As expected, President Donald Trump’s rebuke of the climate change hysteria in front of the pious apparatchiks at the United Nations sent the media into a tailspin, with The New York Times leading the pack.
Times climate reporters Somini Sengupta and Lisa Friedman snorted at Trump following his September 23 speech at the U.N. for alleging that the so-called “scientific consensus on global warming was created by ‘stupid people’” and having “lashed out at wind turbines, environmentalists and allies around the world while dismissing the dangers of climate change.”
Sengupta and Friedman railed that Trump’s remarks were “an extraordinary diatribe that ignored the human suffering exacted by the heat waves, wildfires and deadly floods that are aggravated by the burning of fossil fuels and, at the same time, stood at odds with the rapid expansion of renewable energy all over the world.”
JunkScience.com founder Steve Milloy blasted The Times over its self-inflicted conniption in comments to MRC Business:
The New York Times says there is an ‘overwhelming scientific consensus’ on climate. President Trump says climate science is from ‘stupid people.’ I hope we can get together and compromise on there being a ‘stupid people consensus?’
Milloy right. The Times once again whipped out the tired old environmentalist drum that there is somehow "overwhelming" scientific consensus that “the burning of coal, oil and gas has raised the average global temperature by well over 1 degree Celsius, or 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, compared to the preindustrial era, and has exacerbated deadly heat, fires and floods.” But as meteorologist Dr. Roy Spencer retorted in July 2025, “one looks at rainfall statistics across the U.S. extending back to the mid- to late-1800s, there is little evidence for anything that might be considered related to human-caused climate change.”
In fact, wrote Spencer, “For flooding, the most recent IPCC report (AR6) said there is ‘low confidence for observed changes in the magnitude or frequency of floods at the global scale.’” Spencer concluded in effect that “[t]he public has been misled on climate science, and we are trying to set the record straight.” One would think that the so-called “paper of record” would “set the record straight,” but The Times has proven over the years that it is more willing to bend the record into a pretzel to fit its climate buffoonery rather than straighten out anything.
Sengupta and Friedman even tried fact-checking Trump for assailing “environmentalists for wanting to ‘kill all the cows,’ a claim for which there is no evidence. Cattle produce methane emissions, a potent greenhouse gas, and for that and other reasons, some environmentalists have urged people to eat less meat.”
Talk about gaslighting: no pun intended.
The environmentalists over at Scientific American explicitly flirted with that very idea in a November 7, 2023, story headlined, “Quitting Cows Could Have Big Environmental Impacts, but It’s Harder Than It Sounds.” In that piece, co-authored by food and sustainability writer Naoki Nitta and the notorious eco-extremist nonprofit Grist, the writers played footsy with the idea of an “animal-free agricultural system” in the U.S., of which the modest corresponding decrease of carbon emissions would be “noteworthy” apart from the obvious drawbacks.
In addition, Nitta and Grist wrote, “Eliminating the nation’s cattle and replacing feed production with food crops would create more food, White said, resulting in a caloric surplus of 25 percent.”
Also, in 2023, the European Parliament celebrated how “Ireland’s Department of Agriculture has proposed to kill 200 000 cows to combat climate change and meet the EU’s climate objectives.” In essence, Trump was hovering over the target with his usual embellished banter, while Sengupta and Friedman were just spewing hot air that would give the emissions of cow farts a run for their money.