President Trump trolls the global warmers – hilarity ensues

For those who follow the cult-like world of Anthropogenic Global Warming promoters, this has to be the Tweet of the year. What’s fun about it, is not just the way President Trump frames the missive and pokes a jab at the Paris Accord, but the reactions to it. Of course many of the same people who are calling it a wide variety of things (stupid, irresponsible, anti-science, etc.) are the very same people who promote short term heat waves as “proof” of human caused climate change getting worse.

Reading some of the responses in the Twitter feed reveals just how much of a disturbance on the force President Trump created with this one Tweet.

Of course, explanations as to why this cold wave is insignificant already abound from ‘climate scientists’. Let’s be sure to remind them this summer when they claim that a week-long heat wave is proof of their premise.


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Even a broken clock….

My broken LED clock is correct all the time. Or none of the time.


“Even a broken clock….”

How about “even a blind squirrel….”

empire sentry

‘You don’t get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion.’


“Science fiction/Religion”.
CAGW sounds like a catchy title.


“You don’t get rich writing science fiction”

LRH would disagree.


Lurking, that’s a quote often attributed to LRH.


LRH – I assume (my ignorance) – is L. Ron Hubble.


Michael 2

Seems your computer malfunctioned just as you were about to make a point of some sort.

John F. Hultquist

My computer is fine. What’s your point?


It really is fascinating how Trump is driving his critics insane.

Ernest Bush

It’s because the Left has no sense of humor about anything, especially their religion — Global Warming. It allows him to play them like a hooked fish. They hate that they can’t not react in a predictable way. That’s what is driving them insane.


For many of them, the drive isn’t that far.


Trump is being referred to now, not as POTUS, but as GEOTUS … God Emperor of The United States.
Ran that by a few of my progressive leaning friends and thought they were going to explode.





…..But it was such a short trip….


It’s not a drive at all; it’s a short putt.

Reed Coray


It wasn’t a drive at all, it was a putt.


The reason the Left has no sense of humor is because in contrast to the religious, who generally have a small set of sacred objects, the Left’s religion encompasses all of Nature (Gaia) which we must not touch, all the disadvantaged, women, and even what foods you eat. Nothing is outside the religion. Everything is a sacred object. We are not merely fallen but are inherently corrupt, a blight upon the Earth (blessed is she). It is not sufficient to feed the poor, we must be forever guilty for merely existing as long as there are poor people (which will be always–“The poor are always with you”)


Trump uses Twitter like a laser pointer and the looney left and the news media act just like a herd of cats.


Great analogy, Craig 🙂

Pop Piasa

Ccscientist, I highly agree with your take on that.


“It really is fascinating how Trump is driving his critics insane.”

No big effort really; For them it’s a short trip.


“It really is fascinating how Trump is driving his critics insane.”

They were ALREADY insane – they just hadn’t been TRIGGERED, Pavlov’s Dog-Style.

Trump is ushering in a new era in the understanding of abnormal psychology – and I’m not referring to his psychology.


Trumps critics aren’t driven insane, they ride bikes.


the news media is the looney left!

JB Say

Many of them were already insane, delusions, narcissism, lack of impulse control. He just makes it more obvious to a wider audience.

Stephen Garland

The more I think about the irony of your comment the funnier it gets! Luca, you may be ‘right’ in this case too!


I set my clock ten minutes early. So it is never right. Yet it serves it’s purpose better than one set correctly.


“Apparently Trump is keeping Trudeau awake at night:”





“Cold Weather Kills 20 Times as Many People as Hot Weather”, September 4, 2015
by Joseph D’Aleo and Allan MacRae


It may be time to move.
Jeremy Hazan · 1 day ago

If you’re living in Canada, I hope for your sake you’re staying indoors today, because chances are you are currently standing in one of the coldest places in the world.

This morning we stumbled upon a post on reddit that said 9 out of the 10 coldest places on earth were in Canada right now. But when we went to check those stats, they had been updated. And it’s worse than we thought.

As of 7:45 am, 10 out of the 10 coldest places on earth are in Canada.

Jakutsk, Russia was number 10 on the list but it has since been surpassed by the town of Southend, Saskatoon where it feels like -40°C right now.

So just in case you were wondering, yes it’s totally acceptable to complain about the cold today.

Here’s the latest explanation

Steve in Seattle

For the 48 lower, time to revisit the USCRN web site and take a shot of the most pristine temp anomaly data set on this planet. Then ” chase ” that with a glass of the IPCC temp models. MSM never bother.

Evan Jones


Not Pristine.


Evan: he did not say the USHCN, he was talking about about the US Climate Reference Network which is composed of 114 stations in pristine area As NOAA says on their web site: “The stations are placed in pristine environments expected to be free of development for many decades.” In 50 years time we will be able to answer the question: “How has the climate of the Nation changed over the past 50 years?”

george e. smith

Don’t even have to wait GreyM,

We can answer that very question right now, since we already have the data. But in 50 years time that will be all for naught as the adjusters will be busy retelling us what we saw 50 years ago.



G @ 10:58 am: The hope/expectation is that the USCRN data will not need to be adjusted due to UHI effect or siting issues.


As a further addendum to my note above: The whole idea for the USCRN is to provide a baseline for future analyses of climate vis-a-vis today’s climate.


50 years? Why don’t we establish a structure for a 300+ year dataset? Assuming we want work with sixty year cycles.

That’s what we should be funding – what’s the empirical measure ment scenario our descendants will need.

Pat Frank

The uniquely important element of the USCRN is that the sensor shields are aspirated. Aspiration removes the major source of systematic measurement error.

Because of aspiration, USCRN temperatures are probably accurate to ±0.1 C.

USCRN sensors also have three PRTs in every shield, making every air temperature triply measured.


Wonderful – to quote an old British comedy called Dads Army – “they don’t like it up ’em”

Komrade Kuma

My wife gave me Scottish Archeologist Neil Oliver’s book ‘Vikings’ for Christmas and I of course retreated to a quiet place and read it in as few sessions as possible. The big historical point that I took from it was the eventual adoption of Christianity by the Viking peoples, in particular the Danes. It was similar to my understanding of why the Roman aspirant to be Emperor, Constantine, also adopted first the chi-rho symbol and later facilitated the advent of it as the ‘official religion’.

In neither case was the adoption spiritual or intellectual but in both cases it seems simply pragmatic.

In the case of Constantine it was due to the superstitious tendencies of Roman legionaries, especially those about to go into battle outnumbered about 2 to 1 and the cvhi-rho painted on the shields of the legions seemed to do the trick.

In the case of the Danish Viking king Harald it was because his southern neighbour was the Holy Roman Emperor and being ‘pagan’ gave his larger, more powerful and well connected neighbour a perennial religious excuse to invade. Simple response, convert, become a king anointed by the one true God as recognised by the Pope in Rome and the HRE is stopped in his tracks by a ‘higher’ moral/legal/spiritual authority. Neat trick, eh?

So WTF am I on about? Well CAGW is the latest planetary, evangelical religion and what better way to ward off political, commercial, activist attacks, boycotts by those who would do your interests harm for their own advancement than to strap on the fig leaf of eco friendliness, don the laurel crown of political correctness and spit venom at the remaining non believers. Typical behaviour of the sort of low fibre content people that hang around in packs. We first meet them in primary school and they never change unfortunately.

A good analogy the same self interested elitism infects broadcasters, education “professionals”, centre and left wing politicians, the EU, the UN etc etc…

Crispin in Waterloo

Constantine’s mother was a committed and active Christian who located the birthplace of Christ ‘by spiritual means’. My point is there may have been factors other than the the pragmatism you infer.


belief, that which shuts down the logical processing portion of the brain. So determine through fMRI studies.

Harald “Bluetooth” Gormsson (Old Norse: Haraldr Gormsson,[2] Danish: Harald Blåtand Gormsen, died c. 985/86) was a king of Denmark and Norway. (wiki) He brought Christianity to his kingdoms.

Viking raids occurred during the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries and terrorized Western and Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean, including North Africa. They also settled and controlled significant parts of England and Ireland and the islands off the west of Scotland.

The Scots threw the Vikings under King Haaken IV out of western Scotland at the Battle of Largs in 1263. The Clan MacRae fought at Largs under the leadership of Alexander Stewart (1214–1283). It was a minor skirmish with only part of the huge Viking fleet, but it marked the end of Viking control over the Hebrides and the Isle of Man.

Scottish lore has it that “we partied with the Vikings on the beach at Largs on October 2, 1263 – perhaps we were poor hosts, because they never came back again.”

The evidence of the conversion of the Vikings to Christianity is preserved in a quote from King Haaken himself, who said “Jesus! WTF were those guys?” 🙂

Gary Pearse

The ‘Danes’ who conquered the Midlands wound up, over time, intermarrying, adopting local customs, became farmers, lost their language and were totally assimilated. Clearly, the same things happened to the invaders from Normandy in 1066. Making love not war seems to be not a new concept.

South River Independent

NME666 – Perhaps it is the activity of the “logical processing portion of the brain” that leads to belief. Check out Aristotle, the Scholastics, and Thomas Aquinas for a logical demonstration proving the existence of God. But I will caution, based on your comment, that you may not understand what you will find.

Komrade Kuma


I am sure his mother’s belief’s formed part of Constantine’s general awareness of Christianity but it was just one more of a number of religious ‘cults’ or followings that had been brought back to Rome over the centuries. For example the legions brought back the cult of Isis from Egypt around the time of Mark Antony’s and Cleopatra’s death if not before when Julius Caesar was having it off with her. This was due to that same superstitious tendency as with Constantine’s troops. The ‘deity’ of Jesus Christ (the son of God etc) was also preceded by the semi deity of say Cleopatra herself and posthumously Julius Caesar himself (Augustus was the first ’emperor’ referred to as filius divus or son of a god). Notwithstanding true believers, religion or any ideology that is predicated on something that is humanly untestable is rich and fertile ground for sowing fear and awe and once those seeds are sprouted then its easy for the doomsayers to make of it what they will, be that true or false to the original or core teaching (e.g Spanish Inquisition, ISIS)

That’s how such rhetorical devices work, notwithstanding their conceptual innocence or good intentions. My point was that such ideologies serve not just the intended purpose. The (mis)management structures of the Roman Catholic Church for example (but not exclusively) serve the purposes of paedophiles very nicely thankyou very much as do the structures of modern management and Wall St the purposes of other soulless, greedy scum.


I believe you have something there, NME666. *cough*


Yes, CAGW is the latest religion, and appears ready to sweep the field.
But it gas only negatives, no redemption, no enoblement no glorious vision.
And its founding narrative offers none.
It is, despite its sciencey pretense, deeply anti-science and anti-truth.
CAGW is about power and control and profit.
Harlan Ellison wrote about the violent anger of new gods, and I keep thinking on that as I watch the likes of Lew and Mann destroy science and tolerance in their righteiys zealotry.

John Harmsworth

Pretty sure it promises earthly paradise through aggressive and ostentatious better-than-thoudom. Pretty standard as religions go.


Your typo is so wonderful, perhaps your subconscious genius emitted it. Yes, CAGW indeed “gas only negatives”.

The greatest altruists of the all time are Vladimir Lenin.And the Bolsheviks

Lenin convinced half the world of this in 1918.
Beware of those promising to “save” you.


Typical behaviour of the sort of low fibre content people that hang around in packs.

Except now it’s much easier to dupe and organize them, not to mention whip them into a frenzy.

And of course…

Bullshit asymmetry principle. Publicly formulated the first time in January 2013 by Alberto Brandolini, an Italian programmer, the bullshit asymmetry principle (also known as Brandolini’s law) states that: The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.


There is an old proverb that goes along the lines ‘one mad soul outquestions thousand wise’, i.e. it is easy to ask difficult questions. The same principle in action.


It isn’t often that we witness the discovery of a new natrual law – thanks.

Happy New Year to all.

Brandolini’s law: The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.

And the trolls know it. Ask Griff.


“the bullshit asymmetry principle (also known as Brandolini’s law) states that: The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.”

This is merely a corollary to the well known fact that shit flows downhill, which itself id based on Newton’s laws of gravitation.

Russ Wood

The Principle must have been observed by housewives (or -husbands or singletons) for hundreds of years, as follows: When ironing a shirt, it only takes ONE off stroke to put an unwanted crease in. It then takes multiple strokes to smooth it out again. A long-standing example of Murphy’s Law!

Our brains are evolutionarily hard-wired for religion; CAGW may suffice for some.


Why should be that?


Survival enhancement?


… our brains are hard wired to try to fill in the blanks.

Studies that came to the conclusion that the hard wiring was related to religion were filling in the blanks.

Komrade Kuma

Our brains are ‘hardwired’ to extract patterns from what we see, hear, smell etc. in order to make sense of the world and assist in navigation. The problem is that false patterns can be ‘suggested’ ( e.g. gods in the sky sketched out by stars) at which point the author of the suggestion is regaded as ‘gifted’ and is elevated in status.

