Latest

Trump: Global Warming Is A Hoax

Man-made global warming is a hoax perpetuated by the elite to make money and damage the U.S. economy, according to President-elect Donald Trump - and America isn't going to stand for it anymore.

Man-made global warming is a hoax perpetuated by the elite to make money and damage the U.S. economy, according to President-elect Donald Trump – and America isn’t going to stand for it anymore.

Obama thinks it’s the number one problem in the world today. I think it’s very low on the list,” Trump said on the Hugh Hewitt show, indicating a major shift in U.S. policy.

Trump continued: “You know in the 1920s people talked about global cooling, they thought the earth was cooling. I believe there is weather and I believe there is change and I believe it goes up and it goes down and it goes up again and it changes depending on years and centuries.

Pointing out that U.S. manufacturing and the economy as a whole has suffered since climate change rules were introduced by global organizations – making everybody poorer, except the elites who profit from the fearmongering – Trump has promised to make America competitive again.

Trump is putting his money where his mouth is. According to a member of his transition team, the President-elect is looking at ways to withdraw as quickly as possible from a costly global climate agreement currently being ratified in Morocco.

Since Trump’s victory in Tuesday’s election, governments ranging from China to small island states have reaffirmed their support for the agreement at climate talks running until November 18 in Marrakesh, Morocco.

But Trump believes the global rules and regulations will continue to harm the American economy and the President-elect wants out. “It was reckless for the Paris Agreement to enter into force before the election,” the source, who works on Trump’s transition team, told Reuters on condition of anonymity.

30,000 scientists agree with Trump

A staggering 30,000 scientists have come forward agreeing with Trump that man-made climate change is a scam perpetuated by the global elite in order to make money.

One of the experts is weather channel founder, John Coleman, who warns that huge fortunes are being made by man-made climate change proponents such as Al Gore.

If you’re still inclined to believe what Al Gore has to say about global warming, please consider the fact that since he embarked on his climate change crusade, flying around the world on his private jet, his wealth has grown from $2 million in 2001 to $100 million in 2016 – largely due to investments in fake “green tech” companies and the effective embezzlement of numerous grants and loans.

From the National Review: “A 2008 survey by two German scientists, Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, found that a significant number of scientists were skeptical of the ability of existing global climate models to accurately predict global temperatures, precipitation, sea-level changes, or extreme weather events even over a decade; they were far more skeptical as the time horizon increased.”

Other mainstream news sources besides the National Review have also been courageous enough to speak out against the global warming propaganda – even the Wall Street Journal published an op-ed piece in 2015 challenging the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) pseudoscience being pushed d by global warming proponents.

And, of course, there are the more than 31,000 American scientists (to date) who agree with Trump and have signed a petition challenging the climate change narrative – and 9,029 of them hold PhDs in their respective fields.

Many of those scientists who signed the petition were likely encouraged to speak out in favor of the truth after retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist John L. Casey revealed that solar cycles are largely responsible for warming periods on Earth – not human activity.

Many more still are likely to sign the petition and speak out against the mainstream propaganda now that Trump has indicated a major change in U.S. policy.

Baxter Dmitry
Follow me

Baxter Dmitry

Writer at Your News Wire
Passionate about motor sports, military history and the truth, Baxter has travelled in over 80 countries and won arguments in every single one.
Baxter Dmitry
Follow me
Baxter Dmitry
About Baxter Dmitry (481 Articles)
Passionate about motor sports, military history and the truth, Baxter has travelled in over 80 countries and won arguments in every single one.
  • James

    This one is true – global warming is happening…

    • jrf30

      Agreed. It is happening. And the headline makes it sound like Trump says it is not. Notice the headline says “global warming is fake’? Then, the interior says the truth. he says MAN MADE global warming is fake. BIIIIGGGGG difference. I too believe it IS warming up. But I feel it is part of what earth does, and although man may play a SMALL part in it, it is not just man. As shown by the fact that MARS is ALSO warming up, and by almost the SAME ratios as earth. How do we know that? Well, that’s above my pay grade, but everyone that studies mars climate says it is true.

      Saying it IS happening but is not MAN made, is different than the headline that tries to sway readers with a false statement. That he says it is not happening period.

