That time when @realDonaldTrump read and retweeted WUWT

From the “heads will explode now if they didn’t before” department.

Being the most-read website on climate in the world has its advantages – we reach a lot of people. It also has disadvantages, such as there’s such a volume of information flowing that we sometimes miss things. That’s the case here.

Source: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/362660033646952449

Back in 2013, before he was president, Mr. Trump clearly read the article I compiled, and came to the conclusion of his headline: “1970’s global cooling alarmists were pushing same no-growth liberal agenda as today’s global warming “

Here’s the article:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/01/global-cooling-compilation/

It is nice to know that we (and I say “we” because WUWT is a collective effort) had an effect on his thinking, which may have helped his decision to remove the U.S. from the disastrous Paris Climate Accord.

Thanks, Mr. President, for the recognition back then, and thanks for keeping the U.S. out of that U.N. driven climate train wreck.


Yuuuuuge hat tip to WUWT regular “NJSnowFan” for bringing this to my attention.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
52 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Walter J Horsting
January 3, 2020 3:58 pm

Anthony,

I find most of the climate realists I follow also approve of Trump’s policies…

Walter

HotScot
Reply to  Walter J Horsting
January 3, 2020 5:14 pm

Walter J Horsting

Strangely, so do I.

But then I don’t see what’s wrong with a man who has the determination to deliver, or at least attempt to deliver, all of his manifesto promises.

Nor do I see what’s wrong with a man who is now one of the most peaceful Presidents in America’s history.

He was condemned by the left as a warmonger before he was even elected, but was also condemned by the left for attempting to withdraw US troops from Syria.

He retaliates when US troops and Citizens are threatened abroad, then invites the perpetrators to the negotiating table to resolve issues, instead of prosecuting a wholesale war on them.

Will he invite Iran to the negotiating table? I sincerely hope, and believe so, however they have been invited so many times, is it really worth bothering.

The Middle Easter boil needs to be lanced. Trump is the only world leader not shirking his responsibility to ridding the world of state sponsored terrorism.

He should be applauded, instead he’s condemned by cowardly global MSM and other world leaders.

This is one Brit who doubted him before he was elected, but I’m now a full blown convert.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  HotScot
January 3, 2020 5:50 pm

“Will he invite Iran to the negotiating table? I sincerely hope, and believe so, however they have been invited so many times, is it really worth bothering.”

Trump will invite Iran to the negotiating table, just like he has done in the past. But the Mad Mullahs will not accept. They think God is on their side and they have a destiny and they are going to carry out that destiny.

The Mad Mullahs of Iran have been at war with the United States since 1979. It’s time the United States got on a war footing with the Mad Mullahs, and it looks like Trump is going to confront these religious fanatics. And Trump must confront these religious fanatics because we cannot afford to allow these maniacs to acquire nuclear weapons because they are crazy enough to use them.

The People of Iran may be the deciding factor. They will throw the Mad Mullahs out if given the chance. Killing the Iranian general who is killing Iranian civilian protestors is a good start at helping the people of Iran throw off the dictatrial rule they are suffering under.

Earthling2
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 3, 2020 8:40 pm

If there was anyone who had it coming, it was Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani who has caused more turmoil and bloodshed than anyone else in the ME and was expanding into the wider world. Obama considered it and then chickened out. No one will be able to accuse President Trump of being a Neville Chamberlain.

The Mad Mullahs of Iran have destroyed their country and they are evil terrorists and should also be marked for destruction if they don’t change their habits of engaging proxy wars all throughout the Middle East. Kim Jong-un in NK should also take note, since he has made direct nuclear threats against some of his his neighbours and the USA. The only way to deal with these people is to eliminate them from the face of the good Earth.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Earthling2
January 4, 2020 6:10 am

Trump said that General Soleimani was in the process of planning multiple attacks on Americans and American interests in the Middle East and that was one reason that Trump took Soleimani out.

If that’s the case, then we should assume that these planned attacks will still be carried out by Soleimani’s replacement. Soleimani’s death might have stopped or setback some of these operations but we can’t count on that being the case, and is probably one reason Trump is sending U.S. troops to the area now.

