Trump Again Wrongly Suggests That Cold Weather Disproves Climate Change

We have previously discussed the continued statements of President Donald Trump questioning the overwhelming science behind climate change. Yesterday, President Trump was again mocking the notion of climate change by pointing at the polar air hitting the Midwest. It is part of a long history of Trump transposing weather with climate change — a point repeatedly made by experts but ignored in these tweets. Notably, recent polls show less division among the public, including Republicans, who overwhelmingly agree that we are experiencing climate change.

As many in the Midwest (including my family) shelter against the mass of polar air President Trump took another jab at climate change:

Donald J. Trump@realDonaldTrump

In the beautiful Midwest, windchill temperatures are reaching minus 60 degrees, the coldest ever recorded. In coming days, expected to get even colder. People can’t last outside even for minutes. What the hell is going on with Global Waming? Please come back fast, we need you!156K9:28 PM – Jan 28, 2019Twitter Ads info and privacy132K people are talking about this

As this map from University of Maine’s Climate Change Institute illustrates we are indeed seeing rising temperatures around the world with devastating consequences:

University of Maine Climate Change Institute

2018 was the fourth-hottest year on record, and as we previously discussed Arctic sea ice is disappearing at an alarming rate.

The science is not lost on most citizens. A recent poll showed that nearly two-thirds of Republicans and a majority of all Americans now accept climate change. Some 64 percent of Republican now agree — up from 49 percent in 2015. Moreover half of Americans surveyed — 54 percent — said climate change is “very serious. ” Republicans differ here in that only 25 percent view climate change as “very serious.” Only 16 percent believed that climate change was not occurring.

At the same time, Trump is departing from a worldwide move away from fossil fuels. With various countries setting ambitious goals for purely renewable energy, the United States is making massive investment in coal and oil. It is not just bad for the environment but bad for our economy which is allowing other developed nations to take greater shares of the green energy market. Even if you reject the virtually universal view of scientists on climate change, Western countries are investing heavily in clean energy which will improve their environment, reduce pollution-related death rates and illnesses, and expand their modern workforce. I fail to see the logic in our current policies.

109 thoughts on “Trump Again Wrongly Suggests That Cold Weather Disproves Climate Change”

  1. Two or three items rightly suggestion significant climate change ios a problem maybe four.

    One. To many graphs with the top and bottom curves or bights deleted.

    Two The use of too many sources of measurements that are in or near ‘heat islands.’

    Three The open admission of fudging figures to obtain grants

    Four The use of false figures by scammers like Al Bore who was responsible personally for black snow b blocking the use of anthracite in favor of bituminous

    and two more

    Five The weather itself which is in line with regular weather patterns and cycles

    Six The misapplication of the current mini ice age stated to cause a one Centigrade change down over 300 some years

    Finally what does it mean in real life? Central America etc have longer growing seasons with more varieties further north. USA the same and Canada the same.

    All of it well seasoned (pun intended) with the strength of Mother Nature and Planet Earth to balance out season changes and other effects. which is the purpose of El Nino and La Nina the temperature register of the planet.

    Note the most mankind has been able to do is screw up the definitions using such illiterate phrases as The El Nino or La The Nina which is the same as saying The The Child.which in turn is par with using clip instead of magazine (two different items)

    Or ‘At About’ ten AM (one is exact the other is not) or ‘over and out’ the ultimate in contradictory oxymorons or ‘Our democracy’ when no such thing exists in Our Republic. .

  2. Climate change….. think not. I feel that we are being hoodwinked… follow the money.
    We have been fed these theroy’ s for at least 50 years ( remember the global cooling in the 70’s) supported with sicencetific evidence!
    What man made event dried up the lakes out west 7000 years ago? When man can stop a volcano then I will believe.. mother earth is very resilient.. we may scare and bruise her. She has a way of coming back… just saying.

  3. It doesn’t matter because the US is not the major contribution causing Global Warming – aka Climate Change. Without cooperation from the two other countries that contribute more than us there’s not a hellova lot we can do about it. It isn’t a US problem. It’s a planet problem. Ask China and India to work with us.

    1. The Jan/Feb issue of MIT Technology Review is all about China and includes articles on power [1]. China was pushing nuclear until Fukushima because a similar failure in China would cast doubt on the government. China is building a “super grid” to leverage power from one region when another goes soft. China is positioning their grid to supply power to other countries, arguably making them the equivalent of the Soviet block. China has also recognized the impacts of coal power on the environment and is now pushing green sources, such as wind and solar.

      That’s what the articles say. Reality, well, we’ll see.