  • Henrik Hindby

    WSJ are misleading when it comes to covering the climate:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/wall-street-journal_b_2468855.html
    http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/08/11/its-not-just-the-editorial-page-study-finds-wsj/204855
    http://fusion.net/story/297188/scientists-fact-check-climate-journalism/

    Referring to the 30.000 scientists refuting AGW, you should’ve mentioned that only 0.5% of them are actually climatologists and atmospheric scientists. Oh, and could you maybe name the scientists for me? It seems to be quite difficult to find out who actually signed and as I recall there were several fake names added to the petition.
    “Also attached to the petition was an apparent “research paper” titled Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. The paper was made to mimic what a research paper would look like in the National Academy’s prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy journal. The authors of the paper were Robinson, Sallie Baliunas, Willie Soon (both oil-backed scientists) and Robinson’s son Zachary. With the signature of a former NAS president and a research paper that appeared to be published in one of the most prestigious science journals in the world, many scientists were duped into signing a petition based on a false impression.”
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/the-30000-global-warming_b_243092.html

    Oh, and Donald Trump actually does believe in AGW – at least he did before he became a politician
    http://www.vox.com/2016/6/9/11895578/donald-trump-climate-change

  • Resist_Tyranny

    Latest science prove that climate change is normal, cyclical and has nothing to do with CO2 or humans. 37 years of this hoax is quite enough. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAELGs1kKsQ&index=8&list=FLZMzYPyZ-Wn2Y1bNMxrFmFA&t=838s

    • Henrik Hindby

      30 years? Lol. Try more than a 100. Scientists were already investigating the warming effect of CO2 back in the 1800’s and the oil industry’s own scientists began their research almost 50 years ago. The Stanford Research Institute presented a report to the American Petroleum Institute (API) in 1968 that warned the release of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels could carry an array of harmful consequences for the planet.
      https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/13/climate-change-oil-industry-environment-warning-1968

      • Dale

        Henrik.
        Just over looking your name-calling for a moment…
        Yes, CO2 has been studied for a number of years but it has never been proven that the CO2 produced by mankind will in any way lead to catastrophic global warming or climate change or climate disruption or… (whatever the latest name being used in an attempt to save face).
        The experiments of years ago were conducted in closed containers and utilized the walls of the container to trap the heat. Our atmosphere functions much differently. In fact, the term greenhouse gas is a misnomer as the atmosphere doesn’t work at all like a greenhouse.
        The air in our atmosphere is constantly moved about by convection, something which was not present in the early experiments using CO2. Also, as the effects of the trace gas CO2 are logarithmic, the minute warming effect becomes less and less with increasing amounts of the gas. Therefore, we’ve already experienced well over 80% of any effect which might be noted from increasing the presence of CO2 in our atmosphere.
        As for the careless burning of fossil fuels, I seriously doubt if any person knowledgeable of science disagrees with possible negative effects. However, the production of CO2 in the small amounts currently present in our atmosphere is not one of those concerns.
        However, in good faith, why don’t you post a single paper “proving” that anthropogenic carbon dioxide is leading to catastrophic global warming? In response, I’ll post two peer-review papers demonstrating that such is not at all the case.
        Fair enough?

        • Henrik Hindby

          Name calling? Where?

          Okay, I see you favour quantity over quality – so I guess you support the consensus among scientists that our emissions are causing much of the warming now?

          Doran 2009, Anderegg 2010, Cook 2013 (I know it’s been criticized), Verheggen 2014, Stenhouse 2014, Carlton 2015, Powell 2015 have all shown a consensus on AGW of at least 91%.

          A study from University of Queensland showed that the higher expertise researchers have in climate science the more they agree on AGW.

          Not sure why you believe that the atmosphere doesn’t work like a greenhouse. It NEEDS to work this way to sustain life.

          The earth’s “greenhouse effect” is what makes this planet suitable for life as we know it – it’s not EXACTLY a greenhouse but works in much the same way. The atmosphere contains trace gases and some of them absorb heat – such as carbon dioxide and methane.

          Regarding your statement that CO2 is logarithmic you might find this explanation interesting: http://www.skepticalscience.com/C02-emissions-vs-Temperature-growth.html

          And here you have researchers explaining how the theory on AGW is well-supported https://www.quora.com/Is-global-warming-a-hypothesis-or-theory
          And here a brief summary of the climate change science: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_science

          • Dale

            First, a couple of your quotes:
            “It’s funny how denialists ignore thousands of research papers…” followed by:
            “Name calling? Where?”