The most fruitful area for creating false patterns is the ‘future’, i.e well over the temporal event horizon. Q: What objective evidence can be brought out to refute the assertion? A: None.

‘Climate Scientist’ = ‘Shaman’.


Komrad Kuma,

You agree with the Bible, which states prophets are to be “tested” to see if they are “false.” As I recall, if they were found to be “false” they were to be taken to the edge of town and stoned.

The Bible does not state, that I know of, what to do with folk who are stoned to begin with.


‘Climate Scientist’ = ‘Shaman’ (Komrade Kuma)
No. A shaman’s knowledge was based on generations of empirical knowledge passed down to them. A climate scientist has only a pronouncement of a self-created oracle computer program which has been proven to be false by nature itself.
If a shaman’s pronouncements were always verifiably wrong and resulted in identifiable increased poverty and death to his tribe, he would not be a shaman or even alive for very long.


Constantine had a profound and thoughtful spiritual conversion to Christianity. Please don’t mix up true religion with fake religion – such as the Al Gore church of AGW. Thanks

John Harmsworth

I guess you’re a believer. Constantine was a pragmatist who went on to have himself portrayed as a combination of Christ and Apollo. An earlier Al Gore.

How would you know what Constantine believed or why? You probably would not have known if you were a bosom buddy then. Certainly not after all this time.

Your belief does not create any obligation on my part to share it. Same goes for everyone else with a favorite belief. Each to his/her own.

Alan Tomalty

I have been doing a lot of reading on AGW but cant find the explanation of exactly why an increase in C02 which traps the long wave radiation from the earth surface will increase the temperature. What is the math on this on a global scale ? Both sides on the climate debate agree on this except the “coolers” say there is an upper limit on the amount of heat trapped. The 2nd question is “How does an increase in heat cause more water vapour which then in itself traps more heat? Again how much more water vapour and where is the math? Both sides agree on this also except the “coolers” again say that there is a limit on how much new water vapour is formed.


I myself am not sure how to answer your question, but from observation it seems to me that warming has added more water vapour… which according to alarmists, means more rain during the winters as things continue to warm…… and we’ve been getting a LOT more snow, instead.


Otter I wish I was getting more snow, but we are just getting cold 🙁

It was 4 F this morning and the weekend it is going well below 0 🙁


Alan you won’t find anything written recently by warmists, going back to first principles explaining the basic mechanism of their “global warming”. I have looked through many recent books on global warming trying to find the holy grail explaining how water vapor conspires with carbon dioxide to create some sort of positive feedback which then leads to thermal runaway of the planet, once the inevitable “tipping point” is reached.

All warmist writings seem to start with the premise that AGW is a proven fact and go on to discuss expensive and useless mitigations. Deniers may get a brief mention as a deluded minority.

Yes indeed. That is why it is theology and not science.


thermal runaway of the planet

Why would this not have already happened when CO2 concentrations were much, much higher?


The run away hasn’t happened before because there were no people to blame it on….

Water vapor amplification is a myth with no legitimate scientific foundation, which is why you can’t find one. Yes, the isolated aspect of increased evaporation adds a little more water vapor to the atmosphere whose GHG effect warms the surface, but at the same time, it results in more rain, more ice and more clouds, all of which are net cooling influences. When you add up the cooling influences and the warming influences, they pretty much cancel out.


So, who needs proof? Once dogma of any kind is dogmatized and has then been acculturated into the belief system of enough true believers proof can be assumed to be truth and reality. The fact that the dogma may suffer from the taint of insanity is a never mind in the rote opinions of the true believers.


Earth doesn’t have a closed system. Runaway warming is sci-fi

Why an increase in CO2 increases temperature : good question. I searched the whole of the IPCC report (AR4) and was genuinely astonished to find no explanation. To my mind it’s the first thing that the IPCC report should explain. And I wasn’t going to plough through the whole of AR5 after finding nothing in AR4. But having said that, I do think the research by Arrhenius provides the answer. There does appear to be a relatively low upper limit, because inspection of the absorption spectra for all the greenhouse gases shows that there isn’t a lot for CO2 to absorb that the others haven’t grabbed already.

Water vapour is interesting. Clausius-Clapeyron is straightforward here – a warmer atmosphere can hold more water vapour by 7% per deg C. But to get the ‘greenhouse’ warming from the water vapour, the models had to assume that it would not cause an increase in precipitation. That’s because increased precipitation would cause heat loss (latent heat of evaporation) and thus cancel out the water vapour’s ‘greenhouse’ warming. Various studies have found increased precipitation – Weiffels was one – but the modellers have somehow been able to ignore this inconvenience.

Sorry, I can’t easily provide links as I’m just on an iphone at the moment and all the above is from memory. Hopefully you can look some of these things up.

spelling: Wijffels(?)


‘But to get the ‘greenhouse’ warming from the water vapour, the models had to assume that it would not cause an increase in precipitation.’

Well I didn’t know that! What a cheek. They assumed something completely unlikely (if not meteorologically impossible) in order to fit their ‘evidence’ to their theory. This would explain why amplification/positive feedbacks aren’t doing what’s needed to drive excess warming then, because any increased warming is immediately cancelled out by increased precipitation. Just as so many have said all along earth has a self-correcting system of climate equilibrium. **Sighs deeply**.

Stephen Richards

Basic physics, dontcha know 🤪


The basic mechanism is not IR-radiation near the surface as most people think. This is very little affected by the amount of CO2. The atmosphere is already almost completely opaque to the affected wavelengths.

Instead the warming is due to the fact that the average altitude from which the IR radiates out into space will increase with more CO2. The mechanism that moves the heat up to this altitude is convection. Convecting air cools as it rises, and heat converts to position energy, so to carry the heat up to a higher altitude requires a larger temperature difference between the surface and the altitude where the IR radiation leaves the Earth. So the surface gets warmer. Given that everything else remains the same.

But everything else doesn’t remain the same. The temperature gradient needed to lift a parcel of air depends on humidity. Dry air will cool about twice as much as air at 100% humidity, and wet air also carries much more heat than dry air due to latent heat of condensation that is liberated when water vapor condenses to water at altitude. So while more CO2 in a water-free environment would definitely result in some slight warming (the famous 1 degree per doubling), the effect when H2O is present is very far from clear. There might be positive feedback, negative feedback or no feedback at all. Actual measurements strongly suggest that the feedback is close to zero.

Another odd effect that is never mentioned: in the middle of the main CO2 absorption band the atmosphere is so opaque to IR radiation that the average radiation altitude is already above the tropopause where the temperature increases with altitude. This means that the heat loss in this part of the band will also increase with more CO2. It works like a sort of invisible cooling fin extending into the stratosphere.

Crispin in Waterloo

Constantine’s mother was a committed and active Christian who located the birthplace of Christ ‘by spiritual means’. My point is there may have been factors other than the the pragmatism you infer.

Philip Mulholland

That’s a really interesting comment, worth repeating and definitely worth thinking about.

Another odd effect that is never mentioned: in the middle of the main CO2 absorption band the atmosphere is so opaque to IR radiation that the average radiation altitude is already above the tropopause where the temperature increases with altitude. This means that the heat loss in this part of the band will also increase with more CO2. It works like a sort of invisible cooling fin extending into the stratosphere.

So because the effective radiating layer of the main CO2 absorption band is located in the stratosphere, an increase height (and therefore temperature of this layer) will result in an increase in outgoing radiation and as you say this produces a negative feedback.

Ferenc Miskolczi also discusses negative feedbacks; he contends that there is a balance between the two main greenhouse gases of water vapour and carbon dioxide, as CO2 increases the water vapour content at altitude correspondingly decreases thereby maintaining a radiative equilibrium, a constant atmospheric optical transparency to outgoing long wave radiation.

On local scale the regulatory role of the water vapor is apparent. On global scale, however, there cannot be any direct water vapor feedback mechanism, working against the total energy balance requirement of the system. Runaway greenhouse theories contradict to the energy balance equations and therefore, cannot work.

Miskolczi, F. M. (2007) Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres IDŐJÁRÁS Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service Vol. 111, No. 1, January–March 2007, pp. 1–40.

In the 1948-2008 time period the global average annual mean true greenhouse-gas optical thickness is found to be time-stationary. Simulated radiative no-feedback effects of measured actual CO2 change over the 61 years were calculated and found to be of magnitude easily detectable by the empirical data and analytical methods used. The data negate increase in CO2 in the atmosphere as a hypothetical cause for the apparently observed global warming. A hypothesis of significant positive feedback by water vapor effect on atmospheric infrared absorption is also negated by the observed measurements.

Miskolczi, F. (2010) The Stable Stationary Value of the Earth’s Global Average Atmospheric Planck-Weighted Greenhouse-Gas Optical Thickness. Energy & Environment, Vol. 21, No. 4, 243-262.


Does this actually occur outside the lab? Prove it. Thousands of mechanisms involved. Good luck.

Alan Ranger

“the models had to assume that it would not cause an increase in precipitation. That’s because increased precipitation would cause heat loss (latent heat of evaporation) and thus cancel out the water vapour’s ‘greenhouse’ warming. ”

The models are also intrinsically unable to incorporate thunderstorms because their grid size is too coarse. There are about a million thunderstorms globally per year and each one represents a massive thermal transfer event from the surface. Yet another reason why “the models” are nothing but expensive defective toys.



Try this. It has more math (and probably more sense) than most stuff you’ll find.

Paras 7 & 8 will probably cover your questions.

All the best. As ever, do your own research to find alternatives.


Paul Cantwell

It doesn’t.

Check on the radiative frequency of CO2 – not in the heat spectrum

george e. smith

Well there isn’t any heat spectrum, because heat is NOT Electro-Magnetic radiation.

But ANY EM radiant ENERGY from zero frequency to zero wavelength can be converted into “heat” (adjective) energy by simply wasting it in conjunction with some form of matter.

“Heat” (noun) is simply mechanical energy of randomly moving real atomic and molecular particles.


Hi Alan, especially 400PPM concentrations…just slightly higher than equal lowest in geologic history. I keep banging on about this because the believers don’t understand that this is true…but if they did? Many believers are looking over the fence anyway as they see the power bills on their side of the fence double. This is one single unanswerable, easy to understand fact that the socialists have been hiding from them that is capable of bringing the whole thing crashing down.
If you try to dazzle them with science they will just glaze over and default to the 97% mantra. You will get many opinions on every warmist fact or fiction as each person sees it….but my question is…How is it possible that “Holocaustic run-away global warming” can be forced by 400PPM CO2 atmospheric concentrations, when this is amongst the lowest CO2 levels in the planets history? When the CO2 levels were at 8,000 PPM or higher, why did the planet not “burn up” then?
A simple, elegant, impossible to answer question….and if it went viral? Can someone who knows how to get this going on-line think it over? This is how you win in politics, a simple imagination capturing idea that gets the ball rolling. And then tell them what they can expect from their power bills, job done. Adding to a bunch of hysterical sciency white noise will get you nowhere. We all know it is a load of unmitigated bullshit…now lets do something about it.


+ 1, Bill.

A C Osborn

Bill, the explanation is simple, there is NO BACK RADIATION warming of the Surface.
The only thing that GHGs do is slow the loss of energy from the Atmosphere and even that is not by much.
It is not true that the Atosphere cannot Heat the Surface, that is patently obvious because you only need to look at how our weather changes to see it in action.
Polar Air Freezes the ground Warm Air from the South Unfreezes the ground.
But it MUST be Atmosphere warmer than the ground.
I cannot for the life of me understand why so many Scientists go along with Back Radiation warming the surface directly. Cold Cannot warm Hot. An object of Equal warmth can’t even make another object warmer, let alone a cold one.
As well as that CO2 onlt directs about 48% downwards and the mean Path of a LWIR photon is only around 25 Metres, so it loses it’s energy in that distance, which means the energy is halved again as about 52% goes up, sideways and not down. Then that downward anergy is halved again in another 25 metres etc until the energy is gone completely.

Cue Mr Eschenbach, Phil, TJF, Paul and the others to prove I am wrong by talking about Energy instead of Heat and how we have measured the energy on the surface.

John B

Easy to answer Bill. There wasn’t runaway warming back then because the Sun was colder at that time.

In fact, the Sun warmed up as the CO2 dropped allowing the planet to stay within tolerable temp levels for life to continue and flourish. Amazing, isn’t it?

AGW is not Science

@JohnB, your “easy answer” is no answer at all; if CO2 causes extra heat to be retained in the atmosphere, then all the “colder Sun” would have done is extend the length of time it took for the “trapped” heat to “accumulate.” Since today the CO2 “temperature driving effect” is considered to be essentially instantaneous, on geologic time scales the extra time required for the BS hypothetical “runaway greenhouse effect” to develop would be so small as to be meaningless.