And, the signals coming out of Washington DC are that if the Mad Mullahs launch another attack, the U.S. will stike Iran on its own territory, this time with the stated threat of taking out Iran’s three oil refineries.

I would suggest that if the U.S. decides to hit Iranian territory, that they do as much damage to Iran’s nuclear facilities and rocket manufacturing facilities as possible, and I think rather than destroying Iran’s refining capacity, they should save that for the Iranian people after they overthrow the Mad Mullahs, and the U.S. should instead hit Irans ability to export their oil. That will serve the same purpose as destroying the oil refineries.

The Mad Mullahs are not reasonable. They are religious fanatics. This is only going to escalate. It was inevitable.

George W. Bush should have dealt with the Mad Mullahs right after he took down Saddam Insane. Bush had U.S. troops on both sides of Iran with over 200,000 U.S. troops in Iraq at the time and over 100,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan at the time, and the Iranian people were revolting against the Mad Mullahs at the time.

With just a little encouragement, the Iranian people would have ousted the Mad Mullahs, and the traditional Iranian military would have joined in with the Iranian people against the Mad Mullahs.
That’s why the Mad Mullahs created General Soleimani’s terror army in the first place, because they couldn’t trust the regular Iranian miliatry to support the Mad Mullahs. Iran has two armies, the traditional Iranian military and the terror army led by Soleimani.

Bush could have applied rhetorical pressure and might have got the job done without a single American troop entering Iran. Just the thought that the American military would side with the Iranian regular military might have been enough to get them to make the move. But our short-sightedleaders passed on the opportunity and kicked the can down the road. And now look where we are.

That same opportunity exists today with the exception that the U.S. doesn’t have 300,000+ troops in the immediate area, but the U.S. still has a lot of capability there, and has the capabilty to completely devastated Soleimani’s terror troops and all their military hardware. So if the U.S. signals they are on the side of the Iranian people, which Trump has already done, and then in public or privately assures the regular Iranian miliatry that they are not a target, then things might get interesting in Iran.

MarkW
Reply to  HotScot
January 3, 2020 8:45 pm

And what do you do when the other side refuses to join you at the table?

Other presidents have been trying to lance the boil of the middle east. Those would be the ones you are dismissing as warmongers.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  MarkW
January 4, 2020 9:18 am

And what do you do when the other side refuses to join you at the table?

No problem, MarkW, …… send them the next “invite” via a dozen or so Air-to-surface missiles.

Just as soon as you get their attention ….. they will start paying attention.

Phil Rae
Reply to  HotScot
January 4, 2020 2:25 am

You echo my sentiments exactly, HotScot. +100

Luke
Reply to  Walter J Horsting
January 3, 2020 9:21 pm

The best President in my relatively short lifetime. I ponder what it will be like after having had the best. Will it ever be so good again or even close?

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Luke
January 4, 2020 12:14 pm

I’m old enough to have voted for Ronald Reagan, twice. Now, Donald Trump is no Ronald Reagan, but he’s a very comfortable second. Live long enough and the good things tend to come back around.

Mike Bryant
January 3, 2020 4:36 pm

God Bless Anthony, and God Bless Donald Trump.

nw sage
Reply to  Mike Bryant
January 3, 2020 5:30 pm

It is very satisfying to come across evidence like this that the effort has not ALL been in vain. There has been a positive effect. GOOD JOB!

Doug S
Reply to  Mike Bryant
January 3, 2020 8:39 pm

Yes, winning. 2020 is off to a good start.

Chris Wright
Reply to  Mike Bryant
January 4, 2020 4:20 am

Hear, hear! Trump certainly isn’t perfect – he does sometimes say things that aren’t true and I wish he would stop all that tweeting. But I think his positive attributes far outweigh the negative. And, for taking the US out of the Paris suicide pact, he’s my hero! (I live in the UK).

He was also great in Home Alone 2! It was shown here over Christmas and they didn’t cut his appearance, as they did in Canada.

