Start A Petition

Donald Trump's Climate Conspiracy Theory

Environment  (tags: climate-change, globalwarming, habitatdestruction, research, science, Donald Trump )

- 1576 days ago -
When chilling cold first descended in early January, we had an occasion to correct Donald Trump on climate science. ****Funny***

Select names from your address book   |   Help

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.


Kit B (276)
Thursday January 30, 2014, 7:57 pm
Photo Credit: Suzanne Tucker/Shutterstock

When chilling cold first descended in early January, we had an occasion to correct Donald Trump on climate science. To do so, we simply explained that the widely recognized phenomenon known as winter doesn't refute global warming, especially since winter is inherently limited to one hemisphere. (In a widely lampooned tweet, Trump had cited "record low temps" in arguing that "this very expensive GLOBAL WARMING bullshit has got to stop.")

Alas, Trump has now dug himself deeper into the snow drift. Here are the latest tweets:

*****Please go to Site and read the tweeter feeds ***

With this, Trump joins the grand tradition of climate science conspiracy theorizing, as epitomized by Senator James Inhofe 2012 book title: The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future. By using the word "hoax," Inhofe and Trump are suggesting that there is a conscious attempt to mislead us with fake, trumped up science, in the service of political goals.

So how do you refute this global warming conspiracy theory? Simple: You merely have to explain what a real global warming conspiracy would actually entail, whereupon the utter implausibility of the scenario becomes obvious.

For a global warming conspiracy to exist, you'd need scientists around the world to be in on it. Not scientists at one university, or scientists in one country. Scientists everywhere, from Australia to Japan, from China to America.

This is scarcely possible, especially in light of the incentive structure in science: Scientists advance and get promoted by publishing original research that is highly cited by other scientists. And it is hard to imagine a better citation-grabbing paper than one that seriously refuted what most scientists in a given field believe to be true. There is therefore a huge incentive for a scientist or group of scientists to upset everything we thought we knew about climate change, assuming that this could be achieved in a serious scientific paper that passes peer review and stands the test of time. A researcher who achieved such a feat would be on a parallel, as far as fame and renown goes, with someone like Alfred Wegner, who originally proposed the revolutionary idea of continental drift.

The incentives, therefore, are very much against maintaining a climate conspiracy. The incentives instead tilt towards exposing it. And that makes the 97-percent consensus on climate change among scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature that much more powerful.

Finally, let's take on this idea that scientists are in it for the money, which may or may not be implied by Trump's first tweet above, but is a frequent fixture of global warming conspiracy theories. According to 2012-2013 data from the American Association of University Professors, the average salary for a US assistant professor at a doctorate-granting institution was $76,822. Salaries rise as high as an average of $134,747 for full professors at doctorate-level institutions, but that's academia's most coveted level, and not everybody gets there.

Surely Trump and other conservatives who believe in the power of the free market can see that people who want the big bucks are likely to embark on a different career path.

By: Chris Mooney | Correspondent | Mother Jones |

Chris Mooney is a science and political journalist, podcaster, and the host of Climate Desk Live. He is the author of four books, including the New York Times bestselling The Republican War on Science. RSS | Twitter


Carol P (46)
Thursday January 30, 2014, 8:12 pm
Not sure why anyone would follow Donald Trump on twitter. His hair alone is enough to display his foolishness.

Rose Becke (141)
Friday January 31, 2014, 1:10 am

pam w (139)
Friday January 31, 2014, 9:33 am
I've thought about can someone (APPARENTLY) intelligent enough to create a financial empire be so unbelievably OBTUSE about so many issues?

It's GOT to suit his purposes to court the Republican loonship.

That's the only answer I can imagine.

Terry King (113)
Friday January 31, 2014, 10:12 am
This is the danger of calling climate change "global warming. Although global warming is one aspect of climate change, it's not the only one. It's like the red herring that man descended from apes that the same ignorant people try to use to refute evolution... If man descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? These stupid generalizations are just ammo for the asshats.

. (0)
Friday January 31, 2014, 10:30 am
Climate change is not a hoax dear Donald it is a fact because the planet is responding to several factors that cause it to adjust to compensate for our instigation of deleterious practices whether it is warming itself or cooling itself.
They are overpopulation; deforestation; destruction of the oceans and coral reefs; destruction of the wetland and bayou systems; species genocide which upsets the natural balance of things; over building which creates unnatural wind tunnels, increases humidity and temperature; fracking and mining which contribute to the introduction of hazardous wastes and chemicals into the earth, the water tables and the air, which eventually make us all sick.
The one thing that isn't mentioned is the twenty years of high altitude atmospheric experiments conducted in the ionosphere. This results in the cold Arctic air being pushed downward which in turn causes atmospheric low pressure systems and colder temperatures among an increase in storm velocity and occurrences.
BTW this regarding Inhofe the author of the book The Donald quotes from is from Wiki leaks:
In the 2008 election cycle, Inhofe’s largest campaign donors represented the oil and gas ($446,900 in donations), leadership PACs ($316,720) and electric utilities ($221,654) industries/categories.[23][24] In 2010, his largest donors represented the oil and gas ($429,950) and electric utilities ($206,654).[25]

The primary PACs donating to his campaigns were: Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association $55,869, United Parcel Service $51,850, National Association of Realtors $51,700, National Rifle Association $51,050, American Medical Association $51,000. Additionally, if company-sponsored PACs were combined with employee contributions, Koch Industries would be Inhofe's largest contributor, with $90,950 (less than 0.6% of total contributions), according to the Center for Responsive Politics.[24][26][undue weight? – discuss]

JL A (281)
Friday January 31, 2014, 11:06 am
Is he buying this publicity with his money or is there a conspiracy to give him press coverage?

divergent revolution (309)
Friday January 31, 2014, 12:53 pm
and he eats pizza with a knife and fork
NY way is with your hands!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Kit B (276)
Friday January 31, 2014, 1:07 pm

Right in the money, Michael. I had to use this article after reading his tweets. No one can really be that stupid, but he has managed to be forced into bankruptcy a number of times. Making one think he just might be that stupid. The reason for denying climatic change is; I believe very directly tied to the money that poured into campaigns. The Donald is not seriously running for office, so for him it's just repeating the republican mantra.