Jacob Frank

But it’s so fun watching otherwise intelligent people wallow in magical thinking mocking themselves, in some ways I’ll be sad when this religion closes up shop.

Don’t forget that 400 ppm (which sounds like a lot) is only 0.04% or, as I frequently express it, a mere 0.0004 of the air that we breathe.


Alan, CO₂ doesn’t trap radiation. Most simple explanations that are given for people consumption, like greenhouse effect, blanket effect, and so on, are incorrect.

The correct scientific explanation is that with more CO₂ in the atmosphere outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) has to travel a longer distance before it is emitted towards space by the last CO₂ molecule. As OLR originates higher in the atmosphere, the emitting layer is colder and thus less energy is being emitted. This creates a temporary energy imbalance between energy received and energy emitted that results in some warming until the balance is restored. As we keep adding more CO₂ the warming continues.

The science is sound, but climate is complicated and other feedbacks get in the way. If only CO₂ is a factor, then a doubling of CO₂ in the atmosphere should produce ~ 1.6°K warming. Most people accept this theory derived value. Final warming is unknown and currently estimated at 1.5-4.5°K per doubling of CO₂. This is known as the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity, or often the Estimated CS. Since the equilibrium can only be reached after the oceans equilibrate and that can take centuries, a more relevant warming factor is the Transient Climate Sensitivity, a value slightly lower that should match the observed warming.

The CO₂ hypothesis runs soon into problems, as it predicts that the highest warming should take place at the tropical Tropopause as is the place that should be most affected by the reduction in OLR energy (Tropical Hot Spot). This has not been observed. The hypothesis also has a problem because it needs to attribute all observed warming to the CO₂ increase, and allows no room for natural warming, only natural cooling.

Any public discussion of the hypothesis problems (except to offer a solution that validates it) gets the doubter immediately labeled as a denier and subject to mobbing and blacklisting by faithful peers. Thus most doubting scientists remain silent and add qualifying phrases to their articles saying that their findings in no way question the validity of the CO₂ hypothesis in its full glory.

A C Osborn

Javier, you say the Science is sound. I think not.
The time it takes for the energy to leave the Atmosphere is only delayed by seconds where CO2 is concerned. Plus more CO2 means quicker cooling higher up as shown by NASA.
Just as H2O delays LWIR leaving, but it also prevents the higher Energy Light and SWIR & MWIR from reaching the Surface and much more importantly the Oceans where it heats to a far greater depth.


you don’t need the degree symbol with Kelvin temps.

Kaiser Derden

the warming continues ? CO2 doesn’t warm anything … its insulation at best … it slows the loss …


Javier says: “As OLR originates higher in the atmosphere, the emitting layer is colder and thus less energy is being emitted. ”

As CO2 only emits at 15 micro give or take and E = hv it is irrelevant where in the atmosphere a CO2 molecule emits it is always the same amount of energy. In fact if there are more molecules then more energy will be emitted not less. If you contend this is a heat transfer situation please let me know what emissivity you use for CO2 at that partial pressure and 1 atm.

A C Osborn

Yes more Energy emitted to Space.
I have been looking for the key to totally destroy your statement “As CO2 only emits at 15 micro give or take and E = hv it is irrelevant where in the atmosphere a CO2 molecule emits it is always the same amount of energy. ”
The only place not totally saturated by H2O that CO2 can work in is around 10K high.
The temperature there is very cold and does not allow Heat transfer to occur to higher temperatures nelow that hight.
So next you are going to say it is not Heat Transfer it is Radiation photons aren’t you?

A C Osborn

MKelly, I see that you are challenging CO2 radiation as am I, so I am not sure that my first response to you was correct. But I can a lot more to your argument.

Bill Illis

Just as a thought experiment, let’s say Javier is correct (he usually is you know).

The question then becomes ‘how long does it take for the atmosphere to adjust to the increased level of CO2?”

That “TIME” question is only something like the speed of light, 40 hours, 2 weeks, 4 weeks or 3 months. That is how fast and how slow energy moves in the atmosphere. The oceans are slower of course but in a gas, energy moves fairly rapidly.

How much warmer will the atmosphere get then on those timeframes?

I don’t know but more CO2 slows down energy release in the lower atmosphere but more CO2 actually speeds up energy release in the upper atmosphere. Climate scientists say you need a climate model to be able to say. I say it is far, far too complicated to model and one needs to measure it.

Not much warming is happening in the lower atmosphere. The upper atmosphere is cooling but the volcanic and ozone destruction from volcanoes signal in that makes it hard to tell.

There is just not much going on that we should be able to see in the atmosphere fairly quickly given how fast and how slow energy moves in the atmosphere.

george e. smith

The earth has a mean circumference of about 40,000 km (21600NM). So a photon travels 300 meters in one millisecond which is about 2.7 angular degrees around a great circle path. Atmospheric refraction is about one degree at the horizon so when the last rays of sunshine just disappear , the center of the sun is already about 3/4 of a degree BELOW the geometric horizon. So the sun would need to be another two degrees or so to the West pass sunset, for a photon to have a 300km or 1 millisecond travel time to reach the surface, or to head back towards the sun after leaving the surface.

So the maximum escape time from the atmosphere for a photon is more like 200 microseconds; if it doesn’t get captured by a GHG molecule.

And H2O lines and CO2 lines do NOT overlap; the bands that contain them do, but individual lines (thousands of them) are almost never overlapping.

All this stuff is readily available in the literature or on line, so there is no excuse for WUWT readers to knot know these things.



Those lines get smeared by things like temperature and pressure.

Patrick MJD

“Alan Tomalty December 29, 2017 at 12:09 am

I have been doing a lot of reading on AGW but cant find the explanation of exactly why an increase in C02 which traps the long wave radiation…”

Your whole approach is wrong. CO2 does not trap LW radiation. Work out why it does not do that, then reset, and restart your research.


NASA says excess heat is lost to space, there can be no runaway heating:

“Temperature doesn’t infinitely rise, however, because atoms and molecules on Earth are not just absorbing sunlight, they are also radiating thermal infrared energy (heat). The amount of heat a surface radiates is proportional to the fourth power of its temperature. If temperature doubles, radiated energy increases by a factor of 16 (2 to the 4th power). If the temperature of the Earth rises, the planet rapidly emits an increasing amount of heat to space. This large increase in heat loss in response to a relatively smaller increase in temperature—referred to as radiative cooling—is the primary mechanism that prevents runaway heating on Earth.”

Then you have Richard Lindzen’s Iris effect, reviewed here byJudith Curry:

Some think Arrhenius was erroneous:

“The [greenhouse effect] general idea as expressed in contemporary literature, though seemingly chaotic in its diversity of emphasis, shows little change since its revision by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, and subsequent refutation by Robert Wood in 1909.

….this hypothesis has neither direct experimental confirmation nor direct empirical evidence of a material nature. Thus the notion of “Anthropogenic Global Warming”, which rests on the “Greenhouse Effect”, also has no real foundation.”

The late Oceanographer Robert Stevenson dismissed the idea of Trenberth’s missing heat hiding in the deep ocean, in a critique of Levitus et al 2000: “Yes, the Ocean Has Warmed; No, It’s Not ‘Global Warming’”
by Dr. Robert E. Stevenson:

In 2000:
“Contrary to recent press reports that the oceans hold the still-undetected global atmospheric warming predicted by climate models, ocean warming occurs in 100-year cycles, independent of both radiative and human influences.”

But as we know, “The Science is Settled”.

Thank you dennisambler for this paper.

Yes, the Ocean Has Warmed; No, It’s Not ‘Global Warming’
by Dr. Robert E. Stevenson, 2000

The NOAA Conclusions

The “bottom line” conclusions claimed by the NOAA study are these:
(1) The world ocean has exhibited coherent changes of heat content during the past 50 years, resulting in a net warming.
(2) There is no determination whether the observed warming is caused by natural variability or anthropogenic (man-induced) forcing.
(3) The warming supports the contentions of global-climate modellers that the planetary radiative disequilibrium, for the period of 1979 to 1996, may be the result of “excess heat accumulating in the ocean.”
(4) Sea-surface temperatures have had two distinct warming periods over the past century; from 1920 to 1940, THEN A COOLING PERIOD until the second warming began in the 1970s.

Please see point 4 – this ~35-year global cooling period is a far more convincing argument that falsifies the global warming hypothesis than any argument at the molecular/sub-molecular level (which has too many scale-up complexities, Imo).

Atmospheric temperatures are known to follow soon after ocean temperatures – typically ~4 months after the Nino34 area ocean surface temperature anomaly and ~6 months after the deeper Equatorial Upper Ocean temperature anomaly.

Ocean temperatures cooled from ~1940 to ~1975 and so did atmospheric temperatures. The moderate global atmospheric cooling that occurred from ~1940 to ~1975, even as fossil fuel consumption and atmospheric CO2 rapidly accelerated, adequately proves that increasing atmospheric CO2 is NOT a significant driver of global temperature.

Incidentally, that is why certain fraudsters have been “adjusting” the surface temperature record – to try to minimize the global cooling period from ~!1940 to ~1975. Here is Tony Heller’s evidence:

Happy New Year to all!

Best, Allan

DC Cowboy


CO2 doesn’t ‘trap’ IR coming from the surface, it redirects it in multiple directions, some continues on into space, some right back to the earth.


Most of the time, CO2 transfers the energy of that IR photon to another molecule via collision before it has a chance to re-radiate the photon.

Alan, the AGW argument is based on reductionism, setting aside realities of the climate system that contradict the predetermined notion that humans are warming the planet. It goes like this:comment image

The link provides a detailed discussion of the set of blinders required to believe in global warming/climate change.

It take it bu “Us” you mean Gaiea killing Westerners..
All virtuous Leftists are excluded.
The CO2 from Al Gore’s Jet or DeCaprio’s yacht doesn’t count.
Be virtuous in your speech and you’ll get a free pass on your actions.

Bryan A

In other words those two “Preachers” aren’t Practitioners


So was there a huge population explosion that ended each Ice Age? I must have missed the archaeological evidence for that somewhere.

Mary Lucas

That’s because it is a big lie.


“I have been doing a lot of reading on AGW but cant find the explanation of exactly why an increase in C02 which traps the long wave radiation from the earth surface will increase the temperature. What is the math on this on a global scale ?”

I never meant a man made global warming believer that can coherently articulate the hypothesis their faith is based on. For that you must go to the skeptics or the lukewarmers. At least many skeptics understand the hypothesis, and therefore can coherently explain its faults. Here’s a good starter:

Another thing I find with AGW believers are that they seemed to be math challenged. They usually assume that temperature increase is a direct linear or exponential function of co2 concentration, when the relationship is logarithm less and less significant as co2 concentration increases. And that’s before feedbacks, which much empirical evidence indicates may be net negative.

“…feedbacks, which much empirical evidence indicates may be net negative.”.
This is the key KT.
Observation SHOWS negative feedbacks undo CO2’s capture of IR heat.
There is NO tropospheric warm zone.
The CAGW “theory” necessitates positive feedbacks to CO2 warming.
No positive feedbacks = no catastrophic warming = no problem.
Some people just refuse to accept GOOD NEWS.

AGW is not Science

Spot on, RobRoy. And the Earth’s climate history shows us that CO2 level is MEANINGLESS to temperature.

On geologic time scales, there isn’t even a correlation, and the Earth’s average temperature has fluctuated between two extremes which differ by little and which are unaffected by CO2 level.

Within the overall lack of correlation are examples of extreme REVERSE correlation where CO2 (at 10x today’s level) could not stop the Earth’s climate from plummeting into a full-blown ice age lasting millions of years.

On shorter time scales where a correlation exists, it is EXACTLY THE REVERSE of what the Eco-Fascists would have you believe – it is temperature that drives the CO2 level, NOT the other way around.

So all the arguments about the “hypothetical” effect of increasing the atmospheric CO2 level are pointless, as the basic requirement for the hypothesized effect (and the thing that gets conveniently ignored or overlooked in all such discussions and in the Eco-Fascist “Climate Science” echo chambers) is that ALL OTHER THINGS *must be* HELD EQUAL. In the REAL world, those “other things” are NOT “held equal,” the “feedbacks” are NEGATIVE, not positive, and the *actual* effect of adding CO2 to the Earth’s atmosphere on temperature is NOT IDENTIFIABLY DIFFERENT THAN ZERO.

george e. smith

There’s no experimental data, and no valid theory for a logarithmic or any other formal mathematical relationship between CO2 abundance, and mean global Temperature. They don’t even both go in the same direction at times, and there are no logarithms for negative numbers.

A “logarithmic relationship” means that a doubling from 280 ppmm to 560 ppmm of CO2 would cause exactly the same mean global Temperature change as going from 1 ppmm to 2 ppmm , of from one molecule of CO2 in the atmosphere, to two CO2 molecules in the atmosphere. “logarithmic” is a very specific mathematical relationship; it does NOT mean ” any non-linear connection.”


