Stupid People or Stupid Politics? Trump’s War on Climate Science

By Ephraim Agbo 

When Donald Trump stood before the United Nations General Assembly and dismissed the climate agenda as a “hoax made up by stupid people,” it was more than a provocation. It was a crystallization of a battle that has defined global politics for over three decades: science vs. skepticism, elites vs. populists, long-term survival vs. short-term economics.

To grasp the significance of Trump’s comments, we must look at both sides — the skepticism he channels and the science he rejects — and ask why, despite mountains of data, climate action still faces such political resistance.

---

Trump’s Case: Climate as Scam and Political Tool

Trump’s rhetoric rests on three pillars: failed predictions, economic costs, and distrust of elites.

1. Failed Predictions?
   Trump argues climate warnings have been exaggerated. He cites past forecasts that never materialized — like claims in the late 1980s that island nations could be underwater by the 2010s. While some projections were indeed overstated, they were often worst-case scenarios rather than consensus science. But to skeptics, the very fact that these predictions entered the public discourse reinforces the sense that climate science overpromises catastrophe.

   • Fact: The IPCC’s more cautious projections (e.g., a 0.3–0.6m sea-level rise by 2100 if emissions are curbed) have generally held up.
   • Skeptical spin: Public remembers “the world will end in 12 years” soundbites, not nuanced scientific ranges.

2. Economic Harm of Green Policies
   Trump insists that “green” policies hurt workers, inflate energy prices, and undermine competitiveness. He points to coal miners, oil rig workers, and industries tied to cheap fossil fuels.

   • Fact for skeptics: Germany’s Energiewende saw electricity prices nearly double since 2000 while reliance on coal and gas persisted to stabilize intermittent renewables.
   • Fact for scientists: Solar and wind costs have fallen by 85% and 55% respectively since 2010, making renewables the cheapest new energy source in most regions (IEA).

3. Distrust of Elites
   Trump frames climate science as a narrative pushed by “globalists” to guilt individuals with the idea of a carbon footprint and funnel trillions into climate finance.

   • Fact for skeptics: Global climate finance surpassed $1.3 trillion in 2023, creating industries around carbon credits, consultancies, and green tech.
   • Fact for science: Fossil fuel subsidies still dwarf green finance — estimated at $7 trillion in 2022 (IMF), suggesting fossil lobbies retain far more structural power.

---

The Scientific Consensus: Warming is Real, Impacts Escalating

On the other side stands a formidable wall of evidence.

1. Global Temperature Rise
   The Earth has warmed by 1.1–1.3°C since the late 19th century, according to NASA and NOAA. 2024 was the hottest year on record, surpassing even El Niño years.

2. Sea Levels and Ice Melt
   NASA satellites show sea levels rising about 3.7mm per year since 1993, accelerating compared to the 20th-century average of 1.4mm. Glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica are losing hundreds of billions of tons of ice annually.

3. Extreme Weather
   Attribution science has advanced: studies now link heatwaves, wildfires, and extreme rainfall directly to climate change. For instance, Europe’s 2022 heatwave was made 10 times more likely by human-induced warming.

4. Economic Costs of Inaction
   Climate damages are mounting. In 2023, the U.S. suffered 28 separate billion-dollar weather disasters, the highest on record (NOAA). Globally, climate-linked damages cost over $300 billion annually.

---

Why the Divide Persists

So why, with such overwhelming evidence, does Trump’s rhetoric resonate?

1. Memory of Failed Predictions
   People recall bold media headlines more than nuanced science, feeding skepticism.

2. Economic Anxiety
   Climate action often feels like a threat to jobs and affordability in fossil-dependent economies.

3. Politics of Distrust
   Populist leaders thrive on framing elites as corrupt or manipulative. Climate science, tied to the UN, academia, and NGOs, becomes a convenient target.

4. Communication Gap
   Scientists speak in probabilities and ranges. Politicians and media prefer absolutes. The gap fuels confusion and mistrust.

---

A Clash of Worldviews

Ultimately, Trump’s speech was not just about climate. It was about who gets to define truth: scientists with datasets and models, or populist politicians appealing to common sense and suspicion of elites.

The irony is that both sides contain truths. Yes, some predictions were exaggerated, green transitions can impose real costs, and climate finance is riddled with vested interests. But it’s also true that the Earth is warming, weather extremes are intensifying, and delaying action multiplies risks and costs for future generations.

---

The Bottom Line

Trump’s “hoax” framing is unlikely to disappear, because it taps into deep political instincts: resist control, protect jobs, distrust elites. Climate science, on the other hand, is unlikely to weaken, because the data keeps accumulating — glaciers melting, seas rising, heat records breaking.

The question is not whether the climate is changing. It is whether politics can ever bridge the chasm between measurable reality and cultural perception. For now, Trump’s words remind us that climate change is not just a scientific issue — it is the frontline of a global battle over truth, trust, and the future.