            Now back to the main point.
            A quote in my posting: “However, in good faith, why don’t you post a
            single paper “proving” that anthropogenic carbon dioxide is leading to catastrophic global warming? In response, I’ll post two peer-review papers demonstrating that such is not at all the case.”
            As I suspected, you have no such paper as there is no such paper.
            As for your listing of authors claiming wildly inaccurate consensus numbers suggesting catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, I haven’t read all the papers, which presumably you have or at
            least that’s what you seem to have implied.
            If that is really the case, then you should also know that in Doran/Zimmerman study, two questions were asked to 10 257 scientists and of those only 76 answered that they thought temperatures had risen above pre-1800 levels and only 75 felt man was a contributing factor to global warming. Like Cook, they couldn’t even get 97 scientists to agree that man was making a significant contribution to global warming, let alone 97% of scientists. Their study was flawed in other ways as well.
            Anderegg’s claimed study was too silly to even comment on. No serious scientist counts those who disagree with a particular point of view as automatically agreeing with his/her own point of view. Foolish claim.
            Cook’s study was too poorly constructed and exaggerated to even bother to discuss. As stated above with Doran, he couldn’t even find 97 scientists to agree that man’s production of CO2 would lead to catastrophic global warming.
            In the study referred to by Verheggen, only 797 out of the original 7555 scientists to whom the questions were asked responded agreeing that humans were responsible for a significant amount of the greenhouse gas concentrations. That’s only about 10.5%!
            If you have actually read the work and claims of Stenhouse, you
            already know that nowhere near 97% consensus of AGW was
            claimed.
            Etc.

            Well, you get the point. Depending on headlines, claims from unscientific web sites, Wikipedia and Google searches, etc. often yield information that is of useless if any value from a scientific point of view. Much more importantly, look at the actual data
            Let me know should you ever find the paper I inquired about above.

          • Henrik Hindby

            Denying AGW – a denialist. That’s no more name calling than calling a person who loves Justin Bieber a Belieber.

            Regarding Zimmerman’s study you may’ve listened too much to Chris Stewarts misleading criticism? Zimmerman contacted 10.257 scientists and got a response from 3,146 of them. Zimmerman then sent them two questions: (1) Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels? (2) Has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?
            Around 90% agreed with the 1st question and 82% with the 2nd. The number – 77 – is from a subsample where only CLIMATE scientists were considered. Of the 79 climate scientists 77 agreed that temperatures has risen and 75 agreed that human activity has been a significant factor in changing global temperatures. So no – of course they couldn’t get 97 climate scientists to agree because there weren’t 97 climate scientists participating.

            Regarding the Verheegen-study you’re not telling the full story: 7.555 scientists were contacted. Of these emails, ∼1000 were returned undelivered or unread, leaving a total of 6.550 people. 1.868 questionaires were returned, although not all of these were fully completed. This amounts to a response rate of 29%.
            Perhaps the most interesting question in this regard was: “What confidence level would you ascribe to the anthropogenic GHG contribution being more/less than 50%?”
            22% didn’t answer so that means 78% of the respondents gave an answer. Looking at those providing an answer we can see that 84% agree on AGW.
            And 90% of respondents, with more than 10 self-declared climate-related peer-reviewed publications, agreed with dominant anthropogenic causation for recent global warming.

            It’s difficult to respond to your criticism of Cook and Anderegg as you don’t mention anything specific but I’ve previously read some criticism of Cook’s study although I don’t entirely agree with everything.

            I do think we agree that there will always be aspects to criticize when trying to quantify an opinion – especially when it comes to such a complex subject. Some critique may be warranted and some is not.

            It’s unclear if you want a paper saying that global warming is caused by mankind or if the paper should prove that global warming caused by mankind is catastrophic.

            Scientists know that recent climate change is largely caused by human activities from an
            understanding of basic physics, comparing observations with models, and fingerprinting
            the detailed patterns of climate change caused by different human and natural influences (Royal Society’s words – not mine).

            You might also want to read this report on AGW from The US Global Change Research Program. https://downloads.globalchange.gov/usimpacts/pdfs/climate-impacts-report.pdf

            The theory on AGW is based on a massive amount of observations and calculations which together strengthen the conclusion that the current global warming is caused by our emissions. There’s a clear correlation which can’t be explained by natural factors, and basic physics explain the causation. (https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-4-1-2.html or https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/climate-change-evidence-causes.pdf).

