Climate Working Group Report” from the DOE (it is a good read).
https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/DOE_Critical_Review_of_Impacts_of_GHG_Emissions_on_the_US_Climate_July_2025.pdf
With the current atmospheric level at just 43 thousandths of 1%, an increase, they claim, of 15 of those thousandths since pre-industrial times, and humanity contributing about 20% of that increase.. and indeed, carbon being less than a third by volume of the CO2 molecule I would say it’s not so much a ‘footprint’, more a toenail clipping. Of the pinky toenail. After you clipped it only 30 seconds earlier.
What’s natural source has been increasing? Before you say oceans, remember that according to the chart’s CO2 levels rise and fall after temperature changes, but the delay is 900 to 1000 years. It’s only been about 250 years since the bottom of the Little Ice Age.
Mankind’s CO2 emissions alone are more than enough to explain the CO2 increase.
Read again.
they claim,
Who gives a fig about decadal changes in CO2 when one day’s rainstorms more or less can involve more energy transport in the atmosphere than the entire non-condensing GHG can accumulate in a year?
I didn’t pluck the figure from the air:
Atmospheric CO2: Exploring the Role of Sea Surface
Temperatures and the Influence of Anthropogenic CO2
Bernard Robbins – Independent Researcher
Abstract
Close examination of the small perturbations within the atmospheric CO2 trend, as measured at Mauna Loa, reveals a strong correlation with variations in sea surface temperatures (SSTs), most notably with those in the tropics. The temperature-dependent process of CO2 degassing and absorption
via sea surfaces is well-documented, and changes in SSTs will also coincide with changes in terrestrial temperatures, and temperature-dependent changes in the marine and terrestrial biospheres with their associated carbon cycles. Using SST and Mauna Loa datasets, three methods of analysis are presented that seek to identify and estimate the anthropogenic and, by default, natural components of recent increases in atmospheric CO2, an assumption being that changes in SSTs coincide with changes in nature’s influence, as a whole, on atmospheric CO2 levels. The findings of the analyses suggest that an anthropogenic component is likely to be around 20 %, or less, of the total increase since the start of the industrial revolution. The inference is that around 80 % or more of those increases are of natural origin, and indeed the findings suggest that nature is continually working to maintain an atmospheric/surface CO2 balance, which is itself dependent on temperature. A further pointer to this balance may come from chemical measurements that
indicate a brief peak in atmospheric CO2 levels centred around the 1940s, and that coincided with a peak in global SSTs.
I have been saying this for years. They do not monitor the ocean temperature for correlation with the measurements. The assume the seasonal variations are merely due to plants growing and decaying.
The Medieval Warm Period also known as the Medieval Climate Optimum or the Medieval Climatic Anomaly would fit.
He said the global cooling threat was pitched in the ’20s and ’30s. Somebody should have explained to him that’s not correct.
Better go look it up.
Maybe there was some- but I thought it was later, in the ’60s and ’70s when it hit the news. If hardly anyone heard that threat in the ’20s and ’30s, then perhaps Trump should have not mentioned that time period. I think in the ’20s and ’30s, people were focused on other things.
Don’t forget there are cycles in predictions as well as in climate itself.
Mr. Guy: Don’t overlook that the best scams are also “cycled” over and over.
“Maybe there was some- but I thought it was later, in the ’60s and ’70s when it hit the news.”
That is correct.
The temperatures cooled from the hot 1930’s to the 1970’s, by about 2.0C, reaching a level that was equivalent to the cooling that took place in the 1910’s, and in the 1970’s, some climate scientists started noting the significant cooling and were thinking the cooling might continue and take the world into another Ice Age.
Happily, the temperatures started warming in the 1980’s, up about 2.0C today.
The Earth’s climate is cyclical: It warms for a few decades, and then it cools for a few decades, and then the process repeats. This has been the case since the end of the Little Ice Age, with a temperature range of about 2.0C from the warmest to the coolest. Three cycles since the Little Ice Age ended.
Google has disappeared what used to be an appropriate supporting argument. There was a famous article that predicted female olympic marathon times would get faster than male olympic marathon times based on the forward extrapolation of time improvements from an era where women were knocking off mnutes and men were fighting for seconds. The gender aspect must have offended someone. Is there a less controversial example of the perils of linear extrapolation I could replace it with? Maye in a few years I can use climate change models.
I remember the global cooling fear in the early seventies. Wouldn’t know about the 20s and 30s though 🙂
The 20’s and 30’s were times of record warmth in the US.
Nope they weren’t.
They were before the records were “adjusted”.
By every measure (days above 90F or 100F, record temperatures) the 1930’s were hotter than today.
Simon – wrong about absolutely everything, as usual.
Do you want the 5 minute argument or the full half hour?
Is this during one of those teleprompter outages?
It’s looks like they incorporated my earlier comments into a UN speech. Wonderful!!!!
What a classic Trump speech! Exactly what they all needed to hear.
