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. Let’s pretend for a moment that climate alarmists are correct, and that climate change represents an existential threat to humanity. If that’s true:

    – Should we impose a global tax on industry in the developing world as environmental laws in those countries are not on par with environmental laws in the United States and EU?

    – Should we ban cell phones and other personal electronic devices? One can take the “facts” offered up by climate alarmists and juxtapose those with the advent and proliferation of cell phones and devices – all of which must be regularly recharged. Is it not possible all that recharging contributes to climate change?

    – And finally, why do so many climate alarmists live in exclusive New York City or southern California neighborhoods when their own rhetoric tells us such neighborhoods are soon to be underwater? (Didn’t Al Gore tell us those neighborhoods would have been flooded about ten years ago?).

    1. The electrical consumption of cell phones can surely be estimated with a reasonable accuracy. But I would be surprised if that amounts to much.
      Of more interest, what will happen if/when Florida, the Gulf coast, and eastern Texas get washed over and submerged? Would all those rednecks just say it was a hoax?

      1. There’s an annoying term for that kind of energy consumption: energy vampires (e.g., [1]). It’s also a psychological term. I don’t remember the estimated usages because, well, I think it’s dumb because it’s presumes all standby power is waste.

        Take a few minutes to look at energy generation maps. You can find interactive maps at [2].

        [1] A Room-by-Room Guide To Ousting The (Energy) Vampires Lurking In Your Home
        https://cleantechnica.com/2015/02/18/room-room-guide-ousting-energy-vampires-lurking-home/

        [2] https://www.eia.gov/

  2. Apparently the liberal brain is unable to comprehend complexities, multiple causes, multiple answers, or most of all, their own contributions to the condition of this planet. Global Warming Proponents themselves are always in their own minds divorced from responsibility for the problem and blame everyone but themselves. They fully expect everyone else to sacrifice and be the solution to the problem so that they don’t have to. GWPs live lifestyles that cause environmental destruction just like everyone else, the rich ones even more so. Their excessive lifestyles and use of environmentally destructive products such as chemical based cosmetics and personal grooming products, household products, agricultural products, lawn maintenance products, synthetic fabrics, plastics, products made from animals, transportation, the astronomical consumption of electricity by their 24/7 use of tech saturated electronic gadgets that cause catastrophic irreparable damage by mining the heavy metals used in them as well as the environmental damage done by the disposal of them all contribute to damaging this planet. The list goes on and on. GWPs steadily beat the drum about consequences and at the same time are unwilling to change their behavior in ways that make a real impact. They do not take responsibility or alter their lifestyle to change the contributions that they make to environmental destruction. Their idiotic schemes for improving anything are equally destructive and catastrophically short-sighted because like their GW schtick, it is agenda driven.
    Liberals have always been World Class Terrorist against the Earth when it comes to Environmental Management. Any plan to improve the environment must line up with the liberal agenda and narrative. The Democrats are responsible for some of the worst environmental damage in the last 50 years. They have the uncanny ability to take something good and turn it into a catastrophe because they have to add their agenda/narrative touch to whatever they do and assume nature will comply with their assumptions and delusions.
    Obama’s useless light bulbs contaminate millions and millions of acres of land and waterways with Mercury. The changing of televisions to digital caused untold environmental damage from the heavy metals like cadmium being dumped into the landfills.
    Both of these killed millions of animals and continue to sicken people. Wind farms are so ill planned and lack any kind of thought about wildlife that billions of birds are killed every year. Ditto the the solar farms that have no strategy to stop millions of migrating birds from landing on them because the birds mistake them for lakes. The electric car batteries use lithium mining practices that leaves lifeless dead land that looks like the surface the moon and won’t recover for a hundred years. Obama was in the White House for 8 long years and he did zero to curtail any of this. He and the Dems never once formulated a plan to educate people how to better take care of the environment and empower them to do so. His idiotic Cash for Clunkers program was nothing but a payoff to save his investing buddies when he bailed out GM. It had nothing to do with cleaning up the environment. It was to sell cars. Most of the replaced vehicles were discarded and contaminated millions of acres of land and even ended up stacked up in the ocean contaminating that because they didn’t even bother to drain the oil and gas from them before they dumped them overboard. If the Dems had really wanted to do something effective they could have created a program to converted cars to ethanol. Also let’s not forget obamas biggest destructive act, ordering a stand down and allowing a potential extinction event in the Gulf to continue as millions of gallons of oil killed millions of animals, destroyed the Gulf economy and made parts of the Gulf as dead as the Dead Sea.
    Obama allowed an international emergency go unchecked and out of control for days just so a crisis he could use to make a political statement and have a segway into his moratorium on oil wouldn’t go to waste.
    In California priorities are keeping rich people’s thick grassy lawns green and lush in desert climate, idiotic infrastructures, wasteful farming, practices and making sure fish who don’t need any more water get more water. Then they get around to the people who are drinking water so yellow brown they don’t know if someone just p!ssed in the glass or not.
    The Democrat global warming religion is not about the Earth. It’s about establishing control mechanisms.
    It doesn’t use real scientist doing real research, using real methodology and using that real data to identify yhe problem and create solutions. Power, not protecting the earth is the real goal
    Monetizing carbon and making it the basis for the power grab is the real purpose of the Global Warming campaign.
    Dems know carbon does nothing to reduce anything. It just shuffles imaginary carbon credits around in exchange for money. What it DOES DO is it allows those who control the carbon credits to control the lives of the Citizens.
    The Democrat Green Deal is designed to march people toward mandated compliance with government policies based on the carbon fairytale which changes as often as often pressure is needed to move people in a certain direction to further their submission.
    The Green Deal with laws mandating that every household in the United States convert their electrical and heating systems to solar at a cost of up to $100,000 or more depending on the size of the house, mandating that 280 million cars be replaced with new electric cars at a cost of 40 to 80 thousand dollars each (look out oceans, more cars on the way) is not designed to save the planet and people. It is an environment destroying, economy busting, middle class bankrupting tool to further destroy the country and put control of the people and property squarely in governments hands.
    The questions that are never asked or answered when AOC spins her glowing tales with rapturous joy of the glories of the Democrat Plan to stop Global Warming are:
    Where is the plan for practical application of the Green Deal?
    Where is the infrastructure?
    How is complete replacement of the electrical grids going to be accomplished?
    What is the environmental impact going to be, in other words will the cure be worse than the disease?
    Will it kill the patient?
    What is the impact on human health of the bioeffects from encapsulating everyone in the electromagnetic cocoon that will be needed 24/7?
    And last and least as far as Democrats are concerned is
    How much will it cost?
    Where is the money going to come from because even taxing EVERYBODY 70% is not going to be enough?
    Saving the Earth and ourselves is a legitimate endeavor we are morally obligated to pursue.
    However AOC’S plan, the Democrat plan, to dive in and “Just Pay For It,” makes despicably clueless out of touch responses of historical figures like Maria Antoinette’s “Let them eat cake” look absolutely brilliant.