            This is not something I’ve found on “unscientific websites”. This is from the IPCC, the Union of Concerned Scientists, Nasa, Noaa, WMO, UK Met Office, DMI, The Royal Society, EEA, National Academies of Science, Responsible Scientists (read the open letter on AGW here: http://responsiblescientists.org/) and the many scientific papers that form the basis of the understanding of AGW. Some are mentioned in the links I sent you earlier.

            Could you find me peer-reviewed research saying that gravity exists and that the Earth is round? Because if you can’t I’m sure the Earth is flat and that gravity was invented by Boeing.

            And I’d still – in all seriousness – like peer-reviewed research stating that global warming is caused entirely by natural factors and not by our emissions.

          • Dale

            Still no paper “proving” catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.
            No one, of which I’m aware, disagrees that there has been some warming since the last ice age. Most agree that man “may” have had some small part. No one, to my knowledge, has done research and produced a report “proving” that man’s activities have in any way been responsible for catastrophic global warming and there is definitely no where near 97% of scientists worldwide that believe that believe in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. If any global warming noted that may have been influenced by man is not catastrophic, then why all the money demanded to “stop the unstoppable climate change”? That nonsense doesn’t bother you at all?
            Yet…the UN, governments, and special interest groups want billions of our money to stop global warming that supposedly is causing catastrophic effects, which we have caused. Pure nonsense and completely without scientific justification.
            No one anywhere has produced a document/documents “proving” that man is in any way responsible for the claimed catastrophic global warming.
            As for proving that gravity exists or that the world is round, as far as I know, no one is demanding billions of our dollars to prove such and billions more to stop both.
            Still waiting for your paper(s).

          • Henrik Hindby

            I get the feeling that you haven’t actually looked further into the different climate reports and the number of institutions/universitites acknowledging AGW.

            Where do I disagree with myself?
            At first you actually questioned the warming effect of CO2 – you then say that man “may” have an effect on global warming. So which is it? Do you believe CO2 has a warming effect or not?

            You also specifically stated that there aren’t 97% (I never mentioned any number) of scientists believing in “catastrophic” climate change. No such survey has ever been conducted.

            Regarding the billions of dollars: It’s weird that you actually oppose AGW and therefore defend status quo as there’s much, much, much more money in the fossil fuels industry. If you want to be sceptic of a money machine – be sceptic towards fossil fuels.
            Between 1993 and 2004, U.S. federal spending on climate change rose from $3.3 billion to $5.1 billion—a 55% increase. But the research share of that money fell from 56 percent to 39 percent. So scientists aren’t actually gaining more after the issue became a political topic.

            Of course climate scientists are more trustworthy when it comes to AGW. You don’t visit the dentist when you’re gonna have your heart checked, do you? Surely a glaciologist knows more about climate change than a biologist or sociologist.

            You keep wanting THE paper proving AGW – meanwhile you ignore the massive amount of data and observations that are described in several papers showing our emissions are likely to cause the warming effect. If you’ve read the IPCC-report you’d see that nowhere do they write that this has been proven 100% but that there’s overwhelming evidence from observations, measurements, satellite data etc. that this is the case.

            You also seem to acknowledge that the Earth is round and we have gravity even though you haven’t read a scientific paper proving it. It’s because it’s basic physics. Just as the warming effect of carbon dioxide.

            And I’d still – in all seriousness – like peer-reviewed research stating that global warming is caused entirely by natural factors and not by our emissions.

          • Dale

            Quote: “At first you actually questioned the warming effect of CO2 – you then say that man “may” have an effect on global warming. So which is it? Do you believe CO2 has a warming effect or not?”

            No contradiction at all. I definitely do question how much effect CO2 has on warming and have previously pointed out that not only is the effect minimal but that any noticeable effect would for the most part, have already occurred because of CO2’s properties. You can research this yourself if you don’t have an understanding of those properties as they are too detailed to discuss here.

            Quote: “You also specifically stated that there aren’t 97% (I never mentioned any number) of scientists believing in “catastrophic” climate change. No such survey has ever been conducted.”

            I was working with your implication. Actually several of the authors you listed claim that very thing. However, that percentage or any other percentage which would imply a consensus (itself a useless term in science) simply cannot be justified in the literature..

            Quote: “Regarding the billions of dollars: It’s weird that you actually oppose AGW and therefore defend status quo as there’s much, much, much more money in the fossil fuels industry.”