Increased CO2 raises the altitude at which the atmosphere is free to radiate to space, thus lowering the temperature at which the atmosphere radiates to space, causing less heat to be lost to space. This is not controversial. The controversy is due to the complete impossibility of calculating the magnitude of this effect.

Water vapor is not involved in any way. Climate modelers like to pretend that increased heat in the atmosphere will increase water vapor causing a positive feedback, but there is no evidence of increased water vapor in the atmosphere. They just say “What if?” and pretend it is factual. These people have no shame.

AGW is not Science

It isn’t “controversial” IF (and ONLY IF) “ALL OTHER THINGS” are “HELD EQUAL,” which they are NOT. In the real world, the “other things” change, those “changes” are offsetting (i.e., negative feedbacks) in nature, and the assertion your first paragraph contains is thereby reduced to the field of “hypothetical BS.”

AGW is not Science,


Increased CO2 raises the altitude at which the atmosphere is free to radiate to space, thus lowering the temperature at which the atmosphere radiates to space, causing less heat to be lost to space. This is not controversial.

I think it IS.

CO2 is not the only player, and so to focus so intensely on it in this standard, convincing explanation is, … well, myopic.

george e. smith

Not true. There is direct experimental data for increased global Temperature causing increased atmospheric water vapor.
Read: ” How much more Rain will Global Warming Bring? ” Wentz et al, in SCIENCE for July 13 2007. They found that a one deg. C rise in mean global Temperature result is 7% more H2O evaporation, 7% increase in total atmospheric water content, and 7% increase in precipitation (which must match total evaporation)
That is if you don’t want the oceans to be over our heads; what goes up MUST come down.


george e. smith

You’ve got it completely backwards.

Water vapor is a strong absorber of short wave and near IR INCOMING solar energy, which therefore will NOT reach the deep oceans where most of earth’s heat storage is.

OK so that warms the atmosphere, but the specific heat of air is way less than that of water or land so a warmer atmosphere cannot make up for a loss of the stored solar energy in the oceans..

Clouds do not warm the surface. it ALWAYS cools down whether or not the sun is up or down. The local Temperature (sans sun) can only go up by importing heat from somewhere else (which is called convective heat transfer), but is a zero sum game. If the heated air (or water) moves into a locality, it must move OUT of somewhere else.
so absent imported heat or incoming solar energy, the local temperature must fall, clouds or no clouds.



PS – It’s actually more like the way deep space is about three degrees above absolute zero from our perspective, keeps you warm in a turbulent atmosphere ; )

The question is, Does CO2 trap longwave radiation? Yes.
comment image

More CO2 traps more heat. It traps heat in the lab and physics is the same everywhere. What is not clear is the feedbacks to CO2 trapping heat in the climate.

Ragnar, yes. CO2 retards cooling. Indisputable physics. Now, what that means in a turbulent chaotic convective atmosphere with potentially significant feedbacks is much debated.


Transfers energy immediately to other 99.96% of atmosphere.

Just another channel for the atmospheric COOLING mechanism.

No warming effect of atmospheric CO2 has ever been measured.


“CO2 retards cooling in a turbulent chaotic convective …”

There is ZERO proof that is the case.

CO2 acts as just another conduit for heat transfer.


“In other words, CO2 retards cooling PERIOD.
It’s the same way a nice winter jacket keeps you warm in a turbulent chaotic convective atmosphere with feedbacks.”

No, it’s not the same way . . obviously, it seems to me, Bob. I suspect you know that . . and suspect something the Mod does not feel it is “nice” to expess ; )

Look at the meaning of “heat”, and you will realize that CO2 cannot “trap” it.

Radiation? Nope, still cannot “trap” it.

Absorb radiation? — yes.

But EMITS radiation too.

CO2 seems to move radiation — it does NOT trap it, and it certainly does NOT trap a change in the process of this moving, which is what heat is — a change, NOT a thing, as I have come to understand it.


The Feldman paper is a load of model based assumptions, you are just too nil-educated to figure it out.

They did no partial checks to, say 2008, truly ANTI-science .

The warming was NOTHING to do with CO2.

Do you REALLY think this warming was CO2 based?

If so what caused the Cooling to 2012.
comment image

Your use of that paper shows just how brain-washed and anti-science you limited knowledge base really is


PS – It’s actually more like the way deep space is about three degrees above absolute zero from our perspective, keeps you warm in a turbulent atmosphere ; )

george e. smith

Well my only criticism would be that you only need one photon coming in, not two, and the outgoing photon will almost never be emitted in the same direction twice. The emission direction is quite isotropic and unrelated to the direction of the incoming photon.
And the CO2 molecule will likely continue its elbow bend oscillation until it gets struck by another atmospheric molecule (or atom) (except very high up where mean free paths are much longer).



comment image #saveforlaterposts

John Harmsworth

Interesting that your little animation shows the IR radiation always emitting downward. Of course that is not correct. But it is exactly how the AGW’ers imagine it.
Their biases infect the way we see things.


“Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer spectra ”

No , the tiny amount registered (after 5 years of calculations, lol) is from the NON-CO2 warming peak.

Remain unaware, Rob.


“Feldman wasn’t measuring temperature, they measured DWLWIR”

roflmao … yes from the extra warm of the small El Nino

And if you KNOW he wasn’t measuring temperature…

…. WHY did you put it forward as proof of CO2 causing warming a convective atmosphere.??

Seem the ONLY person you are fooling, is yourself.

The Reverend Badger

The discovery that CO2 , and other gases, can “trap heat” has been one of the most useful things to come out of the science of Global Warming. Thanks to this knowledge numerous double glazing firms are now using CO2 inside the panels and house construction techniques are being changed to incorporate balloons filled with CO2 in loft spaces and cavity walls.

There are also numerous other uses in many different spheres of engineering which are going to help us reduce heat loss in things like power stations.

A MOST useful discovery indeed. Give it another 20 years and we might even have done the experiments to QUANTIFY it!

Argon does the same.

Pat Frank

Alan, the idea is that CO2 coverts 15 micron radiation coming up from the warm surface, into vibrational energy, and then passes that off into the atmospheric gases (nitrogen and oxygen) as kinetic energy.

Kinetic energy is sensible heat = temperature.

So, it’s not that heat energy is created or that Thermodynamics is violated. It’s conversion of one sort of energy (radiation) into another (heat).

The physics is well worked out. The issue arises because the climate has a variety of fast-response channels, mostly involving hydrology – evaporation/condensation. This process completely controls the climate.

The extra kinetic energy may not show up as heat, if instead it causes more evaporation and precipitation. Or more cloud formation. Or more convection. Or some or all of the above. All these processes enhance radiation of thermal energy off into space.

With those in operation, the increased kinetic energy may be dissipated and not show up as heat at all.

None of those negative feedback processes are well-described in climate models. So no one knows what, if anything, CO2 emissions will do, or even can do, to the climate.

Looking at the behavior of the climate over the last 150 years, absolutely nothing unusual is going on, despite the alarmist shouts in the press. So far as we can tell, CO2 emissions have had no effect on the climate.

The bottom line is that there is presently no cause for worry at all, about CO2 emissions.


Oh dear, Ray is showing his ignorance again.

What are the length of the Milankovitch cycles, Ray

Please explain how “Milankovitch cycles” are responsible for the devastating COOLING into the Little Ice Age…

….. then the HIGHLY BENEFICIAL warming out of the Little Ice Age.

george e. smith

Thanks Pat for putting this in a straight forward manner that ALL WUWT readers can comprehend. We do a disservice to students when we continue to teach them that “heat” (noun) is transported by electro-magnetic radiation. ENERGY is; but it does not become “heat” (adjective) energy, until we waste most of that energy in interactions with matter. And the Carnot efficiency law shows that you can never put the toothpaste back into the tube. EM radiation > heat (noun) is not a reversible reaction.

Heat (noun) is transported by shopping cart. Fill the cart with presto logs (or even coal), and simply release the heat when you want to, by putting a match to the log or the coal.



Depends on how big the match is.

John Harmsworth

That’s it, it’s super cold out today because of a Milankovitch cycle! He usually shows up at night,I think. And for sure in the winter. He sure doesn’t show any respect for our heavy coat of CO2!I hate that guy!
But he’s ok in the summer.


“Learn about them here: ”

You first, Rob. !

Why use such a silly ploy to avoid answering a simple question?


CO2 (aka Climate Change, etc.) is the new Satan. There is no evil it cannot be blamed for.


Yes that is true. Co2 can be blamed for almost anything. And one more funny thing. As I read stories from ancient times they often describe the warm periods as good. Stable crops, prosperity both in farming and in commerse, less disasters and wars. Now when I read the press there is absolutely NOTHING that is good about a warmer climate. All is doom and gloom. Well maybe they were not so educated in previous times.

AGW is not Science

Yes I always like to force some cognitive dissonance by reminding people of this “inconvenient” fact – the WARMEST period during the current Epoch, the Holocene, is commonly known as the “Holocene Climate OPTIMUM.” Now why do you suppose they call it that – because the weather during that time was so awful?!

Patrick MJD

“Phil December 29, 2017 at 12:16 am

CO2 (aka Climate Change, etc.) is the new Satan. There is no evil it cannot be blamed for.”

CO2 is the new Santa, brining gifts of plenty? Sorry my dyslexia is terrible.

No problem, I used to be dyslexic but now I’m KO.


When life gives you lemons, make lemonade.
When life gives you melons, you’re dyslexic.


Did you hear about the dyslexic, insomniac agnostic?
He lay awake at night wondering if there was a dog.


I LIKE Trump, he is doing fantastic- but I still have to say, that is one of his more Coherent tweets 😛


I love the fact Trump didn’t just say “Global Warming”, he added the “old fashioned” to it.
global warming now has a Trump Forever Name.

Like Low Energy Jeb, Crooked Hillary, now we have “Old Fashioned GW.” Love it.


He didn’t say “Old Fashioned GW”, he said “good old GW”. It’s an off-the-cuff qualifier that adds nothing, unlike some of his other qualifiers.

If you want to credit Trump for a clever quote, at least get the quote right.


“It’s an off-the-cuff qualifier that adds nothing”

Adds plenty. 🙂

If you think Trump doesn’t consider exactly what he is tweeting, you haven’t been paying attention.


What is incoherent about his tweets? The following examples posted by Extreme Hiatus cannot be any clearer.
His constant barrage of tweets keep the MSM in a frenzy, an incoherent frenzy, exactly as Trump planned. The man is brilliant.

george e. smith

The advantage of tweets is that the public already knows the real news well before the MSM can concoct the fake news to report to us what we actually didn’t hear anybody say.

That’s what infuriates the Alphabet soupers; they no longer can invent news.



I call it “feeding the squirrels”. The more those squirrels run up and down the tree and to and fro, the less time they have to oppose his meaningful policy advances. Besides, squirrels can be so entertaining sometimes.

John F. Hultquist

scraft says “at least get the quote right.

Totally not necessary.
See: W. Churchill, Yogi Berra, Mark Twain, John Wayne, and many more.
From a Wayne film: “When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.” [ .. Liberty Valance ]
(… a note in the WSJ via Scott Stossel)


Wonderfulcomment image

michael hart

I sometimes consider re-opening a Twitter account just to follow him, but I’m still hopeful he’ll find an alternative and ditch them.

It must really stick in their craw when they admit to themselves he is the user they would most like to ban but can least afford to.

michael hart

And election time will probably be the best time to short Twitter stock, if they are still trading come the next election. When Trump stops being President then Twitter will probably lose most of the traffic from their most valuable and high profile user.

Extreme Hiatus

No need to be on Twitter to read his tweets.

Extreme Hiatus

Oops! I was just trying to post the link to his Twitter feed and that popped up.


“When Trump stops being President then Twitter will probably lose most of the traffic from their most valuable and high profile user.”

So you think Twitter will have a pretty good run until after 2024?

What about Pence? He might prove to be a good, effective Twitter commenter, too. So that might take Twitter out to about 2032.


Hopefully Nikki Haley keeps up the tweets after 2024.

george e. smith

Getting a bit ahead of yourself aren’t you Michael.

Wasn’t Hillary Clinton an 85% shoe-in, the day before the last election ??



President Trump will continue to be president long after his term/terms expire if he continues to Tweet.

Shear hatred toward the man will elevate him above his successor.

The Left might as well be distributing 6-shooters with all chambers full.


Clarification: The Left’s favorite game right now seems to be Russian Roulette.

(I don’t want the Secret Service to get the wrong impression yet a visit from them will end in a celebratory beer party.)


Democrat Presidents never go away after they leave office, so why should Republican ones?

The CAGW crowd must have a love-hate thing with Trump, no doubt some of the zealots are appalled, but the business end of the game must be rejoicing, because all publicity is good publicity.


