Donald Trump's Climate Remarks In UN Speech Were, Um, Something

Trump had some rather, um, interesting things to say
at the UN General Assembly Tuesday, including
some wild assertions regarding 
climate change and clean energy. 

That was quite a speech Donald Trump gave at the United Nations Tuesday. 

I wish I thought to count the number of untruths utter during the speech.  It sure had me reaching for my Tylenol, despite Trump and RFK's distain for the pain medication. 

Since this is a weather and climate blog, I'll ignore for all most of the problematic things Trump said on a wide variety of topics, and stick to the subject at hand here. 

Trump had plenty so say on climate change and clean energy in the rambling, hour long address.  They were things we heard from him before, that climate change is a hoax, that clean energy is bad, yada, yada, yada. 

Still, it's worth exploring just what he said, and doing some fact checking, just for laughs and giggles. 

As always, Trump has a remarkably dark vision of the world.

Climate change, he said, is "the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world.....The carbon footprint is a hoax made up by people with evil intentions, and they're heading down a path of total destruction."

I suppose we can make a case that we are eventually "heading down a path of total destruction," but that's not because climate change is a hoax. It's more because that climate change is inflicting more and more and worse and worse weather disaster on the world's populace. 

Trump dismissed the often forecasts climate change scientists have made over the years. "All of these predictions made by the United Nations and many others, often for bad reasons, were wrong....They were made by stupid people."

Never mind that climate prediction models, even those made half a century ago, were more or less accurate. But I guess we have to ignore all that, since scientists with years of education and training are clearly just stupid people.

Trump stuck with the subject: "They said global warming will kill the world, but then it started getting cooler. So now they could 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."

I think Trump is referring to a worn out trope about some publications way back when the Bee Gees were discoing their way to fame and fortune back in the 1970s. 

The world started to warm a bit starting near the turn of the 20th century as our burning of fossil fuels began to have an effect. But then there was a very slight cooling trend from the 1940s to the 1970s.  That cooling trend is now understood to be the result of air pollution that dimmed the sun a little. Plus a natural climate cycle contributed a tiny bit to that cooling. 

By the 1970s, sensationalistic magazines informed us based on that bit of cooling a new ice age was coming. Meanwhile, behind the scenes, most climate scientists were accurately convinced the world was going to warm up. 

They were right, obviously. Air pollution was cleaned up, the sun shone more brightly as a result, the climate cycle ended, and that's when climate change really rocketed up. 

Trump added another overused trope when he made that crack about the terminology regarding global warming changed to climate change.  Calling it climate change is actually more accurate. Sure, the world is warming up.  But that's causing bigger storms, bigger floods, bigger droughts. Saying it's global warming is incomplete since so many other things are going on, too. 

But anyway, Trump plowed on. 

"Immigration and the high cost of so-called green renewable energy is destroying a large part of the free world........Countries that cherish freedom are fading fast because of their policies on those two subjects. You need strong borders and traditional energy sources if you are going to be great again."

He had more to say on the topic.   

"(Europe) has a long way to go, with many countries being on the brink of destruction because of their green energy agenda....Both the immigration and their suicidal energy ideas will be the death of Western Europe."

It's probably way too much to get into immigration policy here, but I'm at a loss how clean energy will mean the end of nations. Trump didn't explain it, other than to say countries who have green energy policies allow the nations that emphasize fossil fuel to take all the manufacturing jobs somehow. 

Back in July, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres declared the world has "passed the point of no return" on the shift to renewable energy and said the fossil fuel era will end soon.  And I haven't seen evidence that nations with stricter green energy policies are doing worse than ones clinging to dependence on fossil fuel.

Trump also said that clean energy is too expensive and "doesn't work."  Which leaves me mystified.

If it doesn't work and is too expensive, why was 80 percent of the growth in electricity generation around the world from renewable and nuclear sources. And why does solar and wind account for 16 percent of U.S. electricity, surpassing coal?

You'd think the U.S. and other nations and international business interests would have long since abandoned renewables if they "didn't work." But whatevs. 

Trump had a wee bit of accuracy when it comes to China. He said China produces most of the world's wind technology, but doesn't use wind technology, Instead, it relies on coal and gas. 

That's partially true. Wind turbines and solar accounts for 20 percent of China's electricity generation, but China is still the world's largest coal consumer. In 2024 China accounted for 58 percent of global coal use.

It seems like much of the coverage of Trump's UN speech centered around a malfunctioning teleprompter and balky escalator at the UN. 