      [1] The China Issue
      https://www.technologyreview.com/magazine/2019/01/

      [2] China’s giant transmission grid could be the key to cutting climate emissions
      https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612390/chinas-giant-transmission-grid-could-be-the-key-to-cutting-climate-emissions/

      1. Thomas, I spent months in China and SE Asia. In China some citiy’s airquality was so bad I couldn’t stop coughing and left those areas very quickly. I don’t have lung disease. Their environmental controls are poor and anyone that doubts it should look into their cadmium pollution of a river. After looking at the pollution of the water in both areas I make sure my shrimp and other seafoods do not come from Asia. I remember awhile back dogs were dying from dog food imported from China. There are all sorts of horror stories with regard to poor controls.

  4. “The whole point of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be lead to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” Who said that?

        1. Mencken also said “Injustice is relatively easy to bear; what stings is justice”
          My husband and I have never agreed on what HLM meant.
          The best quote, IMO, is attributed to Bill Kristol’s father, who changed his political philosophy after he matured as an adult.
          It’s something like: “A conservative is a liberal who got mugged”

          1. “It’s something like: “A conservative is a liberal who got mugged””

            Trump is a populist: “A populist is a liberal who got bugged.”

  5. When a majority of Americans believe in an omnipotent, omniscient and supernatural being to whom they can prey, is it any wonder they do not believe in science? On the other hand, religion does keep the poor man from killing the rich…

  6. Trump shows his superficial evidence and then Professor Turley mocks Trump over his statement which means others should be mocking Turley for Turley’s superficial statements. Professor Turley then takes leaps of faith to defend climate change without even defining what the term means to him. I don’t understand how intelligent people can be so inexact when it comes to the issue of climate change. Finally he puts the cart ahead of the horse by discussing policy.

    The question is:
    1)What part (quantitative) if any man plays in the rise or fall of temperatures on the earth?
    2)What is the effect of such a change and over what time period
    3)Is what we are doing successful at lowering man made temperature so that it meets an early time frame which is the only time frame that counts at this time?

    My answer to number 3 is no. Denial of energy use by regular citizens in the US will likely mean squat. I do believe there are ways of lowering earthly temperatures with technology. I also believe the carbon tax is a good way to do VERY BAD things. It will increase government control and create groups of very rich people off of the back of working persons. If anyone doubts that look at the number of private planes that arrived at Davos.

    Let’s all put our chips in: End the use of private or fuel inefficient planes and heliocopters. End homes larger than 3,000 square feet. End private heated swimming pools. End large cars like large Bentley’s etc and force everyone to buy a car whose energy costs are low. Reduce the ability of individuals to travel so that it is limited but not eliminated. Then assemble a meeting of those that were at Davos through Skype and poll them as to how they feel about climate change.

    1. Alan, you’re at least 20 years back in time on this. Which shouldn’t surprise any regular to this blog. You’re still at the stage where Climate Change is some new-fangled theory being pushed by flaky ‘eggheads’.

      Alan, I got news for you, the rest of the world has moved on from the stage you’re still at. And you’re so clueless you don’t know!

      Professor Turley teaches at a fine university. I’m sure he moves among the finest academics. If Climate Change was doubted by the finest academics, Turely would surely hear. It’s denial to think the finest academics would all be fooled by this.

      Alan, Neanderthals like you are only fooling themselves.

      1. Peter thinks I am 20 years backwards because I ask questions. Peter never asks questions for all he does is regurgitates answers.

        However since Peter is such an expert on climate change I’ll ask him the same 3 questions presented earlier. In that way we can watch Peter run away. He is typical of a seven year old. Limited experience along with knowledge and runs to mommy whenever confronted.

        1)What part (quantitative) if any man plays in the rise or fall of temperatures on the earth?
        2)What is the effect of such a change and over what time period
        3)Is what we are doing successful at lowering man made temperature so that it meets an early time frame which is the only time frame that counts at this time?

        1. Alan, it is feeble to think that ‘you’, a non-scientist, can ask 3 simple questions that scientists overlooked. Are we to believe that the best minds, at the best universities, never considered your questions..???

          My cousin happens to be a physicist at a well-known Federal laboratory. His speciality is actually dark holes in space. In the course of his work, my cousin attends international symposiums with the world’s most prestigious physicists.

          11 years ago, at my dad’s funeral, I asked my cousin about Climate Change in an effort to learn if skeptics had any support. My cousin told me then, December of 2007, that about 90% of scientists recognized Climate Change. And again, this was 11 years ago.

          Therefore Alan I repeat, “It is feeble of you to think the world’s best scientists overlooked your 3 questions”.

          It’s like claiming that a missile hit the Pentagon on 9/11. Like no one in the Pentagon would know a missile strike..??! Seriously, Alan, t’s on that level of stupidity.

