President Trump Still Causing Heads to Explode on Climate Change

Essay by Eric Worrall

President Trump was asked a question about climate change on Fox News. His answer has driven liberals nuts.

Huff Post has accused Trump of ignorance;

Trump Still Can’t Wrap Head Around Climate Change: ‘You Have A Thing Called Weather’

“And you go up and you go down,” the former president explained on Fox Business when asked if human activity has anything to do with climate change.

By Mary Papenfuss
Mar. 21, 2022, 09:06 PM EDT

Former President Donald Trump clearly hasn’t been studying up on climate change since his stint in the Oval Office. The observation he offered in a Fox Business interview Monday is that “you have a thing called weather.”

Trump pushed his “weather” theory when host Stuart Varney asked him if thought “human activity” — such as the burning of fossil fuels — is responsible for climate change.

“In my opinion, you have a thing called weather,” Trump responded. “And you go up and you go down.”

He added: “If you look into the 1920s, they were talking about global freezing. OK? In other words, the globe was going to freeze. And then they go global warming, and then they couldn’t use that because the temperatures were actually quite cool, and it’s many different things … the climate’s always been changing.” 

There were no claims of “global freezing” in the 1920s, as Trump claims, though some scientists hypothesized, in largely discredited findings, that world temperatures declined from 1945 to 1972. In any case, any natural trend toward another ice age was interrupted by the “massive influence” of the burgeoning burning of fossil fuels, scientists have noted. 

Read more: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-weather-climate-change-denial-fox-business_n_6238f3c3e4b0f1e82c4d58b0

One thing notably missing from the Huff Post tirade is any basic research into what Trump actually said. Because there is evidence of an unusual temperature excursion in the 1920s.

The following is from The Washington Post, 1922;

President Trump might have gotten the direction of the 1920s arctic temperature excursion wrong, but Trump’s claim is spot on, about there being evidence of climate shifts which occurred well before we could have had a significant influence.

I’m hoping the Huff Post reporter is just an incompetent researcher, and overlooked evidence of a substantial 1920s arctic temperature excursion. Because it would be truly sad if Huff Post reporter Mary Papenfuss discovered evidence of arctic warming and glacier retreat in the early 1920s, and chose to not to reveal it to readers, for fear of providing readers with evidence that President Trump has a point.

5 49 votes
Article Rating
307 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
March 23, 2022 6:07 pm

Donald Trump can be so shallow he is in danger of beading up, but his bullshit detector is quite effective. Forgetting which direction claims of climate change were going in the 1920’s is typical for Trump, but knowing the dispute over claims of imminent disaster are by no means new is the point.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Tom Halla
March 23, 2022 7:09 pm

Gee Tom, what leaders in this world do you admire for depth of thought? Trump is a good business man which means that despite not a lot of reading and study of issues, no one is going to pull the wool over his eyes. The very best one can hope for is a Trumpian leader for all countries. They at least seek to do the best for their citizens and country. They are hard to like, but they can be relied on.

I guess I’m a bit too testy here, you did recognize his most important strength. Cheers Gary

Izaak Walton
Reply to  Gary Pearse
March 23, 2022 7:51 pm

Trump a good business man? Just how many times has he been bankrupt? Not to mention the fact that he would be richer today if he had taken his father’s money and invested it in an index linked fund. So I would like to know what evidence you have for him being a good business man?

Derg
Reply to  Izaak Walton
March 23, 2022 7:55 pm

But remember you thought Benghazi was started by an internet video 😉

Lil-Mike
Reply to  Izaak Walton
March 23, 2022 8:12 pm

and if I knew the future, I’d be richer than Warren Buffet … alas …

Trump has built a business empire with over 500 operations, over 20,000 employees. In a wild environment in which over 90% of all businesses fail, his track record ain’t so bad.

Izaak Walton
Reply to  Lil-Mike
March 23, 2022 10:26 pm

Trump has not built a business empire. He inherited one that he is slowly running into the group. He got over $400 million from his father, and while that has grown it has grown slower than the stock market average meaning that he is a worse than average business man. Furthermore his leaked tax returns showed that he paid no income tax in 11 of the last 15 years due to his buisnesses making a loss. And to top it all he managed to go bankrupt running casinos. If there is any business where you have a virtual license to print money it would be a casino since the odds are fixed in the house’s favour. More recently it seems that the Old Post Office Hotel has lost over $70 million and as a result Trump is trying to off-load the lease. And his golf courses in Scotland are losing millions every year.

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  Izaak Walton
March 24, 2022 12:56 am

So, tell us about your personal business success…..

George Ellis
Reply to  Izaak Walton
March 24, 2022 4:43 am

You obviously have never started a business. In current US tax code, you really do want to show a loss in the first couple years to get favorable growth. It is the system they created. And again, facts. Find out why he did not pay taxes as you allege. Losses and overpayments factor into it. That and good accountants. If it makes you mad, you can always send more to the IRS.

MarkW
Reply to  Izaak Walton
March 24, 2022 7:41 am

And yet another subject on which Izaak is totally unwilling to deal with reality.

John Endicott
Reply to  MarkW
March 28, 2022 5:14 am

The list of subjects Izaak is willing to deal with reality is a much shorter list. In fact here it is:

As you can see, it’s not very long, LOL!

DipChip
Reply to  Izaak Walton
March 24, 2022 8:09 am

Hey Ike: Hope you enjoy the recovery during the next presidency.

Jtom
Reply to  Izaak Walton
March 24, 2022 8:13 am

You are putting your ignorance of how businesses and US taxes work, especially concerning real estate. I have owned investment real estate for over fifty years. I have had a positive cash flow but a net tax loss in virtually every year except those in which I sold off an investment property. Trump mainly deals in real estate.

Depreciation tax law allows you to post losses, deferring and lessening the tax burden. The taxes are paid when the property is sold.

Understanding US taxes is not in your wheelhouse.

Last edited 4 months ago by Jtom
rhb2
Reply to  Izaak Walton
March 24, 2022 8:45 am

Wait. Did he inherit a business empire or a lot of money? Make up your mind. If he got the money and instead of squandering it he turned it into an empire that sounds pretty good to me. What business that is mostly real estate does not carry o lot of debt and occasionally declares bankruptcy?

DonM
Reply to  Izaak Walton
March 24, 2022 10:09 am

Izaak,

People like you, the ones that base their opinions primarily on their emotions, only look as far as needed so as to reinforce their preconceived notions.

If Trump pulled inheritance as cash (that he was involved in and worked for), paid the taxes, pulled enough out every year to live the same lifestyle that he has lived, paid the taxes on that money, pulled money for his family and paid taxes on that (rather than establishing entities where they run their own income generating business), and left whatever was left over in the stock market … how much would be left?

Last edited 4 months ago by DonM
DonM
Reply to  Izaak Walton
March 24, 2022 10:14 am

How much was New York City worth in the 60’s.

Why didn’t they just invest they worth in the stock market … they would be so much better off.

Reply to  Izaak Walton
March 24, 2022 12:39 pm

Trump refused to take a $400,000 a year salary
as President … because he is broke and has no money?
His beautiful wife sticks with him
… in spite of the fact that he is broke? .
He has his own jet plane because he is broke?

Walton, you are a complete fool and have no idea what you are talking about. Or are you are so angry with hatred for Trump that you just make up factoids to entertain yourself?

MiloCrabtree
Reply to  Izaak Walton
March 24, 2022 1:00 pm

And yet, he’s a billionaire former POTUS and you’re an effete and irrelevant blog commenter.

IAMPCBOB
Reply to  Izaak Walton
March 29, 2022 8:30 am

Even though his records show that he paid no taxes, he actually had overpaid in previous years. He did that often, on purpose.Maybe you should do some research into just how our tax laws work.

ozspeaksup
Reply to  Lil-Mike
March 24, 2022 3:26 am

talkinof buffet I see hes buying fossil fuels coal etc while he can grab em

Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  Lil-Mike
March 24, 2022 8:50 pm

I’m especially impressed that Trump businesses actually build stuff, as opposed to getting rich off currency speculation that destroys the country that made him rich (yeah, I’m thinking of you, George Soros).

MarkW
Reply to  Izaak Walton
March 23, 2022 8:34 pm

Once again, other people’s success brings out the worst in leftists.

Derg
Reply to  MarkW
March 24, 2022 3:33 am

Bingo

Peta of Newark
Reply to  Izaak Walton
March 23, 2022 9:13 pm

Izaak: Your definition of ‘rich’ is a bit off

Try not to be so naive and gullible, then, go learn about ‘inflation

For everyone:
I came upon a gorgeous way of measuring ‘richness’ just recently.
Simply put, you value/compare what you own, would like to buy etc in terms of Gold

Classically you’d calculate how many ounces of Gold it would have taken to buy the house you’re living in and compare to how many ounce it would take to buy it today.
Do the same with anything you fancy…

Gold has value.
Dollars don’t….
….. not when Governments are ‘managing’ inflation for the sole reason of keeping their phat lazy asses in office.