But Trump's climate and clean energy remarks, along with a whole host of other weird things he said. are an embarrassment to the U.S. And puts the world in just a little more danger it certainly does not need.  

Trump Administration To Retaliate Against Nations That Fight Climate Change

The Trump administration opposes efforts within the'
shipping industry for a net-zero plan The Trumpster
think it will raise costs, and the administraiton
falsely says climate change is a 'hoax.'

The Trump administration doesn't want anybody to fight climate change it seems.

They are now going as far as to punish nations that do take up the cause. This latest bit of bad news originates from an obscure shipping group.    

Per Reuters from last week:

"The U.S. on Tuesday rejected the 'Net-Zero Framework' proposal by the International Maritime Organization, which is aimed at reducing global greenhouse gas emissions from the international shipping sector, and threatened measures against countries that support it."

So, we've gone beyond the Trump administration sitting out any climate policy. It's a matter of course that Trump and his minions won't lift a finger to combat climate change. 

After all, Trump famously keeps saying it's a hoax, despite all evidence to the contrary.They're now going after anybody who does anything about the climate policy. 

Although the Reuters article doesn't specify exactly what the Trump people will do, but they love tariffs, so that's probably where they will try to go. 

The Trumpsters are portraying they're position as an attempt to save consumers money, saying that the proposed Net Zero idea is carbon tax on Americans levied by an unaccountable UN organization.

 "The Trump Administration unequivocally rejects the proposal before the IMO and will not tolerate any action that increases costs for our citizens, energy providers, shipping companies and their customers, or tourists," according to a statement released by U.S. government leaders, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio. 

Coming in October the 108 member states in this organization will vote on whether to ratify the measure to diminish carbon emissions from shipping. 

Ocean vessels transport around 80 percent of world trade and account for nearly 3 percent of the world's carbon dioxide emissions, according to Reuters. 

 

Sharpiegate Comes Back, Like The Monster That Won't Die

"Sharpiegate" started six years ago over Donald
Trump's failed attempt at forecasting Hurricane
Dorian. It's still going on today with the firing
of two NOAA officials, in part because
 Trump. Just. Can't. Let. It. Go.

 Sharpiegate is back in the news, in a typically depressing way. 

Back in late July, two NOAA scientists who defied Trump in the name of accuracy and science in his first administration are being sacked.  It looks like because Trump has a long memory, at least in terms of loyalty.  

"Two top National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration officials who played a role in the high profile "Sharpiegate" investigation at the agency were placed on administration leave this week. 

Stephen Volz, the assistant administrator at NOAA's Satellite and Information Service, and Jeff Dillon, a deputy general counsel at NOAA, were placed on leave..."   Volz told NBC News."

You might remember Sharpiegate. Back in 2019 Trump incorrectly said Hurricane Dorian was threatening Alabama, but National Weather Service meteorologists in Alabama contradicted him, accurately saying the storm was no threat to Alabama. 

A normal president who might have been misinformed like that would say, "Oops, we have updated info that says Alabama doesn't have to worry, so we'll move on."

But this is Trump of course, who can never be wrong about the slightest thing. He  later produced a forecast map that had been amateurishly altered by a Sharpie to suggest Alabama had been threatened by the storm.   To make everything worse, top NOAA officials, appointed by Trump in his first administration, rebuked those professional and accurate Alabama meteorologists.  

Which of course looks like political pressure and not science to me and pretty much everybody else 

 Here's why we think Volz and Dillon are in trouble now.  Neil Jacobs was nominated by Trump as his pick to head NOAA. Jacobs got in trouble with Sharpiegate. Per NBC: 

"NOAA hired the National Academy of Public Administration to perform an independent assessment into allegations of scientific misconduct during the incident. The investigation found that Jacobs violated NOAA's ethics policies. 

Volz wrote the final decision about the report for NOAA, which agreed with NAPA's findings. He said Dillen worked on that document also. Volz said he did not know whether notices that they'd both been put on leave on the same day and their connection to the 'Sharpiegate' report were a coincidence."

CNN talked to former NOAA officials who smell a rat. One said: "It's an interesting coincidence that less than a week before Neil Jacobs sent committee vote, the two dedicated career civil servants who investigated him for scientific integrity violations around Sharpiegate were dismissed from service."

 NOAA confirmed the pair had been placed on leave, but are tightlipped on why. Dillen is out due to unspecified "performance issues." Volz is out for an "unrelated matter."

