# Post ts_116586488927495029

- Post ID: `ts_116586488927495029`
- Platform: Truth Social
- Posted: 2026-05-16T21:57:22.080Z (UTC)
- Deleted: no
- Repost: no
- Canonical URL: https://trump.fm/post/ts_116586488927495029
- Analysis page: https://trump.fm/post/ts_116586488927495029/analysis
- Audio narration: https://static.trump.fm/audio/ts_116586488927495029.mp3 (a synthesized voice reading the post text, not a recording)

## Post text

> GOOD RIDDANCE! After 15 years of Dumocrats promising that “Climate Change” is going to destroy the Planet, the United Nations TOP Climate Committee just admitted that its own projections (RCP8.5) were WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! For far too long Climate Activism has been used by Dumocrats to scare Americans, push horrible Energy Polices, and fund BILLIONS into their bogus research programs. Unlike the Dumocrats, who use Climate Alarmism nonsense to push their GREEN NEW SCAM, my Administration will always be based on TRUTH, SCIENCE, and FACT! President DONALD J. TRUMP

## Engagement

- Likes: 26,048
- Reposts: 7,370
- Replies: 1,617
- Views: unknown
- Metrics collected: 2026-05-17T21:01:28.610Z (UTC)

# Analysis

_Machine-generated by trump.fm on 2026-05-16T22:15:38.797Z (UTC): a model's reading of this post, not his words. Its psychological terms describe the language, not a clinical assessment of him._

## Summary

Aide-drafted policy attack post in Trump's voice, leveraging a real but narrow methodological critique of the RCP8.5 climate scenario to claim wholesale invalidation of climate science. Psychologically routine: grandiose epistemic positioning ('my Administration will always be based on TRUTH, SCIENCE, and FACT'), splitting between deceiver-Democrats and truth-restorer self, and devaluation via pejorative ('Dumocrats,' 'bogus research,' 'GREEN NEW SCAM'). The narrative structure is a redemption-by-vindication arc — 15 years of deception finally exposed — with the protagonist cast as order/truth-restorer. No acute narcissistic injury or rage trigger; reads as maintenance content advancing a policy frame. No danger indicators, no dehumanization beyond standard political pejorative. Authorship signals (third-person sign-off, business-hours timing, RCP8.5 technical reference, polished syntax) point toward aide drafting with characteristic Trump stylistic overlay. The post is rhetorically significant for its cherry-pick-to-wholesale-falsification move and for elevating in-group epistemic claims as identity markers — a pattern consistent with epistemic closure dynamics.

## Multi-Level Analysis

### Level 1: Dispositional Traits
- **Low Agreeableness** (antagonism): pejorative renaming ('Dumocrats'), contemptuous framing of opponents as scammers
- **Low Openness** to evidence revision: treats a single methodological critique as wholesale invalidation of a 30-year scientific field
- **High Extraversion (assertiveness facet)**: declarative, shouting register
- **Elevated Neuroticism (angry hostility)**: ALL-CAPS emphasis, exclamatory cascade

### Level 2: Characteristic Adaptations
Agency motives dominate: **power** (defining what counts as 'TRUTH, SCIENCE, FACT'), **status** (positioning self above an entire scientific consensus), and **revenge** against a political-cultural class. Schema: world divided between deceivers (Democrats, climate scientists) and truth-tellers (self).

### Level 3: Narrative Identity
Classic **redemption-by-vindication** sequence: 'For far too long' the public was deceived → administration arrives bearing TRUTH. Protagonist role: **truth-restorer / order-restorer**. Contrasting other: 'Dumocrats' as scammers funding 'bogus research.' Identity claim: epistemic guardian.

### Level 4: Clinical Indicators
Grandiosity (sole arbiter of scientific truth), splitting (us=TRUTH, them=SCAM), and devaluation are present but at moderate, characterological levels — not acute.