            This is a disappointing statement as I had previously believed that you may have done some actual research in the the CAGW scam. If you actually had, you would know that your statement is totally wrong and the amounts which governments are contributing to the fossil fuel industry pale in comparison to the amounts governments have invested in the CAGW and renewables shenanigans.
            The entire IPCC, much of NASA (soon to change, I understand), NOAA, and so forth are existing entirely on government funding for the scam.

            Also, don’t try to put words in my mouth to suggest that I condone government investment in either.

            Quote: “Of course climate scientists are more trustworthy when it comes to AGW.”
            I’m not debating that but you do know that the present head of the IPCC, 69 year old Hoesung Lee, has only a PhD in economics. He replaced the disgraced Rajendra Pachauri who led the IPCC from 2002 to February 2015 who was actually trained as a railway engineer and then later obtained his PhD in economics. He had no training in climate science. These are hardly the people we want directing us to jump when they decide…

            Stepping out a little further in the UN, Christiana Figueres, the Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) could only claim at best to have a Masters degree in Anthropology. Her other claim might be her certificate in Organizational Development from Georgetown University. Once again, hardly a credible climate resource.
            So as for climate scientists controlling the information…

            As you (hopefully) are now starting to realize, there is no consensus among scientists that man in any way is causing catastrophic global
            warming. It therefore follows that the tax money which is being
            forced from the people can in no way be justified just because a few
            might foolishly think they can control climate.

            Quote: “It’s funny how denialists ignore thousands of research papers and then when one single paper, that rejects everything else in the area, surfaces they eat it raw and see THAT paper as “evidence”.

            I don’t know what a denialist is and I know of no scientist who is ignoring thousands of research papers on the subject of “claimed” global warming or climate change (although there probably are some, somewhere).
            However, I do know of many (scientifically naive or lying) individuals, politicians and government-funded institutions making rash and totally unsupported claims that we are somehow responsible for
            whatever the climate or weather does at current time or projected
            time in the future. I also know that the chief reason behind all this
            craziness is to get their hands on more of our tax money. The true
            objective(S) of the treacherous U.N. which is behind most of this is
            a long topic for another time.

          • Henrik Hindby

            Fair enough to question the warming effect of CO2 but that doesn’t mean you aren’t ignoring basic physics like those who’d question whether or not the Earth is round. At least you acknowledge that it does have SOME warming effect – in that case you should also acknowledge that our emissions have had an increased contribution to the current warming as the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen more than 40% since the 1800’s.

            I must repeat myself: The consensus on AGW has nothing to do with “catastrophic” climate change – just that a majority of climate scientists agree that humans are causing at least 50% of the current warming. I even wrote one of the specific questions from one of the surveys but you seem to ignore that and instead going after something I or some of the authors may or may not have “implied” (straw man much?)

            No, the numbers aren’t incorrect. You’re not reading what I write. My numbers were US-based – the IPCC isn’t based in the US as it’s a transnational organization. And if I recall history correctly, Nasa was actually set up before climate change became a problem.
            You then go on to say that my numbers are “inaccurate” and claim you have the correct numbers – yet you do not come up with any numbers yourself. My numbers came directly from Scientific American. And did you know that according to the IMF fossil fuel companies are benefitting from global subsidies of $5.3tn a year? Meanwhile renewable energy gets a relatively tiny $120b a year? But hey – it’s the green sector that are taking all of our tax moneys, right?
            Have you even read at least parts of the IPCC reports and some of the research laying the foundation for it? Why criticize the reports simply because the head of the IPCC is someone who isn’t a climate scientists? The reports aren’t based on Figueres or Pachauri’s climate work as they haven’t done anything in that field. Yes, they’ve been head of the organization. So what? You can also be the minister of education without being a teacher yourself. What’s relevant is the work IPCC’s conclusions are based on.

            It’s actually very easy to get information from the climate scientists yourself. I get that practically everyday from science news feeds, blogs (fx Yale Climate Connection), personal, verified Twitter-profiles and interviews. Have you ever considered contacting some glaciologists and atmospheric scientists with your questions?

            Why would I realize that there isn’t a consensus when I just pointed out your wildly misleading numbers regarding the consensus studies?

            What I get from all this is that you have some issues with how our tax money are spent which seems to make you ignore basic science (such as the warming effect of CO2), come up with conspiracy theories such as a worldwide “scam” claiming that this is all to get our money. It’s fascinating how many thousands scientists and universities are “in on this” and are so good at keeping the scam a secret, don’t you think?