The price of Snake Oil thus seemingly keeps reducing and folks like Izaak eagerly buy the stuff, imagining this to mean that ‘Things Are Never Better’
Do not confuse quantity with quality

Dollars did used to have value but at the rate Brandon is now printing them, USA is gonna be The New Zimbabwe before long

George Ellis
Reply to  Peta of Newark
March 24, 2022 4:31 am

Milton Friedman would disagree with you. Dollars do have “value”. It is a trade standard, aka money. But there are many things that can diminish that ‘faith’ in its value. That even applies to gold. I suggest MF’s “Money Mischief”. The first chapter on the Yap Islands puts it into perspective. This is why a monetarist economist wants the growth of the money supply to match the growth of GDP. It is the experiments by the Fed and government to try to fine tune the economy that is just making it worse.

bigoilbob
Reply to  Peta of Newark
March 24, 2022 6:08 am

Inflation adjusted, Trump is an even bigger failure.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  bigoilbob
March 24, 2022 6:49 am

A one-liner from word salad-blob? This has to be a first.

Graemethecat
Reply to  bigoilbob
March 24, 2022 9:19 am

Anonymous troll failure BigOilyBlob criticizes billionaire and former POTUS with smoking hot wife as “failure”.

b.nice
Reply to  Graemethecat
March 24, 2022 11:47 am

Big oily has been a failure all his life. That is why he is so bitter and twisted. !

John Endicott
Reply to  bigoilbob
March 28, 2022 4:57 am

if trump is such a big failure, what does that make a nobody internet troll that has never made anything of himself, such as your not so good self?

Gunga Din
Reply to  Peta of Newark
March 24, 2022 8:06 am

I’m not an economist. But when I want to compare the the “value” of a number from the past (the cost of a disaster, past wages, cost of new car etc,), when the US was still on the gold standard, I’ll divide the $$ by 20 (a $20 gold piece was one ounce of gold) then multiply that buy the current value of an ounce of gold.
Not exact but it puts me in the ballpark.

Cool Tolerance
Reply to  Izaak Walton
March 23, 2022 10:48 pm

Owe $1 Million to the bank and the bank owns you.
Owe $10 Million to the bank and you own the bank.
You say ‘bankrupt’. It was ‘restructuring’, many business people adhere to this model.

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Cool Tolerance
March 24, 2022 2:51 am

And nations, Iceland 2008, Argentina 2001, Russia 1998 (and soon?),Mexico 1982.

DonM
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
March 24, 2022 10:13 am

New York….

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
March 25, 2022 1:50 am

Greece several times in its history!!!

George Ellis
Reply to  Izaak Walton
March 24, 2022 4:32 am

Trump has never been bankrupt. Companies that he started have, but not him personally. Facts are a bit challenging.

Hoyt Clagwell
Reply to  Izaak Walton
March 24, 2022 8:53 am

Bankruptcy isn’t necessarily a sign of a bad businessman. Sometimes declaring bankruptcy is a shrewd business move for cutting your losses and/or getting out of contracts that will allow you to restructure your business in a more profitable way. Especially being in the hotel business, you are relying on the city and state to keep the tourists coming in. When they fail, you can’t just move your hotel. Donald is a shrewd businessman, like it or not.

George Daddis
Reply to  Hoyt Clagwell
March 24, 2022 10:55 am

“He” was not bankrupt; as noted over time individual business within his vast portfolio filed for protection.

Hoyt Clagwell
Reply to  George Daddis
March 24, 2022 12:21 pm

Yes, I didn’t mean to imply he was declaring personal bankruptcy. I think his Hotel in Atlantic City was the example I was thinking of.

Reply to  Izaak Walton
March 24, 2022 12:34 pm

You have no clue what you are talking about
Too dumb to be worth correcting

Bill S
Reply to  Izaak Walton
March 24, 2022 2:57 pm

I do not recall seeing a Boeing 757 with your name on the side of it. Trump is an entrepreneur and tough negotiator. No, he does not always win, but he also never quits.

Trump gets the big picture policy right, and importantly, unlike Biden, he is not afraid of anyone. We he low energy prices, and were self sufficient, the border was under control. real incomes went up because of his tax cuts, unemployment went dow, he move the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, brokered diplomatic relationships between Israel and 6 Arab countries, calmed down Kim Un, strengthened our military, got Nato to increase their military spending, got us out of the idiotic Paris accords which do nothing to get China and India to reduce CO2, put sanctions on Iran and withdrew from that stupid agreement, boosted US energy supply and eliminated much of the bureaucratic red tape.

It must be difficult for you that Trump policies worked, and everything that Biden has done is a failure.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Izaak Walton
March 24, 2022 5:50 pm

https://www.ibtimes.com/how-much-money-did-trump-get-his-dad-small-loan-controversy-explained-2422185

Err… that was rather $14 million. His father was a successful moderate contractor- a pickup truck type. DJT went into hotel construction and built up a several $billion international business. He then built a multi-trillion enterprise add-on called USA which had been neglected asset.

ATheoK
Reply to  Izaak Walton
March 24, 2022 7:00 pm

Just how many times has he been bankrupt? Not to mention the fact that he would be richer today”

What do you do in the morning?
Look into your mirror and tell yourself that you are a godless idiot, therefore you shall go forth and act like one?

Bankruptcy is a request to government for:

Bankruptcy is a court proceeding in which a judge and court trustee examine the assets and liabilities of individuals, partnerships and businesses whose debts have become so overwhelming they don’t believe they can pay them.”

Trump runs a business empire with many subdivisions, franchises and investments.
Someone presents their version of a great idea to Trump, and if he likes the idea and thinks the person might pull off the idea, Trump enterprises invests in the concept. 12 months to 2 years later, the concept or the operator who sold the original idea, is failing, Trump pulls the plug and sends in business and financial experts.
If the investment is too far gone or the experts believe it does not have a chance, Trump starts the bankruptcy process.

Which brings us to the idiot test.
All of the leftist news sources wail and harp about a “Trump bankruptcy” without ever mentioning exactly what Trump franchise or business unit is undergoing bankruptcy or exactly what kind of bankruptcy they were filing for.

Idiots thing bankruptcy means bankruptcy.
Smart people understand that people and businesses use bankruptcy types to address their explicit need.

Chapter 11: Business Reorganization

For a business, bankruptcy does not necessarily mean ruin. If it did, there would be three fewer major air carriers (United, Delta, American), two fewer car manufacturers (General Motors, Chrysler), and no Marvel Universe.”

Real businesses use bankruptcy all of the time to address problem business operations.
The time to send in the business experts? As soon as the judge approves a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy.

The second part of the idiot test?
Did you bother to check on the status of that business unit after the bankruptcy period finished?
Almost all of those Trump business unit/investments bankruptcies weathered the crises and were restored to full operations.
Minus the original idiot(s) who told Trump they could make it work.

You, unsurprisingly, failed both parts. Qualifying you for top idiot dishonors

William Tabor,Jr
Reply to  Izaak Walton
March 26, 2022 1:32 pm

Trump has been a partner in over 500 businesses, so a half dozen or so bankruptcies among them is actually a very good record.

John Endicott
Reply to  Izaak Walton
March 28, 2022 5:10 am

Just how many times has he been bankrupt?

ZERO. The man himself has never filed for personal bankruptcy. Some of his companies, on the other hand have. Pointing out that a company filed for bankruptcy doesn’t say what you think it says. As another person noted, bankruptcy in business doesn’t necessarily mean “broke”. If you’ve enjoyed any of the Marvel movies the past decade plus, guess what, they come from a company (Marvel Comics) that filed for “bankruptcy” back in the late 90s, before any of those movies were ever greenlit. And there are many other thriving businesses today that at one time or another filed for bankruptcy.

In short, (to borrow from Inigo Montoya) you keep using that word but it doesn’t mean what you think it means.

commieBob
Reply to  Tom Halla
March 23, 2022 8:28 pm

Trump fascinates me … from a safe distance.

There is a point of view that the purpose of intellectual speech is as much to mislead as to educate. Anyway, since Trump apparently doesn’t do intellectual speech, he is not misled by it.

Trump’s depth of personality probably depends on your definition of depth. I would argue that he’s much better connected with reality than the average university professor.

MARTIN BRUMBY
Reply to  commieBob
March 23, 2022 9:32 pm

Let us just pause to reflect that, if the Democrats had failed in their brazen efforts to steal the 2020 Presidential Election, we certainly wouldn’t be in the shit we are today, with some horrible person pulling corrupt Sleepy Joe’s strings.