Now when the EPA follows through on rescinding the 2009 Endangerment Finding, it won’t seem outrageous at all.
It was the mirror image of Obama’s outdoor speech for the Sierra Club in which he proclaimed from the presidential podium that any American who did not believe the green agenda science had their heads in the sand. Sweet and well deserved counter punch
Calling climate change “the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world” and global warming a “hoax” isn’t entirely accurate because they are so much more than that, but they work as rhetorical devices. Climate change is actually a belief system, or memeplex, which is “a group of related memes that interact and reinforce one another to be more successfully transmitted and replicated within a culture.” People participate in it because they benefit in some way, and because it can be dangerous to ones career, not to mention damage one socially to oppose it. But Trump as president of the US was and is a prime position position to do enormous damage to the climate memeplex, and to his credit, has taken it. Although parts of it do soldier on, I believe its demise is forthcoming. Good for Trump for doing this. The world will owe him a debt of gratitude.
Yes, I voted for this!
Like Trump or hate him, it’s just wonderful watching someone telling world leaders the plain common sense truth about a destructive global delusion. He does it in language simple enough that even intellectuals can understand – even if they violently disagree. Personally, I think he articulates what the vast majority of sensible people think but are too afraid to say.
The first few comments, all that i read, are attached to the wrong article. This article concerns Trump’s comments to the U.N.General Assembly in which he ridiculed ( word not strong enough) climate change and immigration.
You need to view Trump’s entire speech. The news commentators select short sections of his comment’s and these do not really give you the “gut punch” feeling he delivered to the world.
Here is one of a multitude of scams as a result of the fraudulent climate alarmism
$2.2 billion solar plant in California turned off after years of wasted money: ‘Never lived up to its promises’ New York Post 23 September 2025
Some years ago Mr Ottmar Edenhoffer, an IPCC official, said in interview that the IPCC has always been about the redistribution of wealth. That is all one needs to know about claims for AGW.
The UNFCCC and the UN COP are organizations that distribute the funds that are donated by the rich countries
to poor countries to help them cope with alleged effects of global warming and climate change. The amounts of the funds “donated” by the countries is now many billions of dollars.
Do a search on the budgets of these two organizations and the IPCC. Trump will terminate all donations to these bloated bureaucracies.
You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows…
But nowadays we have perhaps a majority of people, who have little to no common sense and who believe that only the “experts” can have something worthwhile to say about almost anything.
President Trump is not a sheep, nor is he seeking to fool and control the sheep. The fact that he encounters so much resistance even from his own party shows how far we have sunk into the morass of dependence on “experts” nearly all of whom have a vested interest in continuing the scams…
“The greatest con job ever perpetuated on the world.”
I’ve been saying this for years, its about time someone important used this exact phrase. Its not a question of ‘well intentioned but misguided people’, though I trust there are plenty of those, its a con, perpetrated by people with an agenda to control people through centralized government and remove our freedoms while making themselves supremely wealthy beyond all measure of their actual skill.
One of the best lines/comments of his speach was (paraphrased) “You wasted trillions on your CO2 fixation, and killed your industry, and you did a great job reducing your carbon footprint by 37%…unfortunately for you the world increased its carbon footprint by 54%”…
I didn’t ‘fact’ check these but the numbers seem more than reasonable and put in this context so blatantly and juxtaposed to comments about their failing economies he put the whole thing in to context…whether your agree with the climate scam or not, the implementation of ‘fixes’ has been a total & utter failure. If these people REALLY believed their propaganda they would have fully backed nuclear, a switch to nat gas & clean coal decades ago, been further along & have a much, much strong economy. They could have led the way, showing how you can have growth & ‘protect the environment’ at the same time…instead they want YOU to live in huts & till the soil like your great, great, great grandparents did…if freezing in the dark was good enough for them its good enough for you!
The thing Trump left out was the UN’s eviction notice. They need to get out of our country. I suggest we demolish the building and build a new coal powered plant.
I believe it has started with reps from certain countries not allowed to go shopping.
It’s New York, it’s going to be a long time before they will give permits for a coal powered plant.
On the other hand, it will make a good place to house all the illegal immigrants that they want to hide from ICE.
I know that when he and his wife got on the escalator at the UN, it stopped working.
His teleporter stopped working when he started his speech.
Was it ever fixed during his speech?
If not, it didn’t slow him down!
(Can you imagine Biden or Harris under those circumstances?)
I haven’t been proud of my country in a while. What a strange feeling. Did we really elect this guy? Wow.
It was good to hear Trump call out these climate alarmists for being a combination of suckers and con-men. They not only want wreck their economies combating a non-problem but also want to pick the pockets of consumers with unnecessary environmental taxes and green product mandates. So if voters want to protect themselves from such governments, they’d better make certain to vote them out of office whenever the next elections occur.
Well, Trump may be correct. It is first or second.
The Covid Scam is also in the running for greatest con job,
So they are One-Two. Pick your choice.