            So how did this whole scam begin? I imagine something like this:
            A Friday night in the 1980’s – one guy from WMO and one from Unep got together after work to get a beer.
            WMO-guy: You know what we should do? We should totally establish a climate panel and say that the current global warming is caused by human activity.
            Unep-guy: Why?
            WMO: Because… if we do that we will get a lot of funding. Plus; it’ll be fun!
            Unep: But isn’t it expensive to establish something like that? And a bit overwhelming? Sounds like a lotta work.
            WMO: Well… yeah… but maybe one day we’ll receive enough funding to cover the costs. And we’ll have so much fun lying to everyone.
            Unep: And how will you convince the world that mankind is behind the current warming?
            WMO: We should contact thousands of scientists around the world asking them if they want to be in on this.
            Unep: What about when they retire? And what about the newcomers? I bet a lot of people would tell on us.
            WMO: We should just ask them nicely to keep it all a secret.
            Unep: Maybe bribe them?
            WMO: Good idea. It’s gonna be expensive and at first we’ll have to loan a lot of money but it’ll be worth it! So much fun!
            Unep: Wait… wait about the media? If thousands of people are in on this, I guess it’d be easy for some random media outlet to uncover this scam?
            WMO: You seriously think uncovering a global scam would be a good media story? Pffft… I think a lot more readers are interested in learning about the greenhouse effect and stuff like that.
            Unep: Yeah, you’re totally right.

            Sounds legit?

            In 2014 they actually did a study on the possible casuses of denialism: People will evaluate scientific evidence based on whether they view its policy implications as politically desirable. If they don’t, then they tend to deny the problem even exists. Participants in the experiment, including both self-identified Republicans and Democrats, read a statement asserting that global temperatures will rise 3.2 degrees in the 21st century. They were then asked to evaluate a proposed policy solution to address the warming. When the policy solution emphasized a tax on carbon emissions or some other form of government regulation, which is generally opposed by Republican ideology, only 22 percent of Republicans said they believed the temperatures would rise at least as much as indicated by the scientific statement they read. But when the proposed policy solution emphasized the free market, such as with innovative green technology, 55 percent of Republicans agreed with the scientific statement.

            With that said I think we can discuss this from here and to eternity so let’s just agree to disagree on the credibility of climate science. And whether or not we should switch to clean, renewable energy ASAP instead of using environmentally damaging and polluting fuels.

            And I’d still – in all seriousness – like peer-reviewed research stating that global warming is caused entirely by natural factors and not by our emissions.

          • DrRaeMD

            ” the amounts which governments are contributing to the fossil fuel industry pale in comparison to the amounts … invested in the CAGW…”
            OK, how much have governments invested in CAGW? I bet it’s not as much as they subsidize the Fossil Fuel industry , ie >$5 Trillion dollars, or ~6.5% of global GDP: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2015/wp15105.pdf
            What the research suggests is that investing 2% of global GDP into preventing and mitigating AGW would be sufficient. So, if Gov’t invest <1/3 of the amount into stopping AGW as they do into the Fossil Fuels… we're OK. They're not doing that, so we're not.
            Although, if you can prove what you say, I'd be quite interested and heartened.

          • DrRaeMD

            Just a quick point: “check how many…involved with IPCC are…scientists”???
            OK, I did, and this is just the leads, there are ~830 total contributors, SFAIK:
            http://wg1.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.html
            http://wg1.ipcc.ch/bureau/bureau.html
            http://www.ipcc-wg2.awi.de/bureau/bureau.html
            http://www.ipcc-wg2.awi.de/organization/organization.html
            http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/authors.php
            That’s a whole lotta PhDs…

  • jrf30

    It is happening. And the headline makes it sound like Trump says it is not happening . But this headline is a LIE. Notice the headline says “global warming is a hoax”? Then, the interior says the truth. he says MAN MADE global warming is fake. “Man-made global warming is a hoax” BIIIIGGGGG difference. I too believe it IS warming up. But I feel it is part of what earth does, and although man may play a SMALL part in it, it is not just man. As shown by the fact that MARS is ALSO warming up, and by almost the SAME ratios as earth. How do we know that? Well, that’s above my pay grade, but everyone that studies mars climate says it is true.

    Saying it IS happening but is not MAN made, is different than the headline that tries to sway readers with a false statement to generate more hate towards Trump and others that feel it is not man made. The article, like MOST articles today, is deceptive!