    1. “However AOC’S plan, the Democrat plan, to dive in and “Just Pay For It,” makes despicably clueless out of touch responses of historical figures like Maria Antoinette’s “Let them eat cake” look absolutely brilliant.”
      *****************
      Classic line and let’s all hope for such a tidy ending for AOC if only metaphorically.

    2. +1

      I’ll also add that a surprising number of people believe we should replace fossil fuel vehicles with electric vehicles but have no idea how electricity is generated. When I asked where the energy to charge electric vehicles comes from I was told, straight faced, “you just plug it in.” Worse, in 2006 the same true believers approved a Washington state ballot initiative that excluded hydro (I-937 [1]). Apparently, hydro isn’t green enough.

      When it comes to energy, me thinks physics be damned.

      [1] Washington Initiative 937
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Initiative_937

  3. Some say we’re warming, some say we’re about to enter a cooling period due to reduction in sun spot activity. I say we need to clean up our own nest, stop using non biodegradable plastics, stop chemtrails, reduce the use of oil and coal, recycle everything, clean up after ourselves. Not so hard to do but in a bureaucratic industrial society too many only think of bureaucratic industrial solutions.

  4. a long history of Trump transposing weather with climate change

    Trump makes a facetious remark and you accuse him of doing something that’s SOP among dumpkopf (liberal) journalists.

    And you’d think after 50 years of academics peddling disaster scenarios that do not pan out (see Paul Ehrlich, the Club of Rome, and the progenitors of the Global 2000 Report it might occur to you that what your actually looking at is a cultural impulse with a signature expression. It certainly should have occurred to you when the e-mail traffic of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia was made public and when one particular researcher concocted a hoax to smear the Heartland Institute.

  5. “In January, 2006 – when promoting his Oscar-winning (yes, Oscar-winning) documentary, An Inconvenient Truth – Gore declared that unless we took “drastic measures” to reduce greenhouse gasses, the world would reach a “point of no return” in a mere ten years. He called it a “true planetary emergency.”
    ***********************
    Gore in 2018: “Well, we gotta keep working.” Working it?

    https://youtu.be/S_19OpAUn4g

    1. Al Hore also said ” I believe it is appropriate to have an over representation in presentations of how deadly climate change is as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what OUR solutions are and how WE will solve this crisis.” –

  6. Climate has been in flux for about 4,5 billion years. The warming trend of the current interglacial period is no exception. The question is not is the planet warming, rather it is is this period of warming different from all previous periods of warming because CO2 produced by use of fossil fuels is responsible for driving this warming episode? This of course is the claim of climate alarmists who reached their conclusion relying on climate models. It is important to remember since climate change was thrust onto the front pages in the mid 80’s researchers have not produced a scintilla of empirical evidence that proves human use of fossil fuels is the culprit. What empirical evidence have you relied on Mr Turley?

    1. Excellent comment here. I had the same thoughts in my mind but was not able to express them. I do want the world to quit polluting the air. But I want the world to quit throwing plastic in the rivers and oceans. I want humans to recyble their condoms and quit wasting rubber.

      1. Yes, we have real, tangible emergencies right now. Like plastic, like real air pollution. But controlling these issues would go against the Democratic party enablers. Climate argument is great because it’s a boogey man.

        Great story here, Tony Heller demonstrates how the scam went down:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOeOYlXrWlQ

        and he has great analytical videos that directly address the data models. Not opinion. But please don’t look if you’re indoctrinated, you’ll just get triggered at the sight of rational argument.

  7. For those who haven’t noticed the decline in insects, in birds, in all plants and animals, and in surface water levels, try going for a walk in nature once in a while.

    1. Sam:
      I live in nature. We just doubled our spraying for insects last year because they were unbearable. Our bald eagle population has doubled and I see flocks of ducks and geese every morning from the balcony.

      1. Are you seeing any butterflies? Is your well water pressure steady and have you tested for toxins in it? Are you inhaling smoke from forest fires? Are you seeing rabbits, deer, or other mammals at the levels you did a decade ago? Just curious because the decline in my area is very noticeable.

        1. We have an abundance of butterflies given the azaeleas, daffodils and hydrangeas. We have well water with a pump so pressure is steady. No trouble filling the pool every other year. The wildlife in terms of deer seems about the same as a decade ago according to my neighbor who hunts our area. I usually pull a rabbit out of the pool about once a week and see lots of them in the underbrush. I am just not seeing these drastic changes in rural Ware Neck, VA.

      2. 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.

    2. I’ve noticed that. Now explain how it is caused by “Global Warming” and not the use of pesticides and human destruction of their hanitat.

  8. A net one million human beings added to the Earth every 4.5 days. There’s your global warming and it can’t be stopped.

    1. What would you like to do to stop it?

      There’s some evidence that human development reduces the birth rate.

    2. What? You’ve never heard of easy access to birth control and removal of adverse fetal cells, and severe punishment for rape?

  9. DENIAL OF CLIMATE CHANGE DRIVEN BY IDEOLOGY

    When your party goes 40 years insisting that big, central government is fundamentally ominous, that becomes the party’s identity.

    When your party claims that businessmen are inherently wiser than government officials, that becomes the party’s identity.

    When your party portrays environmentalists as flaky academics, that becomes the party’s identity.

    When your party asserts that states are capable of managing their own environments, that becomes the party’s identity.

    Therefore Republicans can’t possibly admit the Federal government should lead in response to Climate Change. Such an acknowledgment would contradict everything the GOP has stood for since the Reagan era.

    People might start asking: “Shouldn’t government lead on healthcare?” “Shouldn’t government lead on infrastructure?” “Why can’t we have clean energies?”

    These questions are annoying to billionaire Libertarians heavily invested in old technologies. Like the Koch Bros, for instance. If you’re a Republican candidate expecting Koch support, you deny Climate Change by emphasizing the ‘controversy’.

    1. The Koch Bros aren’t stupid. They recognize Climate Devastation, but are blinded by the lure of easy money and power. It’s the King Midas syndrome.
      Other Climate Devastation deniers are just stupid.

  10. I remember listening to a NPR discussion on the justification for installing catalytic converters in cars to curb particulate matter and avoid global cooling. A question was asked as to the byproducts of the process and if there were any concerns. The answer was carbon dioxide but not to worry because plants will mitigate CO2 offset. This was in the 1970s.

    I remember this clearly. How did that science work out?

    1. Matthew……..Very interesting point! I remember that era well……I was pregnant during that time and the horrible stench coming from the catalytic converter made me so sick that we had ours removed.

      1. Do you still have a car without a catalytic converter? I am inclined to doubt it. Converter technology has steadily improved, and the ubiquity of catalytic converts, along with computer-controlled engines, has drastically reduced smog and pollution.