RickWill
Reply to  commieBob
March 23, 2022 10:31 pm

One of Australia’s most successful State Premiers in terms of length of office (19 years) and economic boom was known for his almost incoherent press reports. He termed the process “feeding the chooks” and no doubt considered the mental aptitude of the press gallery on a par with chooks – not the brightest tool in the shed.

ozspeaksup
Reply to  RickWill
March 24, 2022 3:29 am

but good god theres still many would have him back..looking at what we have now in Vic joe bjelke would be an improvement. cant believe I wrote that!
wish I had the bumper sticker joe for PM still

Hoyt Clagwell
Reply to  commieBob
March 24, 2022 9:02 am

Trump knows that the best way to communicate is at your audience’s level. He speaks to the average working person in America in terms they understand, like it or not. He talks the way he would if he was just a friend having a beer with you on your back porch. That’a part of his charm. He talks the way we all do in our private moments and wouldn’t like to admit. How many liberals have castigated him for the way he speaks, only to end their comment with, “he’s such a (four letter word), I wish he would die! F— Trump!!

Tom Abbott
Reply to  commieBob
March 24, 2022 11:01 am

“I would argue that he’s much better connected with reality than the average university professor.”

Trump is better connected to reality than just about anyone in government, especially Democrats. That’s why Trump governs so well; He sees the Big Picture, and he understands how to deal with international bullies.

We will be fortunate indeed if we are lucky enough to get Trump back into the White House. He can put us back on the right track.

Last edited 4 months ago by Tom Abbott
MiloCrabtree
Reply to  commieBob
March 24, 2022 1:08 pm

The average university professor isn’t a pimple on the backside of the average plumber.

commieBob
Reply to  MiloCrabtree
March 24, 2022 5:24 pm

The ideal combination of the two would be a Mechanical Engineering professor who runs a successful business on the side. 🙂

At a Pentagon briefing a reporter asked why the Russians were losing so many generals. The answer was that the Russians lacked an NCO corps. Here’s one opinion on why that’s so.

Experience getting things done is a much better connection with reality than many years of university education.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  commieBob
March 25, 2022 9:07 am

I was at MCB Camp Geiger back in 1962. It appeared to be the most disorganized place in the Marine Corp, just a holding ground for all the Korean War NCOs awaiting discharge. Then the Cuban Missile Crisis hit.

Overnight the whole camp was totally reorganized and became the most squared away place in the Corp. It turns out all those NCOs weren’t waiting for retirement but another war/conflict. That night and over the next two days most of the Camp shipped out to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

commieBob
Reply to  Joe Crawford
March 25, 2022 3:02 pm

That’s impressively rapid deployment for a group that probably wasn’t actually a rapid deployment force. 🙂

LAWRENCE BROWN
Reply to  Tom Halla
March 23, 2022 10:22 pm

Question: As the years roll on, which will leave “Science” with the bigger black eye?

A. The Fear of man-made global warming, e.g., carbon dioxide is a pollutant, we only have x more years to the tipping point, the hockey stick temperature record, Greta Thunberg, Al Gore’s mansions, Leonardo’s jets, etc – or

B. The NIH/CDC/WHO response to COVID 19, i.e., try to vaccinate your way out of a pandemic with a non-vaccine experimental gene therapy that kills more people than it saves, all the while mocking and banning safe, cheap, and effective therapeutics and wrecking entire economies, careers, and lives.

Dollar wise, I think the climate nonsense has (so far) has wasted more money, but the “follow the science” response to COVID 19 has cost us many times more lives.

And yet…the Left thinks both our fear of global warming and “vaccine” mandates (including masking, distancing, lockdowns, censorship, shunning) are both Triumphs of Science.

Since the French Revolution, has the Left got ANYTHING right?

PCman999
Reply to  Tom Halla
March 24, 2022 1:43 am

It’s telling that the MSM is triggered by anything Trump says and piles on and nit-picks about every single little thing he says, and yet not a peep about all that ice in the poles that was supposed to be gone by now, or all that snow that kids know so well in spite of predictions to the contrary.

Or the climate emergency that’s killing everyone.

MarkW
Reply to  PCman999
March 24, 2022 7:45 am

Compare the reaction to this comment of Trump’s, to the press’s reaction to Obama’s comment about wanting to visit all 55 states.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  MarkW
March 24, 2022 9:49 am

MarkW,
Or the MSM’s (non)reaction to Hunter Biden’s laptop, or Harris’ “passage of time” mumbo-jumbo, which I guess was her (less coherent) version of “what does it matter now?”

Tom Abbott
Reply to  PCman999
March 24, 2022 11:15 am

Just a few minutes ago in Brussels, Biden took another shot at Trump, claiming Trump’s comments about the Charlottesville incident was what got Biden to run for the presidency. He compared Trump supporters to Nazis, pointing at the January 6, breakin of Congress as an example.

Of course, Biden is blatantly lying about the Charlottesville incident and the meaning of Trump’s words. Biden is distorting Trump’s meaning and is trying to turn Trump and his supporters into Nazis, and he is doing it right in front of the whole world, in an area that used to be infested with murderous Nazis, and whose people have a particularly strong hate for Nazis. And Biden is telling the Europeans that Trump and his supporters are just like the Nazis.

Biden is a corrupt, dishonest, partisan politician. There’s no dirty trick he will not try, even illegal tricks. He’s good at that. And he and the Democrats are hitting out at Trump at every occasion.

The reason they are doing so is because they are deathly afraid that Trump will be elected again in 2024. They should be afraid: Trump has a 98 percent approval rating among Republicans as of last week, and has a four point lead over Biden in the national polls.

Trump would come in and undo their Socialist Paradise and the Left can’t stand the thought of that. They are going to do everything they can, legal and illegal, to try to stop Trump, including smearing innocent Republicans on a global stage.

I sure would like to have an opportunity to vote for Trump one more time. We need someone with common sense in the White House. The next few years are going to be very interesting.

Last edited 4 months ago by Tom Abbott
Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 24, 2022 12:37 pm

Biden is pure slime, and has been way for decades.

kenji
Reply to  Tom Halla
March 24, 2022 11:56 am

Our ‘token’ SCOTUS candidate cannot define a woman without the assist of a biologist … but PDJT correctly differentiates weather from climate … without the assistance of a computer model.

Some things are self-evident and others aren’t … any longer … I guess

Tom Abbott
Reply to  kenji
March 25, 2022 4:46 am

If she said a woman was a woman, then she would upset the radical Democrats, and she doesn’t want to do that, so she doesn’t give an answer.

I’m more bothered by how many times her court rulings have been overturned by higher courts.

She does appear to be highly intelligent. Too bad she’s a lefty and looks at the world that way. Maybe she will come more to the center in her new job.

Last edited 4 months ago by Tom Abbott
John Endicott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 28, 2022 5:25 am

Doubtful. The left has a better track record with their judge picks than the right (who too often get judges that move to the left once seated), if anything she’s more likely to swing even further to the left once she’s seated.

niceguy
Reply to  Tom Halla
March 27, 2022 7:25 pm

Great leaders and speakers making minor errors to be “faked checked” or “fact checked” may be involuntary, but it’s still great to see these cretins babbling about details when the essential stuff is ignored – and very ostensibly!

n.n
March 23, 2022 6:09 pm

Climate changes. Liberals diverge. That’s what they do.

Iain Russell
March 23, 2022 6:11 pm

I love the last sentence@

Megs
March 23, 2022 6:25 pm

I’m sure we could get an intelligent response from Joe Biden on the subject of climate change.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Megs
March 23, 2022 6:40 pm

It shouldn’t be any more difficult than defining what a “woman” is.

Megs
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
March 23, 2022 6:46 pm

There’s at least one of your female judges who claims she can’t. Best person for the job?

Paul S.
Reply to  Megs
March 23, 2022 7:48 pm

I wish someone would have, or will ask Ketanji Brown Jackson, “Are you a Woman”? I would love to hear the answer.

Megs
Reply to  Paul S.
March 23, 2022 8:01 pm

Bingo! Just watched her online telling the world that she does not know the answer to that question. It needed to be in context. Of course so knows, she is twisting herself in knots because she dare not offend the alphabet community.

It’s not just energy that has been overcomplicated.

Scissor
Reply to  Megs
March 23, 2022 8:50 pm

She would be bad at hiring for a strip club.

Megs
Reply to  Scissor
March 23, 2022 9:05 pm

Wouldn’t that be a fun conversation.

Taylor Pohlman
Reply to  Paul S.
March 24, 2022 8:01 am

I would have asked: “Since you are aware that President Biden nominated you in part because he intended to nominate a woman, was he wrong in nominating you?” As a follow up question: “if he was right that you are a woman, why do you think he knew when you don’t – is Joe Biden smarter than you?”

that’d set their hair on fire…

DonM
Reply to  Taylor Pohlman
March 24, 2022 10:29 am

and another follow up question;

“Since it has been revealed by the President that the primary qualifications for this nomination was being a black woman, will you affirm that if you cease being a woman, that you will voluntarily resign?”

Paddy
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
March 24, 2022 2:22 am

Yet Brandon said he chose her because she is a woman

Scissor
Reply to  Paddy
March 24, 2022 4:23 am

Maybe she’s soft on pedophiles because she doesn’t know what a child is.

No, she’s just another dishonest leftist and not a very smart one as apparently her answer indicates that she knows that biology has something to do with the differences between a man and a woman.