If the alarmists constantly make us cherry picking at the slightest rise of the thermometer, or the slightest event going in the direction of their dogma, why those who understood that anthropogenic global warming is the largest global lie of this century, and that the pharaonic expenditures desired by the dogma are useless (except for the small minority who benefits), would they not do the same during particularly cold and snowy periods?

It’s good to see that Donald Trump has trumped them yet again. Where is that old Global warming when you need it? Warmists have given up trying to explain how CO2 causes Global warming of any significance, as even after 30+ years they cannot do so. They just say that the ‘Science’ is settled, even when it obviously is not.


You are so correct, weather is NOT climate.

But In today’s climate “science”, one heat record is always proof of global warming, just as California’s current, record setting, zero precipitation rainy season is “proof”.

But cold? No. Never. That’s insignificant.


After decades of human-caused global warming record cold temperatures are more significsnt than record warm temperatures. Record cold can be accommodated within the AGW paradigm by claiming greater variability in climate resultant on the warming. But that would also require that warm records are (a) far more numerous than cold records and (b) Many new warm records oustrip the old records of a few decades ago by a greater amount than the ride in average temperatures in that area.

Alan D McIntire

That argument seems rather suspect to me. When I warm my cream of wheat on the stove on a cold winter morning, the temperature of the cream of wheat MAY become more variable if I don’t stir it, but it NEVER becomes cooler in spots than it was before I started to heat it.


This is climate science we’re discussing. Their MagicMolecule™️ can do anything.


The claim is that before CO2, the jet stream was a stable predictable thing that never wobbled about.
Now the jet stream is unstable and occasionally brings down blasts of arctic air in ways that it never did before.
The mere fact that the jet stream has always become unstable during the winter is conveniently forgotten.

ivor ward

“Playing the Trump card” takes on a whole new meaning in this era. Wish we had one in the UK to play against the EU.

AGW is not Science

I’m partial (in the CAGW nonsense arena) to “Observations TRUMP theory.”


I grow weary of the old, “weather is not climate,” meme. No, but the average of the weather IS the climate. Suppose your child insisted he has made changes so his semester grade will be a B, but his weekly test scores were frequently Ds. What would your response be if he said that a test score was not the Semester grade?
You must first change the test scores before the semester average changes. Likewise, you must first change the daily weather before the climate changes. We still see these record cold waves far too frequently in far too many places to claim we have warmed the climate.


I don’t know how many times I have said this when there is a warm event/cold event/ hurricane/no hurricane etc etc. But even people who condemn the idea on one side, are happy to use it on another. It’s a bit like ‘whataboutism’ , it is condemned by many, who promptly go on to use it themselves.
Consistency of approach is what we need.


Climate extremists are consistent.
Consistently wrong.
In the most annoying, expensive and self-righteous way possible.

Stevan Reddish

When someone wants to pull a “whatabout…” on me I say “By avoiding my point you are conceding you cannot refute my point. OK, lets look at your next point.” They then go to name calling as their next ploy.


george e. smith

Not true.

Climate is the INTEGRAL of the weather, not the AVERAGE.

And it is a highly non-linear system so please don’t tell us that the two are related by a constant..

What would be the value of that constant ?? (if there was one)


John F. Hultquist

Vegetation ‘integrates’ climate.
That’s why early climate classification (Köppen) used various plants at ecotones — transition between biomes — to draw boundaries.


Well, lets face it, Mr.Trump has been a source of hilarity for most of the world outside the US for the last 12 months, so it’s only fair he has a shot as well.
I wonder how he feels about this uncomfortable news, maybe he can give us another rib tickler?


And how long will that battery be able to provide backup power? Plus what were the costs to build/install and the replacement costs compared to other systems?

Not saying it’s not useful but it’s not the game changer that is required for solar and wind power to match fossil fuels as energy providers.

Mark Hansford

50 million dollars – or 40 dollars per S Australian or @ 150 dollars per household – just for that battery to smooth out outages. Worth every penny. will power a light bulb for about an hour per person (@60W/person). Seeing as the quote is for 30,000 people the cost is mind boggling – if scaled up from 30,000 to 1.6 million the cost for wind farm batteries to cover the entire population of S Australia would be @ $7500 per household.

I would also comment that renewables such as wind and sun are not free once they come into contact with a turbine or photoelectric cell, any more so than oil or coal – which are also completely free until they are actually mined and derive a cost from there on. Renewables generally are only affordable once subsidies are taken into account – and that is not truly free money is it? If you were to add the subsidy money on to your energy bill rather than pay the tax, I would imagine there would be a huge outcry – especially from those that barely make a living or live in a cold climate. Imagine living in the -20C temperatures around the great lakes for the next few weeks and be unable to afford the heating!! (I doubt any of them are in much disagreement with The Donalds tweet)


He’s also pretending that the batteries and the maintenance of the batteries are free.


It can power up to 30,000 homes, though only for short periods — meaning that the battery must still be supported by traditional power plants in the event of a long outage

You post some nonsense!

Patrick MJD

“roger December 29, 2017 at 3:08 am

It can power up to 30,000 homes, though only for short periods — meaning that the battery must still be supported by traditional power plants in the event of a long outage…”

So power goes out, the battery kicks in, in milliseconds apparently, and 10 minutes later, the power goes out again and the “traditional power plants” (Diesel backup, already installed at the site) kicks in? So why not cut the “middleman” out of the wasted power/infrastructure and go diesel?

A C Osborn

He should have actually read the article, it did not actually Supply much electricity to Customers, it was used to try and balance the Grid Frequency due to an outage and because it is a battery and needs no “Ramping time” it was quicker than anything else.
It also was exhausted quicker than anything else, it lasted just 3 to 4 minutes and then went in to hibernation made before drawing energy from the grid again.
Wow what a performance.

Patrick MJD

“A C Osborn December 29, 2017 at 3:33 am”

I have a set of Bose QC35 headphones. Totally awesome devices and would recommend them, albeit costly, to anyone who, like me and the host of WUWT, has hearing issues (No! Bass playing and 200W amps had NOTHING to do with it). While charging these phones, you can’t use them.


What is about these AGW acolytes. None of them take the time to actually read the articles they quote.


Power for SA for like, 10 minutes WHOOPY DO. !!!


Just enough time to fire up the gas fired power.

And hope that Victoria has some to spare…. via NSW… from Queensland.

Geoff Sherrington

The NEM grid would have recovered routinely without the battery.
If input had been needed for an hour or more, the battery could not have done it.
Nor could solar because it was night time.
Nor could wind, because it cannot be cranked up suddenly and does not have frequency content.
It is easy to envisage that renewables are more likely to cause such ruptures because of the demands they place on frequency stability.
Besides, if the grid had no renewables or batteries, domestic electricity would be half present cost and more reliable.
Time to dump batteries and renewables and go back to low prices like we had 15 years ago.


Geoff , In the UK, a large amount of goods and material were a lot cheaper 15 years ago. ( Except my energy bills, which are now substantially cheaper due to renewable energy sources)
By the way, why could the battery have not provided back up? Don’t make it too technical !

Paul Penrose

That battery is simply not big enough, even just for one Australian state. Think about how long your car will run on a shot glass full of gasoline.

A C Osborn

Gareth is telling fibs about his Energy bill now. I happen to live in the UK as well and Energy is not cheaper and it is actually more expensive due to Renewables.
tut tut


A C Osborn states that :

Gareth is telling fibs about his Energy bill now. I happen to live in the UK as well and Energy is not cheaper and it is actually more expensive due to Renewables.
tut tut

Gareth kindly responds.:

AC, I know life is hard for you, but having solar panels reduces your electricity bill drastically. If you also have hot water solar panels as I do, the bills are almost negligible. Now, lets follow this through.
These bits of technology are known as ‘Renewable resources’, you may never have heard of them, but thats not my problem. As a result of having them installed, my bills are now almost negligible, which means in economic terms, they are less than they were. Anthony also has a similar system, you can check these things out with him if you need confirmation.
I know it’s complex, but please be patient.
So when I write, “my bills are reduced due to renewable resources”, is that correct? Take your time. No need to rush.

Now, you are unsure as to why the Dinorwig project is essentially similar to the Batteries.
Dinorwig generates substantially more power than these batteries so are they completely different ideas?

Well, my Yamaha 125 does not generate as much power as my Renault Megane Coupe.
So here is the big question. Take your time again.

Are they both motor vehicles?
Do they both provide transport?
So irrespective of power generation, do they have a close relationship in purpose?
You see, it’s easy if you just think it through. 🙂

Now, what is the purpose of the battery and Dinorwig system? are they essentially for the same purpose?
Need I still be ashamed for pointing out we have a system in Wales used for the same purpose, but very different in energy production?
Da iawn Mr.Orbourn, rydych chi wedi gweld y golau ! ( In the language of Dinorwig.)


“even just for one Australian state”

And the whole state has a population considerably less than any of the three main east coast cities.

A C Osborn

Of course your bills are less if you installed Solar panels the rest of the Tax payers and Electricity payers are subsidising your bill.
How astute of you to realise that robbing old age pensioners makes your Electricity bills almost non existent.
What a lovely person you are.
As to comparing a Battery supplying a few Mwhrs that can barely balance the Ausy grid to Dinorwig which supplies 9.1 GWh is not comparing a Yamaha to a Megane it is comparing an electric radio controlled car to a Megane.

A C Osborn

On second thoughts an Electric radio controlled car is a bit disparaging to the BBG, let’s make it an Invalid Scooter.
No Power, No Range and no Bloody use to man nor beast when it needs recharging.


Gareth is right, but I have come up with a much better solution to not only reduce, but eliminate, my current energy bills.

Over the last five years my electricity bill has been ZERO. I haven’t had to pay anything. It has been fantastic.

You see, five years ago I borrowed $12,000 and put it on my account at the local electricty/water supplier.

Admittedly, I am paying 9% interest on the borrowed money. And I have to pay back the principal. But that is a separate item and it is all payed automatically from checking account so it is not technically associated with my energy bills. My overall monthly outgo is higher, but I don’t pay anything at all for energy … I WIN!


(keep up the good fight Gareth)

Geoff Sherrington

My employer used to own and operate a couple of large power stations, so please consider that I might know a little about the topic.
That SA battery is an expensive band aid that should work in some limited circumstances that are mainly caused by the SA move from fossil to unreliable.
This is as clear as the trillions that president Trump is saving from spending on poor climate science and global government aspirations by others.
That is about the pertinent point of the battery discussion. Anything contrary is diversions, straw men, wishful thinking and just plain fibs. Geoff.

Patrick MJD

“DonM December 29, 2017 at 4:30 pm”

Are you in Australia? Then you are being subsidised by those who cannot install renewables.

Tom in Florida

Gareth December 29, 2017 at 1:58 am

“Well, lets face it, Mr.Trump has been a source of hilarity for most of the world outside the US for the last 12 months, ”

Frankly Gareth, we don’t give a damn.

Trump is indeed a source of hilarity for much of the world outside of the US – but not in the way Gareth means. Trump trolls are some of the finest entertainment to be had these days. A few of the more memorable highlights from this year were the Great Meme War of 2017 where CNN rushed all to pieces against his rocky bosom (Richard III), the awesome Mexican Border Wall Solar Panel troll and the superb US Coal Sales Conference at COP 23 in Bonn troll. Pants-wettingly funny. The best part of all is that humourless tools like Gareth don’t even realise they’re being trolled.


Tom in Florida, USA states:

Frankly Gareth, we don’t give a damn.

In echoing that famous movie phrase Tom, you sum it all up. You can never recover or see the problem if you just don’t care. It’s a huge challenge to change criminal or health risk behaviours when people truly don’t care anymore. Personally I believe that the US has to go through a dysfunctional Trump Presidency to understand how bad things could be and what a wonderful nation they have without the need for silly statements like ‘Make America Grate Again” etc.
I hope and pray Trump is never indicted for anything or forced to resign. The alternative does not bear thinking about. Dysfunctional politics is one thing, but a pseudo-theocracy in the US is a dreadful prospect.


I don’t recall personally insulting you Cephus ( be brave and use your real name as I do) You may feel your hero is being insulted, but does that give you the right to personally insult me? What happened to the idea of freedom of expression? Try and remember, when you personally attack someone criticising your glorious leader, you denigrate his stature as one of his acolytes. Do you recall Obama telling his audience to allow people to criticise him in a major conference? There is your inspiration. If Trump trolls people he does not like and much hilarity ensues, surely it is reasonable for the joke to be returned?


“the awesome Mexican Border Wall Solar Panel troll and the superb US Coal Sales Conference at COP 23 in Bonn troll.”

Those were good trolls! Lol! good!

Trump knows just how to agitate the Leftists, and likes doing it.

Alan Robertson

Oh, we see the problem and we care, Gareth, we care.
We just don’t care about what you have to say about it.