With this imaginary ongoing “climate crysis” the world seems to be going mad. That the most powerful man in the world doesn’t believe in this nonsense has to be a huge positive.
I’m hoping he wins the next election. Particularly if the US economy continues to do very well under his stewardship, I think the chances of that are good.
Chris

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Chris Wright
January 4, 2020 7:41 am

“With this imaginary ongoing “climate crysis” the world seems to be going mad. That the most powerful man in the world doesn’t believe in this nonsense has to be a huge positive.”

Very good point. And it’s not the whole world going mad, just the world we see on television which is a distortion of the real world.

And how petty does one have to be to cut out a few seconds of a movie where Trump appears in a favorable light, and then others defend the cut as legitimate? Petty may not be the right word. An extreme attempt to deny reality, maybe. That would be a more suitable explanation for radical leftist behavior.

John Endicott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 6, 2020 5:31 am

TV channels make cuts to movies all the time (usually so they can squeeze in more commercials, don’t know if that particular station was a commercial one or not), so really it boils down to why they cut it. so whether the cut was legitimate or not depends on whether they would have made the cut if it wasn’t Trump. I suspect they would not have, but can’t prove it.

Gerald Machnee
January 3, 2020 4:38 pm

Well, Trump read it and understood. That is much better than here in Canada.
I sent a letter to ALL our members of Parliament (over 300).
I did not receive one reply.
So what does that tell me?
Any or all 3 of the following:
1. They were intercepted by their assistants.
2. They do not understand weather and climate.
3. They do not care and are only grandstanding to get elected.

RickWill
Reply to  Gerald Machnee
January 3, 2020 5:12 pm

Send email – usually they at least garner an automated response. You could always send support to polies in other countries who have not got the religion.

This is a reply I got from an email to Craig Kelly:

Thanks Rick,

The lessons from history teach us appeasement never works.

If we stay silent and don’t argue the facts – for fear of upsetting those that will never vote for us – we will get slaughtered at the election, and it will make coming back even harder.

Thanks for sending this.

Regards,
Craig

His electorate is in a different state but I like to encourage any poly who takes on the climate zealotry. I got an automated response and I was surprised by the personal reply a day later.

Maybe I should try the POTUS. He is doing a lot of good for the global community.

My local federal member has only offered automated replies.

James the Elder
Reply to  Gerald Machnee
January 3, 2020 10:02 pm

Oh, another 100% consensus!!

Rob_Dawg
January 3, 2020 4:44 pm

I shudder when I think about how close we came to a permanent deep state backed new world order leftist government cabal.

Keep up the good science A.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Rob_Dawg
January 4, 2020 7:51 am

Yes, if Hillary had been successful in rigging the 2016 election, then I am certain she would have no qualms about continuing to rig future presidential elections with her serving a second term and then one of her choices would be her successor, assuming she couldn’t rig the system to make her “President for Life” like Xi managed to get done in China.

The Democrats are still trying to rig the system. That’s what all this impeachment nonsense and harrassment of Trump is all about. We need another Trump term just to give us time to jail all the guilty parties from the Obama administration who tried to undermine the U.S. Constitution and a presidential election. These traitors should go to jail for their treason.

There have to be severe consequences for this kind of treason, otherwise our form of government will be lost to the totalitarians. They are continually trying to steal our freedoms from us. We can’t let them do it.

Wayne Job
January 3, 2020 4:54 pm

From here in OZ I can only think how America would have been without president Trump.
Lucky buggers, wish he was our leader.

Warren
Reply to  Wayne Job
January 3, 2020 5:11 pm

Amen!

Scissor
Reply to  Wayne Job
January 3, 2020 5:25 pm

You don’t hate him and the U.S. for assassinating Soleimani (and his colleagues)?

nw sage
Reply to  Scissor
January 3, 2020 5:36 pm

It seems the choice was between that and allowing Soleimani to kill even more of us. He didn’t stop when we asked him nicely! [ref Obama]
{unless I missed the sarc. tag}

Scissor
Reply to  nw sage
January 3, 2020 9:01 pm

Yes, I’m pro-choice in this matter, i.e., I think that Trump made the correct choice.