James Bull
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
March 24, 2022 6:07 am

Also she’s like MAP Joe in favour of Pedophilia. So an ideal candidate, but I’m not sure what for?
I like the header photo, he’s almost got the look of this will seriously upset lots of people who need it and will cheer up so many normal down to earth people.

James Bull

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
March 24, 2022 9:54 am

Clyde,
At least she admitted that the difference between men and women is biological, not socially constructed. I like the comment from one woman to a guy that asked if she was a biologist: “I’m not a Vet, but I know what a dog is!” I’ve been known to tell people “You don’t have to be a mathematician to know that 1+1=2.” The appeal to authority is so readily accepted today by the general public. It scares me.

James Schrumpf
Reply to  Paul Penrose
March 25, 2022 9:39 am

And then there’s the classic line from “Galaxy Quest”, from Tim Allen to the Boss Alien: “You don’t have to be a great actor to spot a bad one.”

Janice Moore
Reply to  Megs
March 23, 2022 7:12 pm

Heh.

Alba
Reply to  Megs
March 24, 2022 3:23 am

Well, we could go to VP Harris:
“When the temperature rises it gets warmer and when the temperature falls it gets colder. But climate is, like all things, affected by the passage of time.”

ozspeaksup
Reply to  Alba
March 24, 2022 3:31 am

so sad not one but TWO utterly stupid incompetents in the WH

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  ozspeaksup
March 24, 2022 6:52 am

Oh yeah, you have this right.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  ozspeaksup
March 24, 2022 11:30 am

I’m not sure Democrats have anyone who would be considered competent to be president. Maybe Joe Manchin, but he would never be elected in this new radical Democrat party.

The Democrats don’t have any talent. They don’t even have any smooth talkers who can feign competence.

And you are right, we do have two utterly stupid incompetents in the White House.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 24, 2022 1:21 pm

Beware of California’s Gavin Newsom.

Earthling2
Reply to  Dave Fair
March 25, 2022 3:54 pm

Very scary thought, and those are the storm clouds on the horizon. And he would probably be a bigger cluster f**k than the rest put together. We need 10 more years of Republican governance which could be accomplished by Trump for the first two years and a day, and then he resigns in old age to allow his VP DeSantis to win another 2 elections. That would get us to 2035.

Last edited 4 months ago by Earthling2
John Endicott
Reply to  Earthling2
March 28, 2022 5:31 am

Trump doesn’t strike me as the type that would step down after 2 years and a day just to give another guy (no matter how deserving) a shot at 10 years in the WH. If Trump was ever to get back in the WH, it would be for the full term.

bonbon
Reply to  Alba
March 24, 2022 3:40 am

Climate is only gettin’ older – about 3.5 billion years and countin’

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  bonbon
March 25, 2022 12:44 am

I think you’re short about a billion.

Megs
Reply to  Alba
March 24, 2022 3:48 am

It’s OK America, things will get better “with the passage of time”. November?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Megs
March 24, 2022 11:35 am

More like January, 2023, when the new House of Repesentatives starts working.

Let’s hope the Republicans control the House of Representatives after the November election, and that they impeach Joe Biden in January for dereliction of duty to the people of the United States.

If the Republicans control the U.S. Senate in January, then they can remove Biden from office and stop some of the damage he is doing to this nation.

We can hope.

jwr
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 24, 2022 1:36 pm

Before you hope, think about who would replace him. Can you say Kamala?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  jwr
March 25, 2022 4:58 am

Kamala wouldn’t be any better than Biden, but she can be impeached, too, if she doesn’t do her duty.

And if Republicans have control of one or both Houses of Congress, then neither Biden or Harris will get much done after that.

And if Republicans have enough votes to override a presidential veto, then Republicans can start in 2023, not in 2025, to repair the damage the Biden administration has done to the United States and the World. They can force Biden and Harris to do the right thing.

John Endicott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 28, 2022 5:50 am

And if Republicans have enough votes to override a presidential veto”

Let’s be realistic, that’s not going to happen this year. There’s not enough Dem Senate seats up in 2022 (there’s only 14 Dems up for election in the Senate this go around) for the Republicans to get that kind of majority, even if they sweep the board and pick them all up without losing any of their own. They’d still be a few seats short of the 2/3rds needed in the senate to override (assuming they manage to get 2/3rds of the house, which is also unlikely but at least theoretically possible as every seat in the house is up for election every 2 years)

MarkW
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 24, 2022 1:59 pm

And put Harris into the Oval Office? Would that be better?

Regardless, it takes 60 votes to convict, and you would never get all of the Republicans to vote for conviction.

DonM
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 25, 2022 4:40 pm

It won’t even come up for a vote in the house.

It won’t get to the Senate.

John Endicott
Reply to  DonM
March 28, 2022 5:53 am

Logically it wouldn’t come up for a vote in the house (and thus not get to the Senate) without a winnable Senate case. But as the Dems showed, it’s entirely possible to push it through the House on a purely partisan basis with just a slim majority regardless of the fact that such partisan political charges have no hope of winning in a evenly divided Senate.

John Endicott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 28, 2022 5:38 am

If you want to go that route, you need
1) to draft real and damning charges, not the purely political nonsense the Dems came up with when Trump was impeached. Show the country what a real impeachment is all about. It also makes it politically untenable for all the Dems to reject the charges, increasing the odds of success.
2) to impeach and remove Kamala first. Otherwise you end up with President Kamala should you manage to get “the big guy” out of office. (and again, the charges have to be substantial and not purely political theater).

Retired_Engineer_Jim
March 23, 2022 6:26 pm

“… some scientists hypothesized, in largely discredited findings, that world temperatures declined from 1945 to 1972 …”. The claims of global cooling, and the imminence of a new glaciation era, are largely discredited??? Are she rewriting history?

Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
March 23, 2022 6:47 pm

hockey stick science always “hides the decline…”

Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
March 23, 2022 7:06 pm

Here Ms Papenfuss was getting as confused as Mr Trump. In fact global temperatures did decline from 1945 to 1972. But what they are both fumbling for is the warnings in the 1970’s of imminent global cooling (in the future). These were sparse, and mostly not from scientists, but there were some.

Mr.
Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 23, 2022 7:27 pm

James Hansen wasn’t a scientist in the 1970s?

Reply to  Mr.
March 23, 2022 7:31 pm

He was.

Reply to  Mr.
March 23, 2022 8:08 pm

Here is a famous Science paper co-authored by Hansen in 1976 titled
“Greenhouse Effects due to Man-Made Perturbations of Trace Gases”
subtitled
“Anthropogenic gases may alter our climate by plugging an atmospheric window for escaping thermal radiation”
It’s actually about the lesser gases. Effect of CO2 was already well established. That 1976 paper starts:
“It is well recognized that the thermal structure of the earth’s atmosphere is influenced by the presence of small quantities of water vapor, carbon dioxide, ozone, and aerosols (1, 2). The main radiative effect of the gases is through absorption of upward-moving thermal radiation and reradiation at the local temperature; this blanketing leads to an increase in the surface temperature, the so-called greenhouse effect.” 

Mark Pawelek
Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 24, 2022 5:06 am

Please cite empirical work done to validate & falsify the hypotheses Hansen presented in his 1976 paper.

Armchair pontificating & modelling is not science.

bigoilbob
Reply to  Mark Pawelek
March 24, 2022 6:10 am

And armchair goal post moving on your part.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  bigoilbob
March 24, 2022 6:53 am

So blob—do tell us [tinu], what is the optimum concentration of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere?

bigoilbob
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
March 24, 2022 6:59 am

AGAIN. deflectively wrong question. Given millennia, the changes we have seen over the last 75 years would matter very little. But bad news for our kids and theirs, when compressed into a few decades.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  bigoilbob
March 24, 2022 7:08 am

Predictable—just like every other watermelon climastrologer, you can’t and won’t provide an answer to this simple little question.

Carry on, blob!

MarkW
Reply to  bigoilbob
March 24, 2022 7:47 am

Can you give any evidence for that? Or is that just what you are paid to say?

Dale S
Reply to  bigoilbob
March 24, 2022 11:22 am

Bad news for alarmists and their admirers — the kind of changes we have seen over the last 75 years are *trivial* compared to the variation that occurs on a seasonal or even daily basis.

b.nice
Reply to  bigoilbob
March 24, 2022 11:55 am

Bad news for our kid and those living in the future will be the lack of energy and food because of the CO2-hatred agenda.

The last 75 years have brought about HUGE benefits for mankind through the utilisation of fossil fuels.

Why do morons like you want to go back to less prosperous time .. just dumb !

bigoilbob
Reply to  b.nice
March 24, 2022 12:19 pm

Why do morons like you want to go back to less prosperous time”

I don’t. And as an adult lifelong international petroleum engineer, oil and gas, “Ben bery, bery gud tu mi”.