South River Independent

Gareth – Tom does not care what the rest of the world thinks about Trump. Neither do I. The rest of the world, and domestic sufferers of TDS, are like newborn puppies, but eventually their eyes will open.


One thing I’ve noticed about liberals. They spend lots of time going to conferences where they spend all their time telling each other how superior they are.

Kaiser Derden

uncomfortable news ??? why ??? if Australia hadn’t mess up their conventional power generation system there would have been no need for the Tesla scam battery …


Yes, that’s great news – 2 grid outages already avoided.

Preventing grid outages is the primary purpose for grid scale storage after helping with the (predicted) change in required capacity as solar declines at end of day or wind drops off.

It would surely have avoided the outage when the power lines went down…

Meanwhile in the UK at least Trump is widely openly mocked by all sections of society and all shades of political opinion.


Not all sections of society Griff. he actually horrifies some people. But he is very popular with the far right such as Britain First and Neo Nazi parties. Nigel Farage obviously dotes on him, but from speaking to UKIP politicians in Government they are somewhat more wary. One of the more interesting comments was “we stay at arms length, we can see where this is going” But Trump has his devoted followers in the US which is all that probably concerns him.

Russ R.

We don’t have a need for expensive batteries, to backup expensive wind and solar. We have nuclear that is stable, coal that is stable, natural gas that is stable, and a few Obama windmills that spend more time idle than disrupting the grid. And our electricity is $0.07 per KWH.
If I had to pay the electricity rates and tax rates “all sections of society” in the UK pay, I would also look for someone to mock. Mocking someone else sure beats looking in the mirror and seeing a broke fool staring back at you.


I didn’t know Neo Nazi parties were big in Israel?


what parameters are you considering or looking at when claiming a possible grid outage, or a prevention of a grid outage??!!…….you see there is some clear parameters of what that will be in the case of SA, as recorded and clearly shown in the last one, a total one, a little more than a yer ago, Griff.

Has this superb storage being subject to prevent some thing like that or similar, or is just you being triggered, by and the Elon’s minions claims?!

Griff, counting eggs is just that, does not mean you can count any chickens as yet….

The people of SA have paid Elon for a system that will prevent real scenarios of black outage, like or similar to the lats year one, not just obfuscated silly ones, which if really have occurred as described or claimed, have already degraded the battery storage system.
Please send more money to Elon…..

From this prospect is more like a premature loss for nothing at all, then any achievement as claimed by the losers, i would say.

Maybe due to lack of proper info and maybe a rush of me in this, I could and up to be wrong, but please if you can show that what claims consist as a proper and possible black-outage scenario, please do offer the info and the data, if you could, otherwise please consider that this may be just the next con-cover, for failure….

You see our best and bravest minds already have saved us from the ozone whole armagedon, and still some “sillies” and “deniers” keep booing at it, Griff.


A C Osborn

A Pair of Snowflakes who do not like President Trump, do not speak for the rest of the UK.

Griff, you need to learn some grid basics. Your ignorance shines through.
Neither wind nor solar provide grid inertia, while all conventional generation (coal, gas, nuclear, hydro) does by definition. The grid inertia is inherent in the flywheel effect of large synchronously rotating generator masses. It is true that voltage sags (seen equivalently as frequency sags since AC math uses complex numbers) will shut down a grid by design to protect it. And it is true that insufficient generating capacity is one source (of many, the main problem being reactive current from, for example, induction motors like in air conditioners and factories) of voltage/frequency sag. For voltage frequency transient stabalization lasting a few seconds, the Tesla battery is an alternative to synchronous condensers. So are statcomms, essentially double layer capacitors (supercaps) plus power electronics. Statcomms have been around for a decade. The Tesla installation substitutes LiIon bateries for the supercaps. No magic there.
But grid inertia has little to do with sufficient dispatchable generating sources. Thatbis the big picture, intermittency. SA grid failed for lack of sufficient dispatchable sources once the wind turbines shut down because windspeeds were too high. The Tesla battery would ‘save’ SA for about 5 minutes in that scenario. Then things still go dark for insufficient dispatchable capacity.
The primary problem with renewables is intermittency. The secondary problem is lack of grid inertia. The first can be solved by standby dispatchable backup—at great cost, essentially buying capacity twice. The second can be solved by installing synchronous condensers—essentially generators without the driving turbines—also at great added cost. Which is why increasing renewables penetration with capacity factors below ~35% ALWAYS drives electricity prices up even if the renewables themselves were free. Cold hard reality of reliable grid engineering 101.

“Meanwhile in the UK at least Trump is widely openly mocked by all sections of society and all shades of political opinion.”
You have no idea as to how much most Americans couldn’t care less about what people like you think about any part of us.


Griff – the battery didn’t prevent any grid outages. They provided a little support (between 1 and 5%, depending on how you calculate the drop) when some big units dropped off. They didn’t provide any inertia. The main thing that prevent grid outages in SA is the change in AEMO rules so they have to keep a certain number of gas plants on and constrain off wind.
And the battery has next to know low voltage ride through so they would have been no use during the last power cut, which was cause by the rapid RoCoF caused by too much wind on with their inherent no inertia- It is in the report, but that would be beyond you.


Griff, just wait until President Trump drops the corporate tax rate to 15% in the US in two years! We’ll see how companies that fled the US in past decades will then flee the UK and all other countries worldwide in droves as they head back.

You’ll end up with plenty of electricity, but no GDP to use it on!

Mock away, old chap!


Europe is made up of a lot of Leftists/Socialists so it’s no surprise they don’t like Trump. American Leftists/Socialists don’t like Trump either.

Fortunately, the world is made up of more than just Leftists/Socialists.


ristvan, you are actually buying that power three times, not just twice. Renewable, battery, standard power sources.


Batteries provide frequency control (short term load balancing), they cannot provide load leveling. Timelines for frequency control are milli-seconds to a few seconds. The 250Mw of backup generation they installed supplies long term load leveling.


I got the impression he has been a source of great anxiety and consternation for most of the world. Didn’t seem most of “the world” was laughing when he pulled out of Paris or declared the US moving it’s embassy to Jerusalem. Nor are they happy about the corporate tax cuts. Canada is unhappy about renegotiating NAFTA with him an so is Mexico nor about immigration policy and the promise to build the wall.
Nope he is a real threat to those that wish to diminish the US or drain it of it’s wealth or see it’s defenses degraded. Not hilarious at all!

Leonard Lane

Thank you RAH.

Mickey Reno

Wow, typical Griff BS. Do even read these articles that you foist on us as some sort of proof that your beliefs in magic windmills are justified?

For the rest of you, his link is to a WaPo article about Elon Musk’s donated (proof of concept) Powerwall battery system, that backs up the rapidly failing South Austria crash test dummy power grid. The battery performed quickly during some frequency fluctuations in the grid. But the article fails to mention that those frequency fluctuations would not have even existed if coal or fossil fuels were used to energize the grid in the first place. They were the result of jiggly power provided by the renewable sources those wacky S. Aussies love so much.

Other statements from the article

– [the Powerwall battery] can power up to 30,000 homes, though only for short periods — meaning that the battery must still be supported by traditional power plants in the event of a long outage. [i.e. coal fired generating plants in Victoria and New South Wales]

– In the past three weeks alone, the [Tesla Powerwall] has smoothed out at least two major energy outages [Oh, that’s comforting, only two major outages. I guess those two outages must have been short in duration]

– The effectiveness of Tesla’s battery is being closely watched in a region that is in the grips of an energy crisis. The price of electricity is soaring in Australia, particularly in the state of South Australia, where a 2016 outage led 1.7 million residents to lose power in a blackout. Storms and heat waves have caused additional outages, and many Australians are bracing for more with the onset of summer in the Southern Hemisphere. [well, that certainly sounds like a ringing endorsement… energy crisis, soaring prices, storms and heat waves means more blackouts, that all sounds very comforting… if you’re as dumb as Griff]

Matt Bergin

You are right Mickey. That vaulted battery could only supply 4000 watts to those 30000 homes for an hour. That would not even run your Kitchen stove and the fridge together and if you were to try to add the furnace as well you would be in the dark. A microwave will use nearly 1500 watts all by itself. A waste of effort like everything else Elon does.

Michael Jankowski

Which part was “uncomfortable?” This part of your link (with caps for emphasis)?

“…The effectiveness of Tesla’s battery is being closely watched in a region that is in the grips of an energy crisis. THE PRICE OF ELECTRICITY IS SOARING in Australia, particularly in the state of South Australia…”

Trying to rely on unreliable solar caused “an energy crisis.” A battery is faster than a coal-fired backup…no surprise. Note that they still need the coal.

Timo Soren

This is by no means uncomfortable news. First, placing a battery in the system that can instantly switch from charging to discharging SHOULD balance the system within the range of the kwh it can provide. The final AEMO report shows that the loss of 456MW of high wind energy caused the Heyword interconnector to activate and SA should have had power to not have a black out but then the frequency imbalance (drop from 50Mhz to 47Mhz) was more than the system could tolerate and the system crashed in steps over 1 second. All of the interesting stuff occurred over 44 seconds.

So the fact that the battery is stabilizing a system under a sudden change of power supplies is great but
a.) is it quickly getting the power out there? (looks good so far)
b.) is it getting the right frequency out there? (looks good so far but they haven’t release data yet)
c.) does it have enough power to save SA from a catastrophic even failure (still unknown)

So basically it is acting as an a simple regulator that has capacitors involved, in this case, a battery.


Here’s my takeaway from the link you provided, Gareth:

“Fed by wind turbines at the nearby Hornsdale wind farm, the battery stores excess energy that is produced when the demand for electricity isn’t peaking. It can power up to 30,000 homes, though only for short periods — meaning that the battery must still be supported by traditional power plants in the event of a long outage.”

The battery can power 30,000 homes for a short period of time, then the coal-fired powerplants have to take over. What about the other 1,600,000 residents? It sounds like South Australia is going to need a lot more Musk batteries to cover everyone, and a lot more horrible windmills.

Anyone with any sense would scrap this whole misadventure and go to coal, natural gas and nuclear.


Thanks TA
So you are confirming that the array works? That’s great . Once something like that is demonstrated to work, and fast, it is only a question of scale. The first cars were pretty slow and unreliable, but they worked.
The time taken for the array to kick in when required was also pretty fast. We have something similar in Wales where we pump water up to a mountain lake to store energy. Same principle, but much more expensive.

A C Osborn

Gareth, I suggest you actually take a look at Dinorwig Power Station, to liken it to that tiny little battery is an insult to Welsh Engineering.
It produces 1,728-megawatts and the energy storage capacity of the station is approximately 9.1 GWh.
You sir are an idiot.


Gareth you do not seem to realize batteries do not generate electricity.

Here are some Trump facts to help you out.

An incomplete list:

The economy has taken an unprecedented move towards the better.
GDP is moving upwards. Most are forecasting close to 4% growth in 2018.
New jobs are increasing monthly.
Manufacturing jobs are returning to the country for the first time in thirty years.
The bleeding of corporations leaving the country has stopped.
Corporations have begun to reinvest in American factories and interests.
Trade deals are being renegotiated to our economic benefit.
The first major tax cut legislation in thirty years was just signed into law.
Massive amounts of regulation have been cut, spurring business optimism.
Consumer optimism is higher than in the past two decades.
The coal industry in our country has been revived.
Pipelines for oil have been released for construction completion.
We have expanded oil drilling, even in ANWAR.
We are virtually energy independent as a nation.
Our energy businesses have become exporters.
Our stock market is through the roof, up 30%, new highs almost daily.
Business optimism has not been higher. Atlas stopped shrugging.
The horrid Obamacare individual mandate was torpedoed.
Justice Neal Gorsuch was voted to the Supreme Court.
Trump appointed more judges in his first year than any other President.
He is remaking the judiciary in a conservative image as he promised.
He has slowed illegal immigration to a level not seen in thirty years.
He is destroying MS 13, and other illegal immigrant gangs.
He is speaking openly of ending chain immigration.
He has successfully gone after ISIS, virtually driving them into the ground.
He has acknowledged Jerusalem as the Capitol of Israel.
He has reset our alliance with Israel.
He is quietly helping to remake a Middle East that is a bulwark against Iran.
He has quietly reset our alliance with the new leaders of Saudi Arabia.
He is quietly reversing the horrible Iranian deal left us by Obama.
He has been the first President to stand against the insanity of North Korea.
He has connected with the Chinese leadership, enlisting them as allies.
He has pulled out of TPP, beginning negotiation on a better deal.
He is renegotiating NAFTA.
He has pulled us out of the ridiculous and harmful Paris Climate Accord.
He has begun to dismantle the corruption of climate data by our bureaucracies.
He has reset an agenda for space exploration by NASA.
He has brought hope to the mission of our military.
He has worked and enacted better care and treatment for our Veterans.
He is redefining our mission in national security with his speech last week.
He has put the United Nations on notice for their arrogant nonsense.
He has and is exposing the national media for the leftist activism base it is.
He has fought the self-tarnished media more effectively than any other.
He has exposed the Democratic Party as corrupt, issueless, and powerless.
He has exposed the fecklessness, and fraud of the GOP.
He is quietly remaking the GOP from their own ashes.
He has exposed the deep state to public view. And is just beginning.
He is exposing the corruption of our bureaucracies by the Obama administration.
He is exposing the insanity of the hard left, and their utter lack of decency.
He has driven mad the constituency of #nevertrumpers on the right. Exposed.
Last mentioned: he has earned the unity and praise of the elected GOP. Which has been well deserved. This is one we on the right should all applaud.
There will be many lists of his accomplishments in the next month, a few have come out already. Some on the left understand what is happening, while most on the left run around like chicken littles telling us the sky is falling, that “The Russians are Coming”! That Trump doesn’t know what he is doing. That Trump is the evil of evils. That Trump has never done anything right in his whole life!