Chaamjamal
January 3, 2020 4:57 pm

Brilliant
And congratulations.
Excellent compilation

Here is a compilation of research papers from that time. The focus had shifted to aerosol and the relationships that while the effect of additional co2 had a decreasing incremental effect on warming, the effect of additional aerosol had an increasing incremental effect on cooling. The big one is thought to have been the sulfate aerosol emidsions that were gone after the success of the acid rain program.

Aerosols

https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/10/23/the-1970s-cooling-anomaly-of-agw/

Acid rain

https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/03/12/acidrain/

OweninGA
Reply to  Chaamjamal
January 3, 2020 5:12 pm

I got banned from a place for pointing out that if the hypothesis on aerosols causing cooling was correct than the entire 70s – 2000 warming trend could be explained by the success of the clean air act. The post went into room 101 so fast that I doubt anyone saw it.

Sara
Reply to  Chaamjamal
January 3, 2020 6:07 pm

Oh, gosh! Bring back hair spray in aerosol cans!! Bring back the beehive hairdo!!!

Nothing quite as educational as going to an assembly program in high school and watching someone from the city Fire Department show us just how nasty hair spray could be if you were smoking a cigarette while you lacquered your hair into place. That was interesting! The propellant alone was flammable, never mind the lacquer itself. BOOM!!!!

Checker
Reply to  Sara
January 3, 2020 10:14 pm

Sara,
Aquanet is the preferred Potato Gun propellant here in Northern Michigan! Just be sure to use only a little – stuff is powerful!

commieBob
January 3, 2020 5:23 pm

I realize that President Trump has always had people who feed him facts. You can tell when a politician is just parroting facts he doesn’t understand though. President Trump never ceases to amaze me with things that cut to the heart of an issue. electric or steam

Leftists love to deride Republican presidents for being stupid. As far as I can tell, there are no stupid presidents. President Trump is one of the smarter ones. link That should make some heads explode.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  commieBob
January 3, 2020 6:34 pm

Commie, I read Trumps Art of the Deal (I think it was) many years ago. One bit that stuck with me was the fiasco of the multifailures over decades of the Central Park skating rink that New York Works admin couldnt make a go of. Trump offered to fix it permanently amid much snarks and sniggers.

He then went directly to the NY Rangers and asked who was the best rink builder in the business and was told it was the guy with the Toronto Maple Leafs. He met the guy, toured the guts of the rink ice making setup in the Park and heard all that was wrong with it and the fellow agreed to order what was needed and supervise installation. AFAIK the rink has been going great ever since. Yeah he knows you have ask those who know.

Andre Lauzon
January 3, 2020 5:52 pm

I was a Trump fan from the start. Many friends are taken aback when I support President Trump and they all consider him a clown. When I ask them why they can only repeat very general empty asinine things they have heard on CBC or BBC or CNN……. When I give them a list of good reasons why I support President Trump they are left speechless. I wish we had someone similar as a leader in Canada instead of the clown we now have.

Tom Abbott
January 3, 2020 5:56 pm

I think Trump understands more about the climate than he is given credit for in some circles. And now we know he got some of that understanding from WUWT!

Hi, President Trump. Love what you are doing! Keep up the good work! 🙂

Dr Deanster
January 3, 2020 6:26 pm

I voted for him once, … and I’ll vote for him again. I knew from the outset that he would oppose CAGW. He is a thinker, not an ideologue.

He is the ONLY choice because he is NOT a slithering politician looking to pad his pockets from tax money. Becoming POTUS was a severe pay cut.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Dr Deanster
January 3, 2020 9:14 pm

I’m pretty sure he either does not take his salary, or gives it away.

Mark Broderick
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
January 3, 2020 9:43 pm

Yes, he donates all of it to various causes…MAGA

Disputin
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
January 4, 2020 4:14 am

I understand his annual salary is agreed at 1$.
Can anyone else confirm or deny?