I just want to face facts and act responsibly. You need only to look at the 2022 CAPEX decisions made by US shale producers, even with high prices, to see that fossil fuels have economically flat lined. Even without a carbon tax, and with the current level of fossil fuel production and use cycle cost communization upon the rest of us, and without any more of the tiny green start up helps, green sources are still more than competitive. Add to that our dope slap on how dependent we are (and have been for decades) on conflict fossil fuels from kleptocratic, murderous, regimes, and the future is obviously green.

Here’s what the best shale leader in the industry had to say. Guess which president he didn’t have a bad word to say about.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-02-17/pioneer-ceo-sheffield-warns-u-s-shale-unable-to-grow-much-more

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  bigoilbob
March 24, 2022 12:44 pm

Hey blob, which raw mineral is required for refinement of metallic Si from SiO2, which is necessary for the creation of those green PV modules?

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  bigoilbob
March 25, 2022 12:47 am

“Ben bery, bery gud tu mi”

Racist.

bigoilbob
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
March 25, 2022 5:34 am

Snap out of the selective PCism. Stolen from a Mork and Mindy episode.

Graemethecat
Reply to  bigoilbob
March 25, 2022 10:00 am

And as an adult lifelong international petroleum engineer, oil and gas, “Ben bery, bery gud tu mi”.

-BigOilyBlob.

Of course, we all believe you when you say this.

bigoilbob
Reply to  Graemethecat
March 25, 2022 10:14 am

Quiz me.

DonM
Reply to  bigoilbob
March 25, 2022 11:31 am

What is your State(s) of license issue? what is your license number?

bigoilbob
Reply to  DonM
March 25, 2022 12:38 pm

We are allowed WUWTnyms here. I hope you (and I suppose anyone else who cares to check) will honor that.

Oklahoma, petroleum, by multiple examination, and references, 1985, first try. ~35% pass rate that year. Reciprocity with other states because, unlike Texas at the time, we had to pass quizzes.

54505

Last edited 4 months ago by bigoilbob
bigoilbob
Reply to  bigoilbob
March 25, 2022 12:56 pm

FYI, relatively few petroleum engineers have (1) professional registration, (2) advanced degrees, Up until ~the last 15 years, they had multiple job offers by the beginning of their senior year,

I wanted the additional knowledge that came from advanced degree from USC (petroleum, emphasis drilling). I was working in Cal, and my employer paid the exorbitant tuition/fees.

I wanted registration as soon as eligible – 5 years from graduation – to distinguish myself. With letters of recommendation from employers and notably experienced colleagues, I was able to stand a year early.

Last edited 4 months ago by bigoilbob
bigoilbob
Reply to  DonM
March 25, 2022 4:51 pm

Forgive me. I have a few certifications, and I honestly don’t know what 54505 is for. Perhaps it’s my old BOP certification. I checked my stamp, and my # is 14428.

Reply to  Carlo, Monte
March 24, 2022 1:20 pm

Easy
750 to 1500ppm CO2 range
to optimize C3 plant growth

As every greenhouse owner already knows.

Optimum C3 plant growth supports
the most animal and human life
possible on our planet.
People who are anti-CO2 are anti life.

Any more questions?

How about asking me about
the optimum temperature?
Easy
June 6 1850 at 3:06pm was the optimum
global average temperature. Any change
from that “utopia” , in either direction,
is a climate emergency, and don’t you
forget it !
Source: Because I say so science !
(the science used by the IPCC !)

b.nice
Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 24, 2022 11:50 am

“Effect of CO2 was already well established.”

BS.. they made the conjecture it caused warming, when it doesn’t.

The whole paper is based on a manifest lie. !

Only a complete moron accepts the “blanket” analogy. The atmosphere acts as a cooling mechanism when the surface gets hot.. not a blanket.

Last edited 4 months ago by b.nice
Reply to  b.nice
March 24, 2022 2:07 pm

“The whole paper is based on a manifest lie. !”
And so it goes here. Hansen was put forward as someone who was proposing global cooling in the 70’s. When I point out what he (like most other scientists) was actually saying (AGW) the response is that he was lying. But whatever, he was speaking of warming, not cooling.

John Endicott
Reply to  Mr.
March 28, 2022 5:55 am

He’s not one now, if he ever was one. He’s long since abandoned the impartiality of science for the biased role of activist. One can either be a scientist or an activist, once can not be both as bias and impartiality are mutually exclusive.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 23, 2022 7:27 pm

Alarmists always try to downplay the cooling of the 1970’s and the buzz it generated.

Richard Thornton
Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 23, 2022 7:36 pm

Global cooling warnings were not sparse. The cover of Time Magazine used to be the same as if every web site available today had the same headline. This is a straight up lie. Retract please.

Reply to  Richard Thornton
March 23, 2022 7:49 pm

So which cover of Time predicted imminent global cooling? Those fake ones?

Old Man Winter
Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 23, 2022 8:15 pm

There is an article from Time dated June 24, 1974:

https://realclimatescience.com/1970s-global-cooling-scare/

Reply to  Old Man Winter
March 23, 2022 8:25 pm

Yes, there was one such article (short). But not a cover.

wadesworld
Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 23, 2022 9:03 pm

Nick is correct on this point. The widely circulated pictures of the cover are fake.

Last edited 4 months ago by wadesworld
Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 24, 2022 2:58 am

That’s known to us as Nitpicking = the tendency to look for slight mistakes or faults
Nit = the egg or young form of a louse or other parasitic insect, especially the egg of a human head louse attached to a hair.

David Kamakaris
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
March 24, 2022 5:47 am

I think we need to start calling him Nit-pick Nick.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
March 24, 2022 6:54 am

Nitpick Nick—its what he does best.

bigoilbob
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
March 24, 2022 7:02 am

Yah, doncha’ just hate it when he makes a simple, true, observation that effectively rebuts a central claim. Nick, stop that nitpicking!!

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  bigoilbob
March 24, 2022 7:09 am

Yes, it is now confirmed, blob is a dyed-in-the-wool Nitpick Nick groupie.

DonM
Reply to  bigoilbob
March 25, 2022 11:37 am

Hey bob,

why is it that you feel you have to peruse other posts to find someone that “effectively rebuts a central claim”?

As one of the smartest people that you know, you should be able to defend your own stuff.

David Kamakaris
Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 24, 2022 5:46 am

And that article was just as incorrect as all your alarmist prognosticating. But go ahead and nit-pick insignificant details if that’s what floats your boat. It matters not in the least.

Editor
Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 23, 2022 7:46 pm

You persist in this lie since you were shown a large list of published papers talking about the cooling a while back maybe you have selective memory loss?

Derg
Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 23, 2022 7:57 pm

And CO2 continues to climb.

Control knob my @ss.

Old Man Winter
Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 23, 2022 8:08 pm

As for “mostly not from scientists”, the list includes Paul Ehrlich, the
CIA, NCAR, Science News,….

https://realclimatescience.com/1970s-global-cooling-scare/

Reply to  Old Man Winter
March 23, 2022 8:35 pm

Ehrlich warned of many things, mainly from overpopulation. Not from Global cooling.
CIA is not a scientist.
A journalist drew a graph, claiming he used NCAR data. No-one has ever found an NCAR original. The graph was just of past temperatures. There was no prediction.
Science News was pop science journal.

wadesworld
Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 23, 2022 9:08 pm

Paul Erlich is an “expert” whose predictions of doom were widely reported upon

Reply to  wadesworld
March 23, 2022 10:12 pm

But he did not predict global cooling.

Old Man Winter
Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 23, 2022 10:27 pm

Nick-

You’re an intelligent person. Stop making a fool of
yourself by defending the indefensible lie that the global
cooling scare was just a minor blip when it was larger
than that. Back then, there were not a lot of articles on
climate science so the number of stories appearing in
post that I referenced is large relative to the total.

Ehrlich- world class microbiologist- don’t you think he
read about climate science? There are no gatekeepers
as far as what a person can know.

CIA- don’t you think they had scientists working for
them?

NCAR- nice try at dodging the facts. Drs Schhneider
& Roberts are from NCAR.

Journalists- back then, they still reported news &
weren’t part of a propaganda cabal so the graph is
legit. Just because it can’t be found doesn’t mean it
didn’t exist. They also cited Dr Lamb who has the CRUI
building named after him at East Anglia.

Science News- it’s still science regardless how you
spin it. Most bogus “scientific papers ” written today
supporting the glow-bull warming scam can be ripped
to shreds by asking a couple of “inconvenient”
questions.

Time, Newsweek, etal- I read them back then & they
were widely circulated as was the NYT. Back then, they
didn’t they couldn’t get away with lying as much as they
can today.

You have a habit of dodging things when the facts turn
against you. A while back, you were claiming it’s
getting warmer than ever in this inter-glacial. Someone
named MIke then asked you about this graph from the
IPCC to which you didn’t respond. So I’d like to know
how you can explain that graph given what you had
said.

also found here:

http://www.co2science.org/subject/other/figures/temp10000.jpg

11kyT0.jpg
Reply to  Old Man Winter
March 23, 2022 10:52 pm

There were reports of global cooling predictions, and even some scientists involved. But they were sparse. The incidents have been hugely exaggerated, and you don’t help here by passing them on uncritically. Try actually quoting to back up what you say.