### Rhetorical Architecture
- **Cherry-picking**: RCP8.5 critique (real and longstanding within climate science) extrapolated to falsify climate change wholesale
- **Strawman + epithet** ('Dumocrats,' 'Green New Scam')
- **False dichotomy** (alarmism vs. TRUTH)
- **Glittering generalities** ('TRUTH, SCIENCE, and FACT')
- **Firehose pattern**: rapid assertions, no citations

### Danger
No eliminationist or stochastic-terrorism markers. Standard partisan attack register.

### Authorship
Likely aide-drafted in Trump voice (third-person signature, business-hours timing, technical citation 'RCP8.5,' tight structure), with characteristic Trump-isms ('Dumocrats,' 'GREEN NEW SCAM,' triple-WRONG) layered in.

## Fact Verification

| Claim | Verdict | Evidence |
|-------|---------|----------|
| "The UN 'TOP Climate Committee' (IPCC) just admitted RCP8.5 projections were WRONG" | **Half True** | There is a real underlying event being referenced, but the framing in the post significantly distorts it. What actually happened: In April 2026, the ScenarioMIP committee (Scenario Model Intercomparison Project) published a paper by Van Vuuren et al. in Geoscientific Model Development (April 7, 2026) introducing seven new scenarios for CMIP7, which will inform the IPCC's upcoming Seventh Assessment Report (AR7). The paper stated that 'the CMIP6 high emission levels (quantified by SSP5-8.5) have become implausible, based on trends in the costs of renewables, the emergence of climate policy and recent emission trends.' The new framework eliminates the extreme high-end scenarios — RCP8.5, SSP5-8.5, and SSP3-7.0 — replacing them with a 'HIGH' scenario reaching about 71 Gt CO2/yr by 2100 (versus SSP5-8.5's 128 Gt). Key distortions in the post: (1) ScenarioMIP is not the IPCC itself — it is a CMIP project whose scenarios feed into IPCC assessments. The IPCC has not issued a statement; the scenario-development community has updated its framework. (2) The scenarios were labeled 'implausible' going forward, not 'WRONG' in the past. The reasons cited (cheaper renewables, climate policy, observed emission trends) reflect that real-world conditions have changed since the scenarios were designed in 2011 — not that the underlying climate science or modeling math was incorrect. (3) RCP8.5 was already de-emphasized as 'business-as-usual' in IPCC AR6 (2021–2022); critiques by Hausfather and Peters date to 2020, and Pielke Jr. and others have argued against its use since 2017. This is a long-debated, gradual scientific refinement, not a sudden admission. (4) Even the new 'HIGH' scenario still projects roughly 2.5–3°C of warming by 2100 — alarming levels — so the update does not invalidate concerns about climate change. Conservative outlets (AEI, Daily Sceptic, ClimateDepot, Watts Up With That) have framed this as the IPCC admitting climate science was wrong; climate scientists (Chris Gloninger, Carbon Brief explainers) describe it as routine science updating models to reflect real-world conditions and call the broader framing 'second-generation climate denial.' The post's claim has a real factual kernel (high-end scenarios were retired as implausible by the body that develops IPCC scenarios) but mischaracterizes both the source (ScenarioMIP, not IPCC) and the meaning ('implausible due to changed conditions,' not 'WRONG' in a way that invalidates climate science). |
| "Democrats have spent 15 years claiming climate change 'is going to destroy the Planet'" | **Half True** | Some Democratic figures and climate advocates have used catastrophist framing; the specific 'destroy the Planet' phrasing is a rhetorical paraphrase rather than a uniform official position. Half-true as caricature. |
| "Federal climate research funding totals BILLIONS" | **Mostly True** | U.S. federal climate-related research across NOAA, NASA, DOE, NSF, EPA totals in the billions annually; the U.S. Global Change Research Program coordinates roughly $2–3 billion annually. The 'bogus' characterization is editorial. |

Overall Veracity: 60%

## Authorship Analysis

**Uncertain** (score: 35%)

### Indicators

- Third-person signature 'President DONALD J. TRUMP' (aide indicator)
- Posted ~17:57 ET / 16:57 if Mar-a-Lago — business hours (aide indicator)
- Structured, complete-sentence argument with policy framing (aide indicator)
- Technical reference 'RCP8.5' — Trump rarely cites scientific designations (aide indicator)
- 'Dumocrats' pejorative is a signature Trump-ism (authentic overlay)