In the meantime, Trump has plans to begin rebuilding infrastructure, building the wall, to make a military be strong and proud again, to honor our veterans, our police, perhaps fully repeal Obamacare. There is more, his list is large, and he is learning at warp speed.

Newt Gingrich commented during the campaign, that Trump was the fastest learner he had ever seen. His campaign grew from week to week.

Paul Penrose

And add to that: The DOW has shown 9 consecutive months of gains – the most since 1957 when a record 12 month period of consecutive gains ended.


Yea, when a Republican is in the WH it is always “the economy stupid” until it’s not because the economy is good. The economic numbers and unemployment are ignored and they move on to something else like “the homeless” like they just appeared when a Republican moves into the office.


By the way, Trump has
– Lied substantially more than any other President on record. In facts he has related more whoppers in his first 6 moths than Obama and other Presidents did in their whole eight years.
– Most of the positive achievements you mention were actually initiated under Obama.
– Do you recall his complaints about Obama’s Holidays, how is Trump in comparison?

There is substantially more. Check it out. While we feel sympathy for the US, there is a substantial difference in making a mistake, and refusing t recognise it, and even celebrating it. Having said that, in common with yourself I hope he is never forced to step down as President. Dysfunctional politics is one thing, but a theocracy in the US is a nightmare prospect.


Oh yes, Obama had the economy staged for Trump to get it rolling.
Obama was working hard to get a tax cut going.
Obama was going to get us out of Paris.
Obama was going kick ISIS ass.
Obama was going to tell the PA where they could stick it and begin supporting Israel.
Obama was going to reorient NASA back towards it’s primary goal.
Obama was going to get right on dealing with the illegal immigrant gangs that he had allowed to become established.
Obama was going to actually support the military unlike he had for his whole two terms.
Obama was going to start supporting Brexit.

Too funny, Gareth. BTW we’re still looking for those Shovel Ready jobs.


Something for RAH to show Trumps commitment to opposing the idea of human induced climate change. H/T to the Irish Times.

The president reportedly submitted the application to erect two sea barriers after his coastal golf resort suffered erosion due to “thirty-meter waves and driving rain.” In the original application, Trump who has since denied the effects of global climate change “cited global warming and rising seas as a reason for needing the wall.”

He likes his wall eh!

Philip of Taos

nc, I’am going to print and post your list on my fridge. I have a couple of friends that will enjoy it.


Trumps commitment to opposing the idea of human induced climate change….

Do you really think people on this blog are as stupid as you are?

“cited global warming”


Your darn right I like the wall. A nation that cannot or will not control it’s borders and access is a nation in words only. Just like all the members of the EU. I drive a truck for a living and have had to pass the Canadian-US border well over 100 times. To get back into the country I defended and was born into I have to show my US passport and I don’t mind that at all. Despite the fact that I once had a TS clearance in the military there are times the load I’m bringing back into the US is inspected or X-rayed and the cab of my truck is rifled through for contraband and I don’t object to that either. As a citizen of this nation I have a right to expect that my nation will take the prudent security measures to protect me and my fellow CITIZENS by preventing the easy access to my nation by criminals, terrorists. As a tax payer I have a right to object to my tax dollars being used in social programs that fund people that broke the law to get here and are not citizens. If you have a problem with any of that Gareth I could care less.

John F. Hultquist

nc wrote: “He has acknowledged Jerusalem as the Capitol of Israel.”

Not exactly. He wants the US embassy moved to the capital.

from Wikipedia
The Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995[1] is a public law of the United States passed by the 104th Congress on October 23, 1995. The proposed law was adopted by the Senate (93–5),[2] and the House (374–37).[3] The Act became law without a presidential signature on November 8, 1995.
The Act recognized Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Israel and called for Jerusalem to remain an undivided city.


nc, where did you get this laundry list? Fox News? Breitbart?

Consider the source.


“nc, where did you get this laundry list?”

should be obvious it was CNN


The list, credit to David Prentis, American Thinker
Scraft1 can you refut any of the bullets.

Gareth and Griff, have they ever refuted any posts?


Well, Gareth, if President Trump is the biggest liar, President Obama was the most corrupt president in US history, having politicized the IRS, the DOJ, the FBI, the EPA, and on and on.

I can’t think of a department of the Federal Government he didn’t corrupt.

We’re right now in what will turn out to be the biggest political scandal in US history–all because the FBI and DOJ conspired with the DNC and Hillary Clinton to ignore her criminality before the election then claim President Trump stole the election by doing exactly what the Left had been doing.


I just hope our country survives.

And Obama was also noted as the “Lyin’ King”, too–that’s how he nefariously sold the Affordable Care Act and practically all of his anti-American agenda. And yet the guy looked at Americans on TV and claimed there wasn’t a smidgen of corruption in his whole administration!


I can’t verify who says President Trump is a liar, but one thing is known for sure, and that is the Democrats are the party of hate and deception–that they destroy practically everything they touch.

Take the NFL for example. Or health care in the US. Or education. Or science, which perversion has become laughable! Or energy production. Or the economy. Or nukes for Iran, or ignoring North Korea.

They have also become the Democrat Sedition Party, and could care less if it rips the USA apart.

They are that evil.


Excellent, comprehensive comments, nc.


“By the way, Trump has
– Lied substantially more than any other President on record. In facts he has related more whoppers in his first 6 moths than Obama and other Presidents did in their whole eight years.”

According to who, the Leftwing media? The real liars are the Leftwing media.


“Or nukes for Iran,”

Since you brought it up, don’t be surprised if Iran already has nuclear weapons. Iran works in close cooperation with North Korea and if funding them, no doubt, with Obama cash, and if North Korea has a nuclear weapon design that works, then so do the Mad Mullahs of Iran.

Thanks for nothing Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama. You guys were supposed to guard us against madmen with nuclear weapons and now look at what you have given us: TWO madmen with nuclear weapons.

Trump is going to have to nuke both North Korea and Iran because of the fecklessness of our three former presidents. They could have nipped this crisis in the bud, but they decided to kick the can down the road and let someone else handle it. Now there is no more road.


To a liberal, anything they disagree with is a lie.

george e. smith

Well we here in the USA enjoy it as well. The POTUS is speaking to the American people. If foreigners can get enjoyment from that as well, more power to you. Only the MSAM and the corruptors in the Democratic party (Brazil, DWS, Pelosi etc; they know who they are), are enjoying well deserved discomfort.



Bryan A

Perhaps he will tackle that Nasty Debt that the prior administration placed upon us

Looking at these links and the charts they contain, it is easy to spot when Obama took office, the National and Public Debt skyrockets by almost 100% ($10Trillion)


“Mr.Trump has been a source of hilarity “….that’s called a nervous laughter


Standard left wing response.
Anyone who disagrees with me is stupid.


Let’s be sure to remind them this summer when they claim that a week-long heat wave is proof of their premise.

‘They’ aren’t all saying exactly the same thing. What I hear a lot goes like:

We can’t blame this particular weather event on climate change but we can expect more of this kind of thing in the future.

That’s a nuanced approach. The problem is that most folks can’t be bothered with nuance. 🙂 As H.L. Mencken said:

Because the plain people are able to speak and understand, and even, in many cases, to read and write, it is assumed that they have ideas in their heads, and an appetite for more. This assumption is a folly. link

I think most people look on a nuanced approach to anything as a rabbit hole, ie. a big waste of time and effort.

The problem for the alarmists is that the people see through the obvious lies and can’t be bothered with a more subtle approach.

A week of heat, “AGW.” Blizzards, Climate Change. It’s a win, win, win scenario, unless of course you are a taxpayer a bat, bird or a homeowner living near a windmill. Sat here looking out of my window and watching a “rare and exciting event” with sub-zero temperatures.The logical option of whether to get the car out of the garage and go out and buy food now, or risk it later and get the car stuck in snow, denied me because the MetOffice insists on factoring in climate change into its forecasts making them so useless that even the Leftie BBC has ditched them.

This is the perect response to what this Presidential buffoon is tweeting about. How this man ever made it to becoming the 45th POTUS I have absolutely no idea … it certainly wasn’t through intellectual nouse …

Donald Trump doesn’t know the difference between climate and weather:

By Presidential buffoon I presume you mean Obama, who stopped sea level rise with a single tweet. Truly Obama is the King of buffoons


Who consorts with the Princes of buffoons, the Windsors!

Chad Irby

Here’s the problem: neither do the “Climate Scientists,” despite their claims.

A single newsworthy weather event brings out the catastrophists, every time.

Experts say 2017 is one of the hottest years ever recorded. A very newsworthy weather event in my opinion.


I’ve just seen a tweet from a friend in the US who tells us that Mr.Trump is the first President in over 70 years not to win the gallup poll on ‘Most admired man” in his first Presidential year. Unfortunately, my friend did not tell me who did win, perhaps someone could let us know who the admirable person is ?


Ignorant Ivan doesn’t seem to know that we started recording temperatures at the VERY COLDEST point in the last 10,000 years.

Unfortunately , it looks like that HIGHLY BENEFICIAL warming is now coming to an end.

The satellite data shows that there is ONLY ocean events and cycles contribution to temperatures.

There is NO CO2 warming. It has NEVER been measured anywhere.

Patrick MJD

“vankinsman December 29, 2017 at 2:52 am

Experts say 2017 is one of the hottest years ever recorded.”

Weather experts? Universally proven wrong most times. Weather “experts” in Australia, the BoM, stated that Christmas Day in Sydney would be around 40c, and we’d all be rushing to the beach to cool off, and then drop to min-20’s. As it turned out, some inner western Sydney suburbs got to to near 40c, not unusual for inner west Sydney in SUMMER FFS, most got to 28c, before COOLING. Mild in reality.

So, my prediction is that 2017 will be nothing unusual overall and it’s looking to be so.

A C Osborn

ivankinsman, do you really believe that 2017 is going to be the Hottest Year ever?
If so you are extremely naive.
The only thing that is hottest about 2017 are the Adjusments made to the Data.
NOAA’s own data shows it is true.


Ivan, is that before of after the “adjustments” and “homogenisation” have taken effect?

How can 2017 be the hottest year ever recorded, when we are constantly assured that the Earth’s average temperature is never calculated, only the Earth’s average anomaly?

An average is meaningless anyway — a non-existent state of being. If the daytime high is 80 F one day and the low is 40 F, the “average temp” is 60 F. If the next day’s high is also 80 F but the low is only 45, the “average temp” is 62.5 F. Was the day any hotter? No. It was, “on the average,” but since the high was exactly the same, we can both say it was and was not warmer, which is useless and tells us nothing.


I have never paid any attention to Gallup’s Most Admired Man and Woman, however, Gareth mentioned it and so I looked it up:

It does appear that Trump is one of the few examples of a president that has not won.

The methodology for the survey was randomly phoning people, so I suspect it has hit the busy conservatives problem; i.e. the conservatives were at work or otherwise too busy to respond. Gallup does not seem to publish data for who did not answer the phone or declined to answer the survey; if they did that would give some measure of the accuracy of the survey.


Would be interesting to see pole results mapped out geographically considering the areas of high population on the east and west coasts against Trump.


“I’ve just seen a tweet from a friend in the US who tells us that Mr.Trump is the first President in over 70 years not to win the gallup poll on ‘Most admired man” in his first Presidential year. Unfortunately, my friend did not tell me who did win, perhaps someone could let us know who the admirable person is ?”

I believe the poll you are referring to had Barrack Obama as the most admired man, and Hillary Clinton as the most admired woman.

This poll just goes to show how delusional some people can be. Anyone who thinks Hillary should be admired is certainly delusional.

I would say the same thing about Obama, but I can see how people would vote for him since the MSM never questioned his credibility and only reported on the good things he was involved in, never the bad things, whereas all of Hillary’s blemishes have been reported on many times.