Ehrlich – whatever his qualifications, he just didn’t say anything about global cooling. Nothing. Prove me wrong with a quote.

The CIA tasked an agent with compiling a report. No CIA scientists were involved. He talked to lots of people, got various views, but did seem to get rather captured by the Kukla’s, who were the most prominent cooling fans.

NCAR – very early on, SS was a junior scientist at NCAR. I don’t know who Roberts is. But they weren’t speaking for NCAR. And while SS spoke passionately about the dangers of climate change, sometimes with cooling as a possibility, generally he spoke in terms of AGW, as in a section I quoted above.

There was just one journalist involved there – John Hamer. He was syndicated, so crops up in many places. But legit or not, the fact is that the graph does not purport to predict global cooling. It simply gives temperature history.

As to your “graph from IPCC”, it is useless expecting a response without some basic facts. What is it? Where does it appear? What is it based on? It doesn’t even seem to have a proper axis.

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 24, 2022 12:53 am

I was taught that a new ice age was expected in school. Stop lying.

Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
March 24, 2022 1:23 am

Of course. So was I. So was Darwin, probably. In ten thousand years or so.

Don’t just make stupid accusations of lying. Provide some evidence.

Jtom
Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 24, 2022 8:35 am

No, Nick. I was taught the current theory in university at that time. We were shown historical data indicating we were OVERDUE for the next freeze. Not ten thousand years in the future.

You are welcome to your own theories of the future, but you cannot revise the past.

The theory was widespread and commonly known, as evidenced by the large number of diverse oldsters on this and other boards who remember the warnings of an imminent ice age.

Graemethecat
Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 24, 2022 9:56 am

Kukla and Matthews of the Lamont Docherty Observatory, both eminent Quaternary Geologists, wrote extensively on Global Cooling in the 1970’s.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Graemethecat
March 24, 2022 11:55 am

I read a lot of articles in Scientific American back in the 1970’s about Human-caused Global Cooling.

I kept waiting for them to provide some details and evidence, but that never happened. All I got was assumptions and assertions, but never any solid evidence that anything the cooling alarmists said was actually happening.

Then in the 1980’s the temperatures started climbing and human-caused Global Cooling became human-caused Global Warming, and since the Global Cooling narrative was never proven, that made me a little skeptical of the Global Warming narrative right off the bat, and sadly, the situation is the same with human-caused Global Warming as it is with human-caused Global Cooling: The science is based completely on unsubstantiated assumptions and assertions.

There’s no evidence for human-caused Global Cooling and there’s no evidence for human-caused Global Warming.

I think the Human-Caused Global Cooling narrative was an honest look at the problem, at the time, but I think the Human-caused Global warming narrative is a total scam, using distorted temperature “data”, created to deliberately deceive and scare people about CO2 and the Earth’s climate.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 24, 2022 12:46 pm

There’s a reason “global warming” was rebranded as “global climate change”.

observa
Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 24, 2022 8:02 am

Doesn’t matter Nick as we’re all doomed according to the baby IPCC with their predictions you’ll recall-
null | AP News
Unfortunately we were too busy with Y2K at the time to heed the warning and we picked the wrong horse. May your God walk with you when the dooming is finally upon us.

Scissor
Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 24, 2022 8:11 am

Dr. Walter Orr Roberts founded NCAR.

I have access to the science libraries in Boulder. So far they haven’t been scrubbed of the books that prove Mr. Stokes is largely full of shit on this.

Cooling from the late 30’s to the late mid 70’s was well known.

Reply to  Scissor
March 24, 2022 1:58 pm

Cooling from the late 30’s to the late mid 70’s was well known.”
Yes (though not such a long period). And a lot of the papers cited as cooling are simply describing some aspect of this past cooling. But that does not mean they are predicting an Ice Age. Or predicting anything at all.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 24, 2022 8:32 am

As to your “graph from IPCC”, …. What is it? Where does it appear? What is it based on?

Old Man Winter’s figure comes directly from the IPCC 1AR.
And you already knew that, didn’t you Nick. But why waste an opportunity to sow confusion.

1990 1AR Fig 7.1.png
Reply to  Pat Frank
March 24, 2022 2:01 pm

to sow confusion”
The confusion results from presenting a graph without caption, title, extracted from a panel, and without even the axis numbered. When you get to see at the caption, it makes it clear that it is not graphed from data, but is a “schematic”.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 24, 2022 3:22 pm

The confusion results …

There was no confusion. The comment was directed to you, and you knew exactly the source of that graphic and what it meant.

You could have answered constructively. But you chose to raise false doubts.

Last edited 4 months ago by Pat Frank
Dave Fair
Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 24, 2022 1:53 pm

A similar graph by the great Herbert Lamb was featured in early UN IPCC reports and the MWP and LIA were prominent in paleo climatology reconstructions and in the historical records of the times. That is until Michael Mann (MHB98 and MHB99) and his merry band know as The Hockey Team (the term from Mann), being post-modern paleo climatologists, removed the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and Little Ice Age from their fraudulent reconstructions by making long-handled hockey sticks and adding in bogus hockey blades. Then-head of the UN IPCC Houghton, realizing its political significance, made the inexperienced Mann a Lead Author and hyped MBH98 in the Third Assessment Report. It was picked up by Al Gore and all the climate profiteers.

All of the hockey stick-shaped reconstructions were made by misuse and cherrypicking of data and/or use of improper statistical methods to bias the reconstructions. Read Andrew Montfort’s “The Hockey Stick Illusion” for a complete description of the paleo climatological communities’ post-normal science and attacks on people attempting to correct the record.

Then again Nick, you know all of this history of the corruption of science but choose to dissemble in order to mislead the ignorant and push your ideological version of science.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Dave Fair
March 25, 2022 5:27 am

“Then again Nick, you know all of this history of the corruption of science but choose to dissemble in order to mislead the ignorant and push your ideological version of science.”

That’s the bad part. And it applies to every knowledgeable alarmist. They know what is going on. They know we are not experiencig unprecedented warming today, but they pretend we are.

A lot of people are being misled. A lot of money is being spent unnecessarily. A lot of damage is being done to the economy and the human psyche.

One wonders what motivates knowledgeable alarmists to do this? I suppose there are many motivations, but they all end up misleading and harming human society by their unscientific demonization of CO2.

wayne Job
Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 24, 2022 11:14 pm

Scientists toured the world in the 1850ties and set the average world temperature at 14.7C @1313MB. It would appear that using satellites they are now saying we are 15C whoa is me we are all going to fry. All this BS about AGW is frightening the children and the gullible left.

Derg
Reply to  Old Man Winter
March 24, 2022 3:41 am

He needs these delusions because reality is different from his beliefs.

Reply to  Old Man Winter
March 24, 2022 1:24 pm

“Nick- , You’re an intelligent person”

Who told you that?
Nick?

Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 24, 2022 1:35 pm

I;ll defend Stokes when he is right.
Which won’t keep me vert busy.
heh heh
Scientists wrote science papers in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s …
Those papers included uncertainty.
They did not rush to the media to make scary climate predictions
until a few coming global cooling crisis scientists did that in the 1970s.

Those few scientists got so much mass media attention
t almost seemed like they represented a consensus.
In fact, based on science papers
the consensus was for rising CO2 and global warming.

It would have been tough for the “global warming scientists”,
some of whom expected a global warming crisis eventually,
as CO2 levels rose, to get THEIR opinions published
by the mass media. Because there was a global cooling trend
since about 1940, with CO2 levels rising. How could they “sell;”
their belief that CO2 caused global warming
when there was global cooling for several decades ?
Not the time to make public predictions of global warming.
A few years later those predictions began (beyond the science
papers and into the mass media).

There was a time when scientists realized
their ability to predict the climate in 100 years
was very weak. Those were the good old days
of climate science.

Patrick healy
Reply to  Old Man Winter
March 24, 2022 3:54 am

Precisely, Old Man,
Old Nick is correct, I do not think there is an honest real scientist among your list.

Jtom
Reply to  Patrick healy
March 24, 2022 8:43 am
Doonman
Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 23, 2022 9:18 pm

Stephen Schneider of Stanford University was hyping the coming ice age everywhere he could in the late seventies. It was not sparse coverage and it was widely reported. Even Leonard Nimoy had him on the “In Search Of” TV show warning about cold.

Of course, he stopped spouting that when a warming trend ruined that narrative.

Reply to  Doonman
March 23, 2022 10:08 pm

“hyping the coming ice age”
Here is a Science article he wrote in 1974. Perfectly orthodox AGW. Predicts 0.5°C warming by year 2000.Not too bad; HADCRUT5 says 0.37°C happened.

comment image

Last edited 4 months ago by Nick Stokes
Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 24, 2022 6:55 am

Nitpick Nick—what is the optimum global average temperature for planet Earth?

Dave Fair
Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 24, 2022 2:05 pm

He switched from his early 1970s position of cooling to the new warming bandwagon in the mid-1970s when its potential for fame and profit became apparent.