        1. Jay S. I was responding to Matthew’s information about the early cat. converters in the 70’s. We had ours removed from our 1974 Chevy Nova. It made me sick ONLY because I was pregnant……Pregnancy causes certain aromas to make some women very nauseated. The smell of coffee made me just as sick. If cars still have CAT converters, then I must have one. It doesn’t make me sick because I have not been pregnant since 1975, and unless I can channel Sarah from the Bible, I don’t plan to be again. 😊

  11. In the 1970s it was global cooling, then it was global warming, then it was global climate change, and now it’s global climate crisis. While we are assured global what-is-it-called-today can be “fixed” with trillions of dollars under U.N. management, lets not mention anything about those scandals or, curiously, why we’re building traffic tunnels in coastal cities (e.g., Seattle) that will “soon” be under water rather than evacuating such cities.

    I once asked a climate scientist why they are so sure about global (insert descriptive word here) when I held in my hand three different projections for the next day’s weather. He answered they are better at long term projections. By that logic, I’m projecting an ice age within the next 10,000 years and we need to change our complete systems of economics, now, to advert our children’s children children…children from freezing to death.

    Speaking of science, I dare an academic to seek a grant to *disprove* global warming. No, I double dog dare you. No no, wait, I TRIPLE dog dare you. Let me know how that works out (hint: I already know).

    1. Thomas, see if you can find good science papers from the 1970’s confidently predicting a ‘Second Ice Age’. Predictions from prestigious universities or science foundations.

      A few scientists were predicting a Second Ice Age. But there was no consensus. It was just a theory that never took hold. No major universities were teaching it. No best-selling books. No prizes of any kind were awarded to any researchers.

      The truth is that Second Ice Age theory was only fad science that came and went rather quickly. Then no one mentioned it again for about 20 years. At that point Climate Change Deniers suddenly latched on to the Second Ice Age fad. Pretending it had been accepted science. It never was.

  12. Seriously?? I take it as tongue-in-cheek to a major extent, given that many news outlets AND Dem politicians last Summer talked about the high temps and then hurricanes being a result of Climate Change. Neither what they said last year in the Summer or what Trump said is true,,, take Trump’s tweet as a push back.

  13. But all the reputable sources that are not looking for research grant hand out consistently say the figures are fudged and screwed with and then proceed to prove it while Greens fail consistently to provide any verfiable resources or real experts to back up their statements.

    One of the biggest errors blatantly made is cutting out certain figures especially in certain key ‘heat islands’ such as NYC or SF or LA and the parts cut out are those that support the reputable figures that the climate outside these ‘heat islands’ is within half a degree of the same it’s been since records were kept.

    The intentional falsifying of the figures using hook and crook has made me a firm believer and this is backed up by the original researchers and then demonstrated it by the likes of Al Bore is just as I said and the original research guy said ….. a way to get money to make further research. Except for Al bore whose entire post political loser life has been dedicated to his secular 700 Club

    The same reason is why Obama never submitted Kyoto and the Paris ‘deal’ to the Congress (Senate) for their required advice and consent.

    Since he failed to do that on a number of items there was no treaty hence no ‘deal’ except in the shallow minds of the far left press.

    Now it’s just as we say in the Spanish Language Al Nada.

    If you can’t submit facts that are verifiable don’t get all huffy when no objectivist concludes the nature of this is in the nature of a scam and therefore is both useless and not moral.

    Which fits the left perfectly. .

    Don’t whine; don’t cry just accept you got followed and found out especially for those of us who live in areas that have inexplicably had zero changes long term and miniscule changes short term which is to say the normal weather cycles.

    1. Michael,

      The great thing about the weather today in Chicago is that I hear it’s still so hot they guys don’t need to wear underwear. 😉

  14. “We have previously discussed the continued statements of President Donald Trump questioned the overwhelming science behind climate change. ”

    Ok Prof Turley, it’s your “Story” now you should provide your readers evidences.

    You know, like digital thermometers vs mercury thermometers & where & when they were placed.

    Anyway please carry on with your story, were all ears.

    1. How many thousands of years of inarguable data are we basing the coming climate catastrophic conclusions on? Oh wait, only on a little over a hundred years of arguable data based on computer algorithms still being refined.

      Never mind.

      1. Known history of men reporting/visiting the area of Tulsa Oklahoma only goes back around 200 years ago… Washington Irving.. much like everything west of St Louis, but scientist have convinced fools they need to Pay a Trillion dollar a year plus tax to Blood & Gore Inc, GoldmanSacs etc., so they feel better I guess.

        I think they’d have better luck sending their money backing African Prince Abuto, whatever, to save his inheritance.

    2. Science is about everyone coming to consensus, such as an eclipse is the sign of an angry God or the Earth is flat. To do otherwise is heresy!

      1. No Thomas. Science has nothing to do with consensus. Science is about introducing a theory, conducting research to prove it or disprove it, accepting results, and continuing to explore aspects we don’t understand – it’s a shame Climate Change Incorporated doesn’t get that.

        PS: Don’t mock my faith; I’m not mocking your lack thereof.

Leave a Reply