          1. “My cousin happens to be a physicist at a well-known Federal laboratory…. My cousin told me then, December of 2007, that about 90% of scientists recognized Climate Change. And again, this was 11 years ago.”

            I recognize climate change and recognize many of things talked about so I ask questions since climate change is a very broad term and means different things to different people. Suddenly I am part of that 90% you talk about but I still have those 3 questions that you are too feeble to answer. You admit that scientists wouldn’t have overlooked those “3 simple questions” but as simple as they are you do not have the intellect to answer them. How can that be.

            Let’s get back to these “3 simple questions”.

            1)What part (quantitative) if any man plays in the rise or fall of temperatures on the earth?
            2)What is the effect of such a change and over what time period
            3)Is what we are doing successful at lowering man made temperature so that it meets an early time frame which is the only time frame that counts at this time?

            1. Right, Alan. And a missile hit the Pentagon on 9 /11. But the people inside, all employees of the Defense Establishment, were unable to recognize a missile strike. Go figure.

              1. Peter, you sound like a fool but everyone already knows that. Answer the “3 simple questions”.

                1)What part (quantitative) if any man plays in the rise or fall of temperatures on the earth?
                2)What is the effect of such a change and over what time period
                3)Is what we are doing successful at lowering man made temperature so that it meets an early time frame which is the only time frame that counts at this time?

            2. Allen,
              May I suggest a forth question, what should the average Earth temperature be?
              Peter will dodge this one too.

              1. Jim, thanks, but that is a hard question to answer so I will leave it at “3 simple questions” and wait for Peter to answer them. Can’t you just see Peter struggling searching the Internet so someone can provide an answer for him to regurgitate. According to Peter those answers are simple so the net should have plenty of answers readily available for him to copy in BOLD PRINT.

                1. Back when I was getting my Geology degree, I couldn’t stand environmental “scientists”. One, they took all the watered down science classes and two, they never had a solution to the problems that they would complain about. An example of the time was chlorine treated water. Yes, it would be great to not use it, but what other solution do you have that won’t result in thousands of people getting sick?

                  1. Jim, it’s Meteorological Scientists that recognize Climate Change. And I’m sure we all went to college with people who failed to make it in their fields.

                    Did you pursue a career in Geology or take up something else?

                    1. Yes, I did I got a BS degree in Geology/Hydrogeology with a math minor. Worked in the environmental field for about a year and couldn’t deal with govt. wasting tax payers money and lack of using my brain so I left and started a business with my brother installing/programming control systems. I eventually became a Mechanical Engineer and have done CFD computer analysis of power gen gas turbine combustion systems. It’s been a crazy ride since college.

                      It wasn’t that they didn’t make it in their fields. It was more that they didn’t have good scientific background because they didn’t take the necessary classes.

              2. Should the Earth’s average temperature be determined as a static or dynamic value? Assuming temperature falls below average, do we then warm the Earth by emitting more CO2? If the determined value is dynamic then, politically and expenditure speaking, is the average temperature possible to meet? If the average temperature is met, will the regulatory and expenditure systems be kept as-is or scaled back?

            3. The amount of carbon dioxide varied over the course of Earth’s history for millenia until 1950, when it went above the previous highest point. It has stayed above this level ever since, although it does fluctuate. That is an indisputable scientific fact. What, other than human activity, could be responsible for such a persistent change? The reason for 1950 being the point of consistent upward change is the cumulative effect of man-made pollution since the Industrial Revolution.

              The long-term effect of elevated CO2 levels is increasing temperatures. Over time, the polar icecap will melt, resulting in rising sea levels. Miami, New Orleans and other coastal cities will eventually be under water unless this is stopped. How does one specifically “quantify” the cause and effect–as in so many tons of pollutants over a certain time frame translates into so many degrees of warming, and therefore, reducing the annual tonnage of pollutants will cause a specific reversal of global warming over a specified time frame? Can’t be done. That’s like quantifying how many cigarettes it takes to cause lung cancer. How many tons of pollutants has the U.S. pumped into the atmosphere since 1900? How about other countries? What degree of diminishment of pollution would result in long-term reversal of this process? The fact that these questions don’t have a quantifiable answer does not disprove either the existence of climate change nor human activity as the cause.

              Trump does not understand the difference between weather and climate, and neither do you, apparently.

              1. There are many problems with the CO2 theories. They are theories not proven fact. One of them is the graphs associating temperature and CO2. Another is that it is not proven that CO2 is the factor that causes global warming. You realize of course that all the greenery around you uses CO2 and produces oxygen. How all the factors play out is unknown to me. An additional factor of interest is that there are vast quantities of CO2 in the ocean and so I am not even sure if we know the total CO2 that we contend with.