Hivemind
Reply to  Doonman
March 23, 2022 10:21 pm

In other words, he was nearly 100% over the true value. Pretty normal for climate change “scientists”.

Reply to  Hivemind
March 23, 2022 10:56 pm

No, the outcome was 0.37. Not ban for a stated “reasonable first order estimate”. But whatever, it isn’t cooling.

meab
Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 23, 2022 11:01 pm

You’re lying Stokes. The warnings were not sparse. Here’s a partial list of stories about the impending ice age from just 1970 and 1971. Many of them reference scientists and scientific studies. I have close to a hundred more references to stories printed in the 1970s about the impending ice age.

Why do you keep repeating this lie, Stokes?

1970 – Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age – Scientists See Ice Age In the Future (The Washington Post, January 11, 1970)
1970 – Is Mankind Manufacturing a New Ice Age for Itself? (L.A. Times, January 15, 1970)
1970 – New Ice Age May Descend On Man (Sumter Daily Item, January 26, 1970)
1970 – Pollution Prospect A Chilling One (Owosso Argus-Press, January 26, 1970)
1970 – Pollution’s 2-way ‘Freeze’ On Society (Middlesboro Daily News, January 28, 1970)
1970 – Cold Facts About Pollution (The Southeast Missourian, January 29, 1970)
1970 – Pollution Could Cause Ice Age, Agency Reports (St. Petersburg Times, March 4, 1970)
1970 – Scientist predicts a new ice age by 21st century (Boston Globe, April 16, 1970)
1970 – Pollution Called Ice Age Threat (St. Petersburg Times, June 26, 1970)
1970 – Dirt Will Bring New Ice Age (The Sydney Morning Herald, October 19, 1970)
1971 – Ice Age Refugee Dies Underground (The Montreal Gazette, Febuary 17, 1971)
1971 – Pollution Might Lead To Another Ice Age (Schenectady Gazette, March 22, 1971)
1971 – Pollution May Bring Ice Age – Scientist Rites Risk (The Windsor Star, March 23, 1971)
1971 – U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming (The Washington Post, July 9, 1971)
1971 – Ice Age Around the Corner (Chicago Tribune, July 10, 1971)
1971 – New Ice Age Coming – It’s Already Getting Colder (L.A. Times, October 24, 1971)
1971 – Another Ice Age? Pollution Blocking Sunlight (The Day, November 1, 1971)
1971 – Air Pollution Could Bring An Ice Age (Harlan Daily Enterprise, November 4, 1971)

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  meab
March 24, 2022 12:54 am

Yep.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
March 24, 2022 6:56 am

Oh yeah.

Philip Mulholland
Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 24, 2022 1:41 am

and mostly not from scientists,

I guess that means Hubert H Lamb just doesn’t count as a climatologist of repute?.
Maybe this was mostly ghost written for him? /sarc
Is The Earth’s Climate Changing?
For the past 30 years the temperature of our planet has been steadily dropping.
The UNESCO Courier 1973: a window open on the world; Vol. XXVI (8/9), 17-20.

Philip Mulholland
Reply to  Philip Mulholland
March 24, 2022 1:49 am

Hubert H. Lamb of Great Britain is an international authority on the long-term processes of climatic change. He is director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (U.K.) and for many years has been actively engaged in international research on climate, in particular polar meteorology and the study of climatic fluctuations. Among his many writings are “The Changing Climate” (1966) and, most recently, “Climate: Present, Past and Future”, a major study of which Volume I, “Fundamentals and the Climate Now” appeared last year (Methuen, London; Barnes and Noble, New York)

Reply to  Philip Mulholland
March 24, 2022 2:19 am

As usual, not a prediction of global cooling. It’s true that the Earth’s temperature had been dropping. But what does he say about an imminent ice age? The link, which seems to be the only one available, doesn’t work. Seems to be one of these old links that has been passed around on the internet for ages without anyone actually trying to connect.

I had another link to Lamb tossed at me, this time a 1974 paper, in which Lamb did talk about the prospect for the next glaciation, in a few thousand years. Paul Matthews posted it, and I’ve linked to my citation. Unfortunately his link is now dead too. But the thing is, he hadn’t read to the end. Here is what Lamb was actually saying, in 1974:

“The question of whether a lasting increase of glaciation and permanent shift of the climatic belts results from any given one of these episodes must depend critically on the radiation available during the recovery phase of the 200-year and other, short-term fluctuations. An influence which may be expected to tip the balance rather more towards warming – and possibly inconveniently rapid warming – in the next few centuries is the increasing output of carbon dioxide and artificially generated heat by Man (MITCHELL 1972).”

Pflashgordon
Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 24, 2022 5:04 am

“Sparse?” I am a meteorologist schooled in the 1970s, and global cooling was a feature of mainstream university climatology textbooks of the era. I still have one of those on my bookshelf.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 24, 2022 1:14 pm

You are wrong hockey puck Spokes
Predictions of a coming global cooling crisis
WERE mainly from scientists.
Do you think the mass media would have
reported such predictions from plumbers
or lawyers?

A small minority of scientists observed
global cooling from about 1940 to about 1974,
as CO2 levels rose, rather than the expected
global warming.

For reasons only they know,
they decided to predict a global cooling crisis..
And got an amazing amount of media attention.
The next year a global warming trend began,
just after the ink dried on their predictions.

But their predictions were important.

Other scientists noticed how much attention
and media reporting followed predictions
of doom, especially if stated with great certainty.

After a few years of the new global warming trend,
other scientists started talking about the coming
global warming crisis, and never stopped.
Their scientific papers got no attention
in the media. But scary predictions certainly did.
Just following communications lessons learned
from a few coming global cooling scientists
in the mid-1970s.

Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
March 24, 2022 7:14 am

I nailed the Climate-and-Energy scam two decades ago in 2002, by correctly predicting:
Natural Global Cooling starting circa 2020; Green Energy Total Fail due to intermittency & diffusivity.
 
To summarize, and cut through all the warmist nonsense propaganda:
“MacRae’s Maxim” (published circa 2020):
“VIRTUALLY EVERY SCARY PREDICTION BY GLOBAL WARMING ALARMISTS IS FALSE.”
2022 Update – eliminate the word “VIRTUALLY” – leads to rounding errors. 🙂
 
Proof – this paper – updated 18Mar2022:
SCIENTIFIC COMPETENCE – THE ABILITY TO CORRECTLY PREDICT
https://correctpredictions.ca/
“The ability to correctly predict is the best objective measure of scientific and technical competence.”
 
By the end of 2020, the climate doomsters were proved wrong in their scary climate predictions 48 times. At 50:50 odds for each prediction, that is like flipping a coin 48 times and losing every time! The probability of that being mere random stupidity is 1 in 281 trillion! It’s not just global warming scientists being stupid.
 
But no sensible person makes a 50:50 prediction – at 60:40 the odds against being this wrong are 1 in 13 quintillion; at 70:30 the odds against being this wrong are 1 in 13 septillion. 🙂
 
These climate doomsters must know they have not been telling the truth – they displayed a dishonest bias in their analyses that caused these extremely improbable falsehoods, these frauds.
 
The lies of the climate fraudsters are so commonplace, so pervasive.
 
For example, here is a BIG LIE from the subject article:
“… some scientists hypothesized, in largely discredited findings, that world temperatures declined from 1945 to 1972. In any case, any natural trend toward another ice age was interrupted by the “massive influence” of the burgeoning burning of fossil fuels, scientists have noted.”  
 
We know that the world cooled from ~1940 to the Great Pacific Climate Shift of 1977. What is “discredited” is Ms Papenfuss and her woke nonsense article. 

Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
March 24, 2022 1:04 pm

NCAR reported in 1975 there was a lot of global cooling in the 1940 to 1975 period.
If you look within that period, and cherry pick the highest temperature month and the lowest temperature month, the change from high to low was a decline of close to -0.6 degrees C.

It was inconvenient to have such a cooling period while CO2 levels were increasing, so it gradually “disappeared”. Obvious science fraud.

Science fraud is just what one would expect from government bureaucrats with science degrees paid to make scary always wrong climate predictions. And that’s what they do every years.

Not one prediction of climate doom has been correct in the past 65 years.
That 100% wrong applies to EVERY prediction of environmental doom (including the climate predictions). 100% wrong,m 100% of the time. And people have the nerve to call
decades of wrong predictions “science”

March 23, 2022 6:53 pm

“might have gotten the direction of the 1920s arctic temperature excursion wrong, but Trump’s claim is spot on, about there being evidence of climate shifts which occurred well before we could have had a significant influence.”

Any sloppiness (or worse) with facts will be excused where Trump is concerned. His claim wasn’t that there was a “temperature excursion”. His claim was that “If you look into the 1920s, they were talking about global freezing. OK? In other words, the globe was going to freeze.” So who was talking about “global freezing” here? How were his actual words “spot on”?

Last edited 4 months ago by Nick Stokes
Janice Moore
Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 23, 2022 7:10 pm

Were the words President Trump used to express his assertion the POINT?