And if I were a betting man, I would bet the poll was probably weighted in favor of Obama and Hillary. You know, like oversampling the Liberal Democrats and undersampling the Republicans.

It doesn’t matter though. Trump’s base is stronger than ever and, imo, he will continue to pick up support as people see the benefits he is providing for them, like tax cuts and low energy prices and a booming economy.

I’ve just seen a tweet from a friend in the US who tells us that Mr.Trump is the first President in over 70 years not to win the gallup poll on ‘Most admired man” in his first Presidential year.

Your friend is math challenged. Gerald Ford in 1974-1975

I believe the poll you are referring to had Barrack Obama as the most admired man, and Hillary Clinton as the most admired woman.

Poll found here:

For results based on the total sample of national adults, the margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points at the 95% confidence level.

Barack Obama – 17%
Donald Trump – 14%

Hillary Clinton – 9%
Michelle Obama – 7%

Looks like a statistical tie. Guess we need a runoff for prom king and queen.


“For results based on the total sample of national adults, the margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points at the 95% confidence level.

Barack Obama – 17%
Donald Trump – 14%

Looks like a statistical tie. Guess we need a runoff for prom king and queen.”

Good point there, Greg F. It *is* a tie. You just burst someone’s bubble, Greg. 🙂


Didn’t Gallup have Hillary winning the election just days before the election?


Gareth and Griff. Your citing the press has no effect at all. If the press was believed to be more credible that Trump then Trump would have lost in a landslide. The point is the reason why we have the POTUS we have now is because the press has lost it’s ability to control information and lost it’s credibility. When the POTUS uses the term “fake news” the controlling element of our electoral process nods their head in agreement. And the fact is that with their antics since the POTUS was elected many folks have changed their opinion from believing the establishment media is a joke to believing it is a real threat to our democracy. We don’t give a hoot what you claim the people in the UK or anywhere else think about President Trump or the US for that matter. Why would we when so many have made such a mess of their own affairs?


Poor Ivan, is that the best you can manage?

A 5 year could do better.


“A 5 year could do better.”
Ha ha, Andy in his rush to insult, wrote a sentence like a five year “old.”


And simon goes to a 4 year old type comment.

Stretching himself way beyond his capabilities..


That is one of the most pathetic responses I have ever seen.

Does CNN employ 5 year olds now ?

Trump with one tweet , has played the leftist AGW clowns at their own game,

and just KEEPS ON WINNING. 🙂

Jesus Andy you must live on this site…

The Buffoon-in-Chief will get his come uppance when the more discerning electorate than his base will kick him out of office before he can do any more damage to the American environment. And hopefully his lobbyist-loving big-oil lapdog Pruitt will go with him.


“… his base will kick him out of office…”
ivankinsman, President Trump’s base loves him. They are not about to kick him out of office.

Michael Jankowski

ivankinsman, you must live in a hate-filled rage.

Given that Trump has done sweet f### all over AGW and treats it as a joke …

You mean like Al Gore?


Poor Ivan. unable to do anything but mindless hate-fill ranting

I’m SO GLAD that Trump has this effect of far-left idea logs.


I just watched Brian Kilmeade on Fox News do an interview of a geologist who has written a new book on Global Warming, and Brian asked him his opinion of Trump’s latest tweet on Global warming, and at the end of the segment, Kilmeade said Climate Change was the hottest topic in Washington DC right now (because of Trump’s tweet, I assume).


Michael, he’s a liberal. Hate comes with the territory.


Climate is not whatever reactionary twits like the one you quoted say it is.
For climate extremists to have this hysterical reaction to the mild commonly used joke about needing global warming when it is cold, shows a defensiveness and ignorance of reality that tells much about the fanatics.

Given that Trump has done sweet f### all over AGW and treats it as a joke, then the so-called fanatics have every right to denounce this buffoon, even more so because of his ‘presidential’ status.

Patrick MJD

“ivankinsman December 29, 2017 at 4:04 am

Given that Trump has done sweet f### all over AGW and treats it as a joke…”

The very reason he has done sweet f### over AGW.

A C Osborn

You don’t seem to realise that nobody needs to do anything about AGW as it is not Catastrophic AGW.
Warm is Good, CO2 is Good.
Cold is Bad.


So you climate clowns think that Trump could have done something to change this year’s weather?
I would call you stupid but that would insult the merely stupid.


“Given that Trump has done sweet f### all over AGW and treats it as a joke”

See, Trump is FAR more intelligent that you are, ivan

He realises its a CON.. while you have yet to wake even slightly up from your parrot-like brain-washing,


AGW is and has always been a joke.


he became POTUS because the Democrats were determined in their attempt to put a proven liar-criminal and a proven sexual predator in the White House.


But Trump was elected regardless, so their efforts were obviously successful. The issue is that people who support Trump really don’t care about his appalling behaviour, they vote for him precisely because of those issues.

A C Osborn

No they vote for him because
1. he puts America first
2. He is NOT a politician and actually does what he says he would do.
3. He does not kowtow to the rest of the world.
4. He is getting things done despite the Repuplican party not wanting or helping him.

I admit Hillary was mot the best candidate to put forward owing to too much baggage but doesn’t detract from Trump being the worst, most unpopular and divisive President in US history. At least Nixon didn’t abuse the Presidential office to make himself and his cronies rich.

A C Osborn

You need to be very careful Ivan, that sounds very much like Libel to me.
You have proof of all this cash going in to his Bank Account I assume?


One word: Solyandra.
Now go back to mommy’s basement.


Any logic thrown in ivan’s direction is wasted because it appears he has a severe case of TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome); a generally severe mental issue and so virulent that even “professionals” are prone to catch it and, as far I can tell from multiple sources, the cognitive dissonance is so deep as to be nearly untreatable by any logic system available. Eventually, after being unable to counter with any reasonable argument, their dialogue will dissolve into a series of (usually profane) rants. I use to listen to some of the more rational talking heads at CNN and NBC but now they just sound insane, although I can see that they may doing this on purpose as instructed by upper management to keep paychecks.
However for one of the more simplified instructive overviews on why “Global Warming” should be taken with a large dose of unbelievability see Scott Adams below:


And Monopoly is the most popular board game that nobody plays.


Ivan I suggest you read this, there is much more related information out there.

Jacob Frank

He may be a Zionist shill but he’s our Zionist shill and in many ways he’s doin all right

Bryan A

Absolutely NOTHING wrong with supporting Israel.


Hunter says

One word: Solyandra.
Now go back to mommy’s basement.

Hunter, not all Mummies keep their children in the basement. However, just remember, you need not be scarred for life. You can move on.


“most …………. divisive President in US history.”

LOL…..clinging to guns and religion is not divisive to some whacked out liberal


AC Osbourne suggests:
You need to be very careful Ivan, that sounds very much like Libel to me.
You have proof of all this cash going in to his Bank Account I assume?

I have evidence that it is true. If Trump ever releases his tax returns I will show the evidence, but until then, my lips are sealed.


It really is fascinating how liberals declare that anyone who disagrees with them is being divisive.
Back when Obama locked all Republicans out of the conferences in which Obama was being written, telling them “I won”, these same liberals cheered.


Gareth, do you take lessons in how to make yourself look stupid?
There are no tax returns to release that cover the time Trump has been president.


How this man ever made it to becoming the 45th POTUS I have absolutely no idea …

Read Listen Liberal. President Trump won largely because he spoke to the forgotten people.

The Democrat elite is creating a class society in which social mobility is a forgotten dream … the American Dream is on life support.

The Democrat party has consoled itself by thinking that the Republican party relies on bitter old men, and they’re dying out. The trouble for them is that they are creating, by their own hand, a permanent underclass, the precariat. The Republicans can pick up those people. If they only minimally looks after them, the Republicans can stay in government for generations.

The thing that scares me is that things could get worse and someone much much worse than The Donald will arise. Compared with the damage Hillary would have done, Trump isn’t nearly as bad as some people think.


Ivan: Could you define it for everyone so we can be more astute on the subject? Here is my attempt.

Perhaps weather is what you see; climate is the result in seconds, minutes, days, years, decades,centuries, or milliniums.

Matt Bergin

I always liked the phrase “Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get.” Seems to sum it up nicely.

There is nothing that a few ppm of the wonder gas CO2 cannot achieve. We obviously need much more of the wonder gas.

Ed Zuiderwijk

In ten years time psychologists will write books about it.

Bryan A

Lewandowsky already does. Big Conspiracy nutcase

All warming is global and all cooling is regional. Record high temperatures are indicative of a warming planet and record low temperatures mean shut-up you Koch funded bigot.

Jim Heath

Hendrick Svensmark deserves a Nobel Prize.


No, Donald Trump earns one after just one year. He is the first ranked politician to stand up to the coming world government, CAGW, formerly UN. More of it, it’s too delicious to read in our “ausgemerkelten” German society.

And 97% of all climate scientist agree that increasing concentrations of CO2 is the only way to prevent the next ice age.


“And 97% of all climate scientist agree that increasing concentrations of CO2 is the only way to prevent the next ice age”.

Interesting angle. I suspect that given the drop in temps that accompanies Ice Ages, CO2 may modify it’s impact, but is unlikely to negate it.

A C Osborn

It will do precisely what it has done in the past, despite being in much higher concentrations back then and this ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

Bryan A

If elevating CO2 can cause catastrophic runaway warming, how could it NOT negate a coming Ice Age?


“but is unlikely to negate it.”

Co2 has never had any provable impact on global temperatures.

The Vostok core show that even at its highest, CO2 was totally unable to maintain the peak temperatures that cause the rise in CO2.


President Trump is a heretic and riles oarticular hatred from the dogmatic reactionaries.
The climate obsessed really can’t imagine that the denialist scum are still permitted to speak, and here is a President making fun of them Imagine the outrage…..well witness the outrage of those small banal minds as tgey contort themselves to explain how warming equals colder, how data doesn’t count, how midels count over all. And how a weather event is only climate when THEY say so.


As Eisenhower put it, when you’re President, “no one can tell you when to sit down”.

I expect Mr. Trump goes out of his way to throw politically incorrect fish to the trained seals of the Twitteratti, just to enjoy the completely predictable squawks of outrage.

Philip of Taos

It’s a wonderful show, glad I have tickets. To bad i don’t have the slobber bucket concession.


Was President Trump’s election due to catastrophic anthropogenic global warming as was Brexit?


IT was CAGWexit. Or hex it away.


But what do you think as a connoisseur of the scene: will the big lakes freeze completely this winter? The temperatures are yes.

Jim the geezer

Climate is simply average weather over a period of years, and weather fluctuates chaotically thus causing climate change, so surely we need to work out how to prevent weather change in order to control climate?
By the way, it used to be “Global Warming” – now it’s “Climate Change”. Isn’t global cooling climate change too? but how does carbon dioxide cause that?


“Isn’t global cooling climate change too? but how does carbon dioxide cause that?”

Script writers are working on that.

Jeff Id



im sure its not so nice for those with homes on shorelines..but… i have to admit fascination in watching the ice come creeping onshore like some alien mass crushing everything in its path.

Neil Jordan

The President of the United States, Donald J Trump, wrote:

” Perhaps we could use a little bit of that good old Global Warming….”

Think about that. Besides making alarmist heads explode, it signals something deeper in his thoughts IMO.

Clearly he understands CAGW is a hustle. And maybe he even has had smart folks (Myron Ebell, Dr Happer come to mind) brief him that the NH or global temps could be headed for 20-30 year (60’s – 70’s style) cooling cycle.


2018 is going to be more winning!!
Popcorn futures explode.

And further down the road, let’s say a Democrat wins the White House in 2021. Now imagine them trying to convince Americans and Congress to appropriate billions of dollars to pay the Paris Climate Aid Funds. This tweet makes that a politically perilous payout.


2018 is going to be more winning!!
Popcorn futures explode.

And further down the road, let’s say a Democrat wins the White House in 2021. Now imagine them trying to convince Americans and Congress to appropriate billions of dollars to pay the Paris Climate Aid Funds. This tweet makes that a politically perilous payout.


At least you got the quote right this time.

old construction worker

I remember back in the 60’s orange futures peaked this time of year. I wonder if Florida will get a killing frost?

There’s a very high risk of citrus damage in Texas and Florida, on top of the hurricane damage this year.

Tom in Florida

And this is why it is time to get rid of the prohibition against industrial hemp. This can be the new cash crop for both Texas and Florida and those of us who own tens of thousands of shares in that industry.


How do you own shares in the hemp industry? or are you talking future tense?


I see a few people are in disagreement on this thread ( There’s a change!) She are saying that the climate is warming, but that’s a good thing, others ( Including Trump) are saying there is no warming, it’s all a hoax .
What the conclusion, yeah or nay? Do you agree with Trump, or the people who say there is climate warming for whatever reason.


Sometimes I really hate predictive text. That should be ‘they’ not ‘she’ .

A C Osborn