                I am not siding with one theory or the other, but before one starts quoting from the scientific literature that they have no understanding of one should try answering the 3 simple questions I posed to Peter the Simple.

                1. OK, Alan. The oceans, trees and other greenery have been around since creation. What hadn’t been around is factories belching smoke, arsenic and other pollutants, automobiles and people in the numbers we now have. Studies prove that CO2 creates a greenhouse effect, which increases temperature. There really isn’t any serious dispute about this among reputable scientists who aren’t on the payroll of the polluters.

                  1. You draw a lot of conclusions for one with limited knowledge so I will ask you much simpler questions than the ones above that you are so willing to talk about. An inability to answer the simple questions exposes an ignorance of the more difficult ones.

                    1)What part (quantitative) if any man plays in the rise or fall of temperatures on the earth?
                    2)What is the effect of such a change and over what time period
                    3)Is what we are doing successful at lowering man made temperature so that it meets an early time frame which is the only time frame that counts at this time?

                1. So, according to you, no one should stop smoking because a specific number of cigarettes cannot be tied to a 100% chance of cancer? Actually, the cigarette companies made this very argument –successfully for a time–despite the clear correlation between smoking and lung and other cancers.

    2. 4) Is the Earth a control system independent of external factors, such as solar activity and magnetic field shift?

      If the Earth is indeed effected by solar activity then, perhaps, climate policy and engineering should begin with regulating solar wind.

      1. What Peter is talking about is a consensus based on averages. The real scientists have a great deal of disagreement but in order to get their research grants they have to sign onto believing that Al Gore is a climate scientist and that when he groped the woman he was just trying to check her temperature.

        The funny thing about averages is that one can drown in a lake that averages one foot deep. The body however will be found in a much deeper place.

        1. Alan: I really don’t know where you get your information. There is NO serious scientific dispute about the effect of pollution on climate change. There is debate about whether it is reversible and how long it might take. However, don’t let this stop you from attacking Al Gore.

          1. Natacha, really? So you think pollution by necessity raises the temperature on earth? Think of Mt. Pinatubo where volcanic pollution lowered the temperature of the earth by half a degree. You don’t know much do you?

            Now here are the simple questions you have yet to answer while you try to demean women in order to protect Al Gore. Next thing we know is that you will be chearing the killing of babies that are fully viable. Oh my, your friendly Democrats in NY and Virginia are already starting to do that.

            1)What part (quantitative) if any man plays in the rise or fall of temperatures on the earth?
            2)What is the effect of such a change and over what time period
            3)Is what we are doing successful at lowering man made temperature so that it meets an early time frame which is the only time frame that counts at this time?

  7. And yet we must listen to the left chant, “global warming,” when summer temps increase. The only thing I know is true is that none of Al Gore’s predictions have come true, except perhaps that he can afford to fly a private jet worldwide.

    I used to work for a company that traded, inter alia, weather derivatives. Our research and financial results showed there was a large gap between people and businesses that believed climate hype and those that researched historical weather temperature, precipitation and wind data. The latter group made a lot of money by knowing much of historical weather data has been, and is continuing to be, manipulated and misrepresented. Thank you very much.

    The nation that’s best performed in reducing carbon emissions is the one that exited the Paris climate agreement scam, and that’s the United States. The rest of the developed world’s leaders are now sweating the yellow vest movement. The simple fact is that the world’s poor can’t afford the “solutions” the elite believe will alter climate change.

    If the “news” is, “the climate is changing,” then I have truly met Mr. Obvious. Our climate has changed for millions of years. I’ve traveled recently to the Arctic Circle and the Antarctic Circle and after discussing climate and ice and sea levels with scientists who purport to be experts, the ice and sea levels and wildlife are just fine. Strong species adapt to change. My advice if you really believe the planet is warming is to buy a condo in Reykjavik and enjoy a nice hot tub with the locals.

    1. Bill, if the firm you worked for is so certain that nothing is out of the ordinary regarding climate, couldn’t they have ‘cashed in’ on that knowledge? Wouldn’t there be other firms like your’s discovering their stats are at odds with official science? And wouldn’t these contradictions eventually get published?

      I mean here you present this ‘case’ where somehow you’re privy to data that contradicts established science but we, as readers, have no idea ‘who’ you really worked for.

      Then you go on to claim you recently traveled to both the North and South poles where expert scientists assured the climate is “just fine”. Again, we as readers have no idea who ‘you’ are or ‘who’ you talked to. All we know is some guy named “Bill Pitcher” (whose name has never appeared on this thread before) claims to have an inside track where data and experts assure him that Climate Change is bogus.