 They're not even telling Volz why he's out. 

 It's all for plausible deniability. It looks bad to admit they're getting rid of Volz and Dillon to soothe Trump's narcissistic ego. So they're denying it has anything to do with Sharpiegate. 

NOAA's communications director, Kim Foster, had this to say: "Neither action is related in any way to each other or the Sharpiegate investigation."

Sure, Jan. 

As for Jacobs, the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee on July 30 advanced his nomination, but we don't know yet when the full Senate will vote on the nomination. 

 

Political Silly Season In Icebox Iowa Reveals The "Hoax" Of Climate Change

Esteemed climatologist Lauren Boebert added her two cents
to the climate debate recently. As usual, not exactly brilliant

It's wicked cold in Iowa at the moment. 

And it comes at a moment when all media eyes are on Iowa as the Presidential Caucus is today.  

The low this morning in Des Moines was around 17 below and it was supposed to get all the way up to minus 1 for a high.

Politicians and pundits, never shy from taking advantage of a situation have seized the moment.

 To the far right wing that are running things in the GOP these days, the frigid Iowa winter air proves the climate change doesn't exist.

Yeah, yeah, I know, this is pretty much a run of the mill Midwestern winter cold blast. But the right wing ranging from, ahem, noted climatologist/Fox Business host Larry Kudlow to extreme Beetlejuice fan Lauren Boebert set us straight. 

The ever-reliable Fox Business host Larry Kudlow starts it out for us.  

"Why hasn't there been front page stories," he whines about the Iowa cold snap, ignoring the legions of network reporters freezing their tushes off in Des Moines to cover the caucuses.  

But never mind. Kudlow plows on:

"I mean, every time you get a little heat wave or every time you get a bad rainstorm, everyone runs with these crazy stores about global warming global warming, global warming and climate change."

Repeat that phrase enough, Larry and people will just hang on your every word? I dunno. Kudlow keeps digging his hole:

"How about global freezing? Alright, not just in Iowa, but throughout the whole Midwest of the country and maybe more. The whole thing is a hoax. The idea that it's some kind of emergency is a complete and utter hoax. And the socialist green new deal is hoax also."

Then it was Boebert's turn.  On X, formerly Twitter, she offered us this climatological analysis:

"You've got to appreciate the irony of climate protestors trudging through a foot of snow and -30 degree wind chills to yell about how the planet is warming. They just don't see it, do they?"

Oh, those climate demonstrators get it all right. It's just Boebert and her ilk that are terminally clueless. Or at least duplicitous.  Hoaxers like Kudlow and Boebert have played this game as long as I can remember. It's winter. It gets cold, even with climate change, as we well know.  

But apparently, if it's cold in Iowa, that means climate change was just a mirage. Thank goodness!

Meanwhile, in the past few days  parts of Chile, did set record high temperatures by a wide margin .  Within the last few days record heat also hit Dominica, Australia, the Canary Islands, ,Morocco and Thailand. And maybe some other places.

But that doesn't matter.   Because it's cold in Iowa.  Therefore climate change doesn't exist. Or something  like that. 

 Sure, Iowa is ridiculously frigid today,  but not nearly as bad as it can get in an Iowa January. Des Moines this morning missed tying the record low for the date by a full 10 degrees.  Let's face it. Winter in Iowa sucks. 

Plus one week from today, the expected high temperature in Des Moines is 34 degrees. Above zero.

So anyway, I'm being Captain Obvious here about the difference between weather and climate, and the difference between winter and climate.

The likes of Kudlow understand it too, no doubt. But they are just part of Team Fossil Fuel who continually wish to fool the public and delay the day when oil is no longer king. And at that point we can actually start dealing with climate change.  

And no, the transition won't tank the economy or take away your freedoms. 

 It's nice to see more pushback on these climate deniers than I used to.

Our smarmy GOP candidate Vivek "Why The Hell Am I Still Running" Ramaswamy had a bit of a disagreement with some climate activist  who crashed a campaign event.. Ramaswamy credit, he didn't have a hissy fit when the climate activists confronted him. 

Ramaswamy's campaign has droned on and on about climate change is  hoax that threatens liberty. Yeah, that same old trope again. 

Rhonda Santis, as I call the GOP presidential candidate from Florida, also gets pushback from climate activists. Which he deserves. 

And don't get me started on Donald Trump.  

In any event, I hope Iowa caucus goers manage to stay warm today and tonight in this frigid weather, and I  hope they make wise decisions.