## Psychological Profile

### Traits

**Big Five:**
- Extraversion: 75%
- Agreeableness: 15%
- Conscientiousness: 40%
- Neuroticism: 60%
- Openness: 25%

Strongest facet: antagonism / angry hostility

**Motives:**
- Agency: 85%
- Communion: 15%

Primary drive: power

### Narrative

- **Role:** truth-restorer / order-restorer
- **Arc:** redemption
- **Contrasting:** Democrats as scammers / alarmists / deceivers

**Identity Claims:**
- epistemic guardian
- anti-scam crusader
- science-aligned administration

### State

**Grandiose State**

**Trigger:** Maintenance (policy/agenda-driven content, not reactive)

Sentiment: -0.55

### Clinical

**Malignant Narcissism:**
- Narcissistic: 55%
- Antisocial: 30%
- Paranoid: 35%
- Sadism: 10%

**Defense Mechanisms:**
- splitting (immature)
- devaluation (immature)
- rationalization (neurotic)
- projection (immature)

**Cognitive Complexity:**
- Complexity: 55%

**Parasocial Techniques:**
- In-group epistemic flattery ('Unlike the Dumocrats... my Administration')
- Shared-enemy construction
- Offering followers membership in the 'TRUTH' coalition

## Danger Assessment

**NONE**

### Gaslighting

- Reframes broad scientific consensus as a partisan 'scam'
- Asserts sole custody of 'TRUTH, SCIENCE, and FACT' while denying mainstream scientific output
- Uses scare quotes to delegitimize 'Climate Change' as a concept

## Fact Checks (3)

_The model's verdicts from 2026-05-16._

> The UN 'TOP Climate Committee' (IPCC) just admitted RCP8.5 projections were WRONG

**HALF TRUE**

There is a real underlying event being referenced, but the framing in the post significantly distorts it. What actually happened: In April 2026, the ScenarioMIP committee (Scenario Model Intercomparison Project) published a paper by Van Vuuren et al. in Geoscientific Model Development (April 7, 2026) introducing seven new scenarios for CMIP7, which will inform the IPCC's upcoming Seventh Assessment Report (AR7). The paper stated that 'the CMIP6 high emission levels (quantified by SSP5-8.5) have become implausible, based on trends in the costs of renewables, the emergence of climate policy and recent emission trends.' The new framework eliminates the extreme high-end scenarios — RCP8.5, SSP5-8.5, and SSP3-7.0 — replacing them with a 'HIGH' scenario reaching about 71 Gt CO2/yr by 2100 (versus SSP5-8.5's 128 Gt). Key distortions in the post: (1) ScenarioMIP is not the IPCC itself — it is a CMIP project whose scenarios feed into IPCC assessments. The IPCC has not issued a statement; the scenario-development community has updated its framework. (2) The scenarios were labeled 'implausible' going forward, not 'WRONG' in the past. The reasons cited (cheaper renewables, climate policy, observed emission trends) reflect that real-world conditions have changed since the scenarios were designed in 2011 — not that the underlying climate science or modeling math was incorrect. (3) RCP8.5 was already de-emphasized as 'business-as-usual' in IPCC AR6 (2021–2022); critiques by Hausfather and Peters date to 2020, and Pielke Jr. and others have argued against its use since 2017. This is a long-debated, gradual scientific refinement, not a sudden admission. (4) Even the new 'HIGH' scenario still projects roughly 2.5–3°C of warming by 2100 — alarming levels — so the update does not invalidate concerns about climate change. Conservative outlets (AEI, Daily Sceptic, ClimateDepot, Watts Up With That) have framed this as the IPCC admitting climate science was wrong; climate scientists (Chris Gloninger, Carbon Brief explainers) describe it as routine science updating models to reflect real-world conditions and call the broader framing 'second-generation climate denial.' The post's claim has a real factual kernel (high-end scenarios were retired as implausible by the body that develops IPCC scenarios) but mischaracterizes both the source (ScenarioMIP, not IPCC) and the meaning ('implausible due to changed conditions,' not 'WRONG' in a way that invalidates climate science).