Reply to  Janice Moore
March 23, 2022 7:18 pm

That is the usual form of the excuse. Don’t take him literally. But then no-one can keep track of what is the POINT. Eric says that his mistake was just that there was warming rather than cooling. But what then is the point? They were talking about warming in the 1020’s (says the amended Trump) and they are talking about warming now. Where did that POINT go?

Janice Moore
Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 23, 2022 7:34 pm

Seriously?

(head shake)

Weather. It goes up and down.

Therefore:

–> “climate change”

–> is

–> well

–> within

–> the bounds

–> of

–> natural variation.

And you knew that. 🤨

Reply to  Janice Moore
March 23, 2022 7:48 pm

‘ “climate change” is well within the bounds of natural variation.’
Well, he didn’t say that. And what he did say was all wrong. But I guess that is the point of a non-literal prophet. You can bend his fuzzy words as you wish.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 23, 2022 7:53 pm

And you can continue to provide more proof of your intellectual dishonesty (no, I don’t think you are stupid, thus, ….).

Old Man Winter
Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 23, 2022 8:32 pm

Nick-

Given that Trump is in his 70s, here’s my take of
what happened: he got the fact that scientists
thought that the world was going to freeze in
the 1970s, but he said 1920s instead. Correct
about global freezing, wrong about when that
was. All he needs to be told is it was the 1970s,
not the 1920s.

Mr.
Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 23, 2022 10:21 pm

How do you bend Obama’s words about his moment the seas stop rising?

Mike
Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 24, 2022 1:58 am

‘ “climate change” is well within the bounds of natural variation.’

Well, he didn’t say that.”

Trump….. ”It’s called weather, it goes up and it goes down”

How would you interpret that?

Reply to  Mike
March 24, 2022 2:37 am

Sometimes it’s hot, sometimes it’s cold.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 24, 2022 2:16 pm

Weather is not temperature. Weather (and temperature) averaged over significant periods of time is climate. Pre-post-normal paleo climatological science showed showed significant climatological variation, with temperature peaks greater or equal to today’s.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 24, 2022 2:11 pm

You accept Obama’s excursions from literal truth, but your TDS keeps you from allowing other’s imperfections.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 23, 2022 7:33 pm

It looks pretty cold around 1918 in the U.S. As cold as in the late 1970’s when we got the “Ice Age Cometh?” magazine cover.

comment image

Scissor
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 23, 2022 8:54 pm

I remember the late 70’s cooling. Kind of was reminded of it this January and February.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Scissor
March 23, 2022 9:12 pm

And March.

Gregory F Lane
Reply to  Scissor
March 24, 2022 3:21 am

Worked at a little ski area outside Boulder in 78/79 Winter. Mountain crew … grave yard shift. There were 2 nights in a row, in late January (I think I remember that) that were -45F (natural) first night, and -40F the second, both with maximum wind chill (typical for the area). That was cold. Never seen it like that in that location since, but I don’t follow that closely.

Last edited 4 months ago by Gregory F Lane
Scissor
Reply to  Gregory F Lane
March 24, 2022 3:55 am

Eldora.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Gregory F Lane
March 24, 2022 7:02 am

In the late 70s, before the advent of snow-making machines, the Steamboat Springs ski resort had to enlist people from the town to go up on the ski runs and shovel snow out of the trees so they could keep one run open and the resort limping along. Forget exactly which year this was, could have been 1977.

Scissor
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
March 24, 2022 3:37 pm

Those must have been the days. Coors was probably delicious back then, not like making love in a canoe today.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Scissor
March 24, 2022 5:16 pm

‘Twas before Bud took Coors to court to force them to drop the “Brewed with pure Rocky Mountain spring water” line, and way before the Molson Canucks took over.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 24, 2022 1:46 pm

I don’t recall any statement by Trump
on climate science over four years
hat was correct or made sense.

I was hoping he would learn enough
about climate science to tack about it
for just one minute. Never happened.

I do recall his claim that climate change
was a hoax created by the Chinese.
Which was a strange claim.
Never heard that one before.
The claim to be able to predict the climate
in 100 years and the associated claim
that a global warming crisis is coming IS A HOAX.

The technical term is “baloney”.

But how did the Chinese get involved?
They don’t even seem interested
in reducing their CO2 emissions.
and (non-CO2) air pollution over their cities
That was one of the oddest
climate claims of all time.

Gary Pearse
March 23, 2022 6:56 pm

I cant find the NYT (they buried it deep) story of scientists in the last decade or two of 19th century worrying about the oncoming ice age. But I found this:

https://petticoatsandpistols.com/2010/02/18/the-little-ice-age-of-the-1880s/

“In Brown County, Nebraska, this winter is one of the most severe ever. The snow the natural grazing, and at times it was so deep cattle could barely move. Thousands of head starved to death. Of the 3000 cattle on the Cook Ranch, only 800 survived…

Ironically, the winter of 1881-82 was unseasonably warm… but it ushered in a period of record breaking cold. For the next six years, winter temperatures (Dec. to Feb.) recorded in the Twin Cities area averaged from 0 F to 9 F.”

Wow, now that is real climate change!

Brandon Galt
March 23, 2022 7:19 pm

Oh please…are you going to rely on news articles from a time when they didn’t even have computers? All of the computer models and temperature reconstructions show that the authors of those articles had no idea what was really going on during those times. Science!

Mr.
Reply to  Brandon Galt
March 23, 2022 7:31 pm

a time when they didn’t even have computers?

How did we ever evolve to the standards of life we enjoy now by only using our eyes and other senses?

Janice Moore
Reply to  Mr.
March 23, 2022 7:45 pm

Heh.

How did we ever put a man on the moon and return him safely to earth?*

*in case some reader is unaware, thus, inclined to quibble, the “computers” of the 1960’s were mostly people using “adding machines” and slide rules. The computing power of the hardware and software even in 1969 was puny. What accomplished that mission was mainly non-digital ingenuity.

Komerade Cube
Reply to  Janice Moore
March 23, 2022 8:33 pm

“How did weever put a man on the moon” We didn’t, it was all done with CGI

Janice Moore
Reply to  Brandon Galt
March 23, 2022 7:51 pm

😆

wadesworld
Reply to  Brandon Galt
March 23, 2022 9:16 pm

So let me get this straight:

If there’s a newspaper article reporting extreme heat in New York in say 1920 with people and livestock dying from the heat, and a scientist in the year 2022 says “my model says it was not hot,” we’re going to believe the scientist’s model over the people that were there?

Last edited 4 months ago by wadesworld
Scissor
Reply to  wadesworld
March 24, 2022 3:39 pm

You have to understand that those people back then were racists.

Reply to  Brandon Galt
March 24, 2022 1:49 pm

The climate computer games predict
whatever they are programmed to predict by PEOPLE.
They are irrelevant and consistently wrong.
Wrong predictions are not science.

Janice Moore
March 23, 2022 7:22 pm

PERFECT photo choice, Mr. Worrall. 😀

*************************
*************************
****TRUMP! 2024!****
*************************
*************************

Trump. Best for America.
Best for the world.

(except not the subsidized/mandated electric vehicle, solar, wind, et al. part of the world, bwah, ha, ha, ha, haaaa!)

Tom Abbott
March 23, 2022 7:23 pm

From the article: Trump: ““In my opinion, you have a thing called weather,” Trump responded. “And you go up and you go down.”

Trump is describing the cyclical nature of the climate. The climate warms for a few decades and then it cools for a few decades and then the pattern repeats.

Trump: “He added: “If you look into the 1920s, they were talking about global freezing. OK? In other words, the globe was going to freeze. And then they go global warming, and then they couldn’t use that because the temperatures were actually quite cool, and it’s many different things … the climate’s always been changing.”

Well, the 1920’s were cool. I rather think Trump was referring to the 1970’s when referring to scientists talking about global freezing.

As you can see from the U.S. chart below, it was cool in the 1910’s/1920’s and it was just as cold back then as it was during the late 1970’s when climate scientists were speculating that Earth might be entering a new Ice Age.

comment image

Janice Moore
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 23, 2022 7:49 pm

Excellent tutoring, Mr. Abbott 🙂

Mr. Stokes will pretend not to understand it. Others more intellectually honest will find it helpful.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Janice Moore
March 24, 2022 12:12 pm

Thanks, Janice. Glad to see you are back and posting.

Yes, those unmodified, regional charts tell the real story of the climate. They show we have nothing to fear from CO2.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 24, 2022 12:52 pm

😊

markl
March 23, 2022 7:51 pm

Politics.

Chris Hanley
March 23, 2022 8:12 pm

Trump’s correct that the climate is always changing, the GAT goes up and down as a result of known and unknown internal and external natural factors.
According to Wiki: ‘Polar amplification is the phenomenon that any change in the net radiation balance (for example greenhouse intensification) tends to produce a larger change in temperature near the poles than in the planetary average’.
The Arctic temperature data offers a more credible estimate of the global temperature trends over