      Well Bill, I have ‘inside knowledge’ that you’re really some right-wing wacko who thinks he’s being loyal to Trump by making bogus claims in denial Climate Change.

  8. I think Trump is echoing the mocking thoughts of those of us who are tired of the LEFT transposing weather with climate change. EVERY weather -related event that has happened in the last 30 years has come with commentators and news anchors declaring that there is some catastrophe related weather phenomena that they understand and now need to punish Americans with taxation and regulation.

    Check out the absurd statements by Gore, Bill Nye, MSNBC, ALL MSM news anchors when there are hurricanes, tsunamies, blizzards, heat spells. They are chicken littles for the last 40 years shouting – global freezing, global warming, climate extremism, climate change.

    We can all agree that climate changes and indeed after a mini-ice age in the late 1500s the climate has warmed BUT it is not punitive taxation of the American citizen that will fix it. There have been droughts, floods, hurricanes, dust bowls, heat events, cold events for the millenia.

    Yes – let’s be smart about our environment but NO, it is not all human made! Please read Climate of Extremes by PJ Michaels for a better understanding of how the LEFT is manipulating these events to punish the success of capitalism and to try to enact an economic re-distribution across the world And please let’s recognize MOCKING when we see it. We need to get over ourselves and stop assuming the worst of others — even President Trump.

    1. Very disappointing to see Prof Turley belongs to the approximately 30% unfortunates who are unable to understand a joke.

      Trump is quite obviously trolling the people who were keen to attribute drought and Californian forest fires to climate change (as did the Holy ‘Bama the hurricanes), yet quickly return to their orignal position now temperatures drop.

      Kudos to these scientists for solving the eat cake & have it theorem.

  9. Originally it was called Global Warming and Al Gore made a fortune off of it and brainwashed all college students. Then when the droughts ended, they conveniently changed the name to climate change which is just another term for “the weather.”

    I’m old enough to have experienced extreme weather patterns from hot to cold (walking five miles in heavy rain to school.) The difference now is the media reports on it ad nauseam and every change in weather is attributed to “climate change.” The young folks eat it up. It’s laughable to me.

    I can remember weeks of a heat wave before air conditioning. We suffered at home and in school. KIds these days are wimpy.

    The models they use to predict “Climate change” are just models. I use real life experience and commonsense. Let’s wait and see in 30 years if these scientists were correct or trying to fulfill some left wing agenda. Trump has good intuition so don’t dismiss what he thinks.

    1. You forgot to mention in your “good ole days” reverie that your march to school was uphill both ways; oh, and how often the Arctic sea ice disappeared during your uphill trudging days.

      this is to “but republicans don’t live on the coast, do they?” better without bozo

  10. If you study the political science data our founding fathers used to create this government, you’d quickly realize that data has been far more accurate in predicting the decline of western civilization than any global climate scientist has in predicting the weather. Ignoring the former leads directly to trusting the latter.

    1. Reference Source, Site, Cites, Dates? And which Western Civilization. The part that declined seems to have just followed us around trying to recreate the dark ages in the form of progressively regressive recreations of continued failures.

  11. Trump said it was all a Chinese hoax and he would never lie to us. When the ice melts it will just roll off the edge of the flat earth. Problem solved in the alternative universe.

    1. I read somewhere that if all the ice melts, the seas will rise 216 feet. However, I checked and my house is at 209 feet. Uh oh !!

      1. Somewhere is where it belongs. In order to float ice must expands the cubic space used by water thus icebergs and floes are created. with one portion above the surface level of the water. When it melts it contracts to the same cubic size.

        Thus only ice from above the current mean surface can raise the level and even that contracts as it eventually melts.

        Yet to see that applied except perhaps as the result of Noah’s flood.

        Zhwoompah Zhwoompah

        But if you hurry you can buy new Atlantic coastline just east of the Cascades and Sierras and reserve tickets for glass bottom boat tours of the former Rocky Islands.

    2. Sigh.

      From time-to-time I have to tolerate the Flat Earthers. They insist there are pipes below the Earth that pump water from one side to the other.

      Seriously.

  12. Anyone who says that they have modeled all of Earths variables and is able to predict a hundred year future is just full of b.s.

    Ask a democrat these two questions and enjoy the blank stare you receive:
    What should the average temperature of the Earth be.
    What % of tax is a fair share.

  13. Yes, my animal and insect sign in sheet seems to be the same. Man I hope the enviro-weenies are hanging their hat on people being upset that the mosquito population is in decline.

Leave a Reply