Sources: https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/rcp85-is-officially-dead; https://www.aei.org/articles/rcp8-5-is-officially-dead/; https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/19/2627/2026/; https://www.giss.nasa.gov/pubs/abs/va08400w.html; https://chrisgloninger.substack.com/p/theyre-cheering-the-wrong-scoreboard; https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-the-high-emissions-rcp8-5-global-warming-scenario/; https://clintel.org/ipcc-admits-apocalyptic-climate-scenarios-are-implausible/; https://dailysceptic.org/2026/05/05/ipcc-admits-apocalyptic-climate-scenarios-are-implausible-meaning-most-media-scare-stories-over-last-15-years-are-officially-junk/; https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/05/14/shocked-silence-greets-rcp8-5-demise-as-implausibility-ruling-leaves-net-zero-fearmongering-in-tatters/; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_Concentration_Pathway

> Democrats have spent 15 years claiming climate change 'is going to destroy the Planet'

**HALF TRUE**

Some Democratic figures and climate advocates have used catastrophist framing; the specific 'destroy the Planet' phrasing is a rhetorical paraphrase rather than a uniform official position. Half-true as caricature.

> Federal climate research funding totals BILLIONS

**MOSTLY TRUE**

U.S. federal climate-related research across NOAA, NASA, DOE, NSF, EPA totals in the billions annually; the U.S. Global Change Research Program coordinates roughly $2–3 billion annually. The 'bogus' characterization is editorial.

Overall Veracity: 60%

## Tags

- climate_denial (95%)
- anti_democrat (90%)
- epistemic_closure (75%)
- grandiose_state (60%)
- splitting (70%)
- aide_drafted_likely (65%)
- green_new_scam (80%)
- scientific_misrepresentation (85%)

## That day

_From trump.fm's machine-generated digest of the day, not his words._

**An open casting call for a Boebert primary challenger, filed in the middle of the Beijing photo album**

Late Friday night he announced that American and Nigerian forces had killed ISIS's second-in-command, then slept a normal night and woke to a queue of friendly-news links about the FBI and James Comey. Most of Saturday was self-display: a long album of photographs from the Beijing trip with Xi Jinping, progress shots of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool renovation, a new granite floor outside the Oval Office, and two AI posters of himself as a military commander. Two flashes of temper broke through during the morning, one at a Louisiana senator who voted to impeach him five years ago and one at New York's governor for blaming him for a railroad strike. The day closed with about an hour of anger at his own party: after a Fox News story and two Laura Loomer links, he went after Thomas Massie, Rand Paul and Lauren Boebert for campaigning together in Kentucky, then asked publicly whether anyone wanted to run against Boebert. He posted 60 times, roughly double his own record-setting May average, but the rhythm reads as a busy Saturday rather than a sleepless one.

Full digest for 2026-05-16: https://trump.fm/date/2026-05-16/analysis

## Citation

- APA: Trump, D. J. (2026, May 16). GOOD RIDDANCE! After 15 years of Dumocrats... [Social media post]. Truth Social. trump.fm. https://trump.fm/post/ts_116586488927495029
- MLA: Trump, Donald J. "GOOD RIDDANCE! After 15 years of Dumocrats promising that..." Truth Social, 16 May. 2026. trump.fm, https://trump.fm/post/ts_116586488927495029. Accessed 9 Oct. 2026.
- Chicago: Donald J. Trump, "GOOD RIDDANCE! After 15 years of Dumocrats promising that...," Truth Social, May 16, 2026, archived at trump.fm, https://trump.fm/post/ts_116586488927495029.

## For agents

- Site overview: https://trump.fm/llms.txt
- API specification: https://trump.fm/openapi.json
- MCP server: https://trump.fm/mcp (search and fetch tools, no auth)
- This post as JSON: https://trump.fm/api/posts/ts_116586488927495029
- Analysis as JSON: https://trump.fm/api/analysis/ts_116586488927495029
- All citation formats: https://trump.fm/api/cite/ts_116586488927495029
- Same day: https://trump.fm/date/2026-05-16
- The record alone, without the analysis: https://trump.fm/post/ts_116586488927495029.md?analysis=false

_Markdown view of a trump.fm page. Post, analysis, date, feed, contradictions, search and about pages answer in markdown at their URL with `.md` appended (`/index.md` for the home page), or when sent `Accept: text/markdown`._