Sara V (0)
Friday January 31, 2014, 1:16 pm
I have no appreciation for over-consumption of resources, deforestation, or overpopulation, but I find the following assertion to be faulty:

"For a global warming conspiracy to exist, you'd need scientists around the world to be in on it. Not scientists at one university, or scientists in one country. Scientists everywhere, from Australia to Japan, from China to America."

There are scientists on both sides of this, and there are people motivated by money everywhere. If certain people stand to profit from an industry, they exert a considerable force. Witness Monsanto and our USDA/FDA and Department of Justice. A conspiracy of rubber stamping GMOs and chemicals has existed with key personnel in these agencies and judges across this country and others (Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, Chile.) I would say that those who make money off regulating, carbon credits/carbon markets, or by selling newly mandated green technologies would be profit-driven as well.

linda b (186)
Friday January 31, 2014, 1:22 pm
The man's a loony. Thanks Kit.

Sara V (0)
Friday January 31, 2014, 1:23 pm
"Surely Trump and other conservatives who believe in the power of the free market can see that people who want the big bucks are likely to embark on a different career path."

People who want to make the big bucks stick close to Washington and our funds (Bill Moyers interviews Mark Leibovich, author of This Town):

"Mark Leibovich covers Washington, D.C., as chief national correspondent for The New York Times Magazine. In his new book, This Town, he writes about the city’s bipartisan lust for power, cash and notoriety. It’s the story of how Washington became an occupied city; its hold on reality distorted by greed and ambition. Leibovich pulls no punches, names names, and reveals the movers, the shakers and the lucrative deals they make..."

Barbara K (60)
Friday January 31, 2014, 1:47 pm
He's an idiot. Being rich doesn't make one smart.

Louise D (44)
Friday January 31, 2014, 2:45 pm
Typical Donald Trump it is obvious he doesn't understand the science and virtually every time he opens his mouth he demonstrates he has more teeth than braincells. So anything input on the the topic of climate change he sort of missed the fact that in winter it gets cold.

Sara V (0)
Friday January 31, 2014, 2:52 pm
"The incentives, therefore, are very much against maintaining a climate conspiracy. "

How can they say this when the article opens with an image of a tin foil hat? If data were important, they would not be trying to spin perceptions.

James N (31)
Friday January 31, 2014, 3:28 pm
He's getting crazier as he gets older.

Kit B (276)
Friday January 31, 2014, 4:08 pm

I think most realized that this was a bit tongue in cheek. Though that does not mean everyone understands the full impact of an article like this one. I am happy to see that all but one that left comments do understand. Thanks!

. (0)
Friday January 31, 2014, 4:44 pm
Very interesting, Kit. Thanks for sharing.

DaleLovesOttawa O (198)
Friday January 31, 2014, 5:13 pm
Interesting, Kit B, that photo was quite amusing. Our prime minister actually wears one of those on a daily basis.

I know a con-servative who actually believes that climate change/global warming is all a big left wing plot and he detests environmentalists with a passion.

. (0)
Saturday February 1, 2014, 12:34 am
As the article implies at the end, not all rich people are smart. If they were, then scientists and professors would be the wealthiest people in the world.

If only Trump would do some good with his billions, like not throwing Scots off their land so that he, Donald Trump, can build a golf course complex in the country of Scotland, and like throwing some millions into alternative energy projects. I suppose I'm allowed to dream.

ewoud k (68)
Saturday February 1, 2014, 1:51 am
Not to forget that for a public political figure it's important that your name is known, that the public knows you're talked about.

What you said...., and what is said about you..... the public tends to forget.

"Remember my name!", that's all....

Past Member (0)
Saturday February 1, 2014, 2:13 am

SylvieBusy A (193)
Saturday February 1, 2014, 4:08 am
Notée. Merci.

Marija M (29)
Saturday February 1, 2014, 7:58 am
Noted, tks

JL A (281)
Saturday February 1, 2014, 8:20 am
Full Definition of IDEOLOGUE
: an impractical idealist : theorist
: an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology

97% of scientists agree on climate change--a proportion growing as time goes by and more research is in (could consider it a consensus of opinion since the 3% may well be paid by the Heritage Foundation or enterprises funded by the Koch brothers).

Theodore Shayne (56)
Saturday February 1, 2014, 9:02 am
It is said that there is no such thing as bad publicity and Trump is a master at creating it. The man is arrogant to the nth level. Then again, most of them are. I fear the world is run by sociopaths. LOL

Diane K (134)
Saturday February 1, 2014, 9:51 pm
I don't listen to what Trump has to say. noted, thanks

Sara V (0)
Sunday February 2, 2014, 11:36 am
On the other hand, if world governments are holding more and more sway (and those in power enjoy their power, as we have seen - they want to maintain it and get even more), then wouldn't they be buying off more scientists than any private party could afford? What about Climate Gate?
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story

Loading Noted By...Please Wait


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in Environment

Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of or its affiliates.

New to Care2? Start Here.