Shawn Marshall
Reply to  Disputin
January 4, 2020 5:04 am

No, he donates his salary every quarter.

Disputin
Reply to  Shawn Marshall
January 4, 2020 5:20 am

Thanks.
How much? Is it laid down it law, or is it settled by agreement?
(I don’t really need to know – just curious).

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Shawn Marshall
January 4, 2020 9:38 am

Current POTUS salary is …….no-negotiable $400,000 annually

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Disputin
January 4, 2020 8:04 am

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/16/how-much-the-president-on-the-united-states-gets-paid.html

“Unlike the typical American worker, who brings in about $44,564 a year, the president is paid $400,000 a year, plus an extra expense allowance of $50,000 a year, a $100,000 non-taxable travel account and $19,000 for entertainment.”

Trump donates all of his $400,000 yearly salary to charity.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 4, 2020 9:40 am

OOPS, didn’t see your post.

Dr Deanster
January 3, 2020 6:26 pm

I voted for him once, … and I’ll vote for him again. I knew from the outset that he would oppose CAGW. He is a thinker, not an ideologue.

He is the ONLY choice because he is NOT a slithering politician looking to pad his pockets from tax money. Becoming POTUS was a severe pay cut.

Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia
January 3, 2020 8:35 pm

Trump is a clever dude who thinks for himself and is a real man of steel.

Contrast: other people in public life who uncritically just respout virtue signaller memes and grovel to the point of doing it in their pants if they get called out for deviating, even marginally, from politically correct thought.

lemiere jacques
January 4, 2020 12:16 am

the very idea of THE environment …

Rodney Everson
January 4, 2020 8:20 am

In my opinion, President Trump is the only reason the entire world leadership hasn’t completely succumbed to the global warming charade.

And if, a decade or two from now, that charade will have fallen apart, he will be the single person who made that possible by holding the rest of the world at bay while the economics of the matter have had time to play out.

That said, all it will take is a change in U.S. leadership this year for the warmists to triumph completely, again, in my opinion.

January 4, 2020 11:21 am

Is that why @Jack Dorsey’s Twitter thought police are censoring @whatsupwiththat?

Screenshot:

comment image

OK S.
January 4, 2020 11:43 am

When I clicked this on twitter, your account said you were temporarily restricted. When I cliked on “Yes, view profile” this tweet was gone.

Watts Up With That

Caution: This account is temporarily restricted

You’re seeing this warning because there has been some unusual activity from this account. Do you still want to view it?

Could be trouble with my browser, but I don’t think so.

Reply to  Anthony Watts
January 4, 2020 4:50 pm

Bravo! The Twitter Shadowban Tester says you’re not shadowbanned, either.

How did you manage to get the “restriction” lifted? In fact, a primer on how to deal with Twitter censorship, in general, would be useful. AFAIK, I’ve never had my Twitter account “restricted,” but I’ve been shadowbanned, and I’m often “reply deboosted” (including now). It is very annoying.

Tweeting to @Jack never seems to do any good.
https://twitter.com/ncdave4life/status/1213546187212632065

Tom Abbott
January 4, 2020 3:36 pm

I have been seeing what I would describe as a very strange commercial for the last couple of weeks. It goes something like this:

Announcer: “Trump impeachment is the biggest news of the day.

President Trump faces senate trial soon which will decide the president’s fate.

Newsmax is doing a poll asking you to vote on impeachmet and removal.

Newmaxs polls are cited by all the major networks

Let the Senate know what you think.

Vote today on Trump impeachment. Text “blue” to 955xx

end

And that’s it. They don’t say text “Yes, Impeach and Remove” or “No, do not Impeach and Remove”, they just say text “blue”.

Now what exactly does texting blue tell the surveyor other than the texter isn’t very smart? It says nothing about whether the texter wants Trump removed or not. It is a nonsense poll as far as I can tell.

And Newsmax is promoting the heck out of this poll for some reason. It must be costing them some money to do this. But why, when you can glean no information about Trump from “blue”?

I would love to hear a logical explanation for this advertisement.

%d bloggers like this: