President Trump Knows more About “Climate Change” Than The Climate Alarmist

POTUS Donald Trump once joked during his 2016 campaign that the human-caused “climate change” narrative was nothing more than a hoax created by the Chinese in order to gain a competitive economic advantage over the United States.

He may have only been half-joking, though the unhinged Left, which continues to push this hoax, lost their collective minds when he said it. Why? Because every “solution” to the problem offered by liberal scientists and media outlets would cost the U.S. economy hundreds of billions in actual expenditures and lost revenue. And not only that, but no plan offered to date would substantially reduce ‘warming.’

The more American industry spends on compliance, the less competitive it is globally – thus helping the Chinese economy. That said, shortly after the president took office, his Environmental Protection Agency quashed expensive new rules imposed by the Obama regime that would have greatly increased the cost of energy in our country by imposing massive regulations on power plants.

As for the issue of ‘climate change,’ however, the president – in a recent “60 Minutes” interview – demonstrated that he clearly understands the issue far better than many so-called ‘climate scientists.’

“The mainstream media once again attempted to challenge President Donald Trump on ‘climate change,’ but Trump emerged unscathed by refuting typical climate claims with accurate and remarkably scientific comments in an October 14, 2018, 60 Minutes interview,” wrote Marc Morano at Climate Depot, a project of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT).

Support our mission and enhance your own self-reliance: The laboratory-verified Organic Emergency Survival Bucket provides certified organic, high-nutrition storable food for emergency preparedness. Completely free of corn syrup, MSG, GMOs and other food toxins. Ultra-clean solution for years of food security. Learn more at the Health Ranger Store.

He went on to observe that POTUS Trump’s comments on the issue were “scientifically, politically, and economically accurate.”

For example, when correspondent Leslie Stahl pressed the president on the issue, he observed that he thinks “something is happening,” and that “something’s changing” but “it’ll change back again.”

“I don’t think it’s a hoax. I think there’s probably a difference,” he added. “But I don’t know that it’s man-made. I will say this: I don’t want to give trillions and trillions of dollars” away needlessly. “I don’t want to lose millions and millions of jobs” that would be killed off by massive new regulations that are supposedly aimed at mitigating climate change, but which won’t really do anything to stop or alter it (because it’s occurring naturally). (Related: UN official actually ADMITS that ‘global warming’ is a scam designed to ‘change world’s economic model’.)

Was POTUS Trump right in making his claims? In a word, yes.

Expensive ‘solutions’ that won’t accomplish anything

To his claim that climate change “solutions” would cost trillions, The Daily Caller reported earlier this month that the U.N.’s call for companies and governments to move trillions of dollars into “low-carbon energy” production as a means of lowering global temperatures is “not feasible,” environmental economist Richard Tol said.

His comments came on the heels of a new Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) special report that predicted some $1.6-$3.8 trillion annually in “energy system supply-side investments” would be needed now through 2050 in order keep warming below 1.5 Celsius.

That puts the total price tag at between $51.2 trillion and $122 trillion – not doable.

Earlier, Danish author, environmentalist and political science/philosophy professor Bjorn Lomborg, in commenting about the Paris Climate Accords that POTUS Trump withdrew from were on pace to become a very expensive treaty while offering virtually no benefits in terms of reducing global temperatures.

“This treaty will do very little at a very high cost,” he wrote, though only wealthy nations would be paying, and the U.S. would have paid the most – for an estimated reduction in temperature of less than 1 degree F.

As Morano notes, even scientists and physicists who supported Obama and the Democratic Party were not on board with his claims of doom and gloom because the real data do not support the conclusions that a) humans are causing climate change; and b) that temperatures are rising to a dangerous point.

When Stahl attempted to bring up melting ice in Greenland as “proof” of human-caused warming, POTUS Trump responded: “…[Y]ou don’t know whether that would have happened with or without man. You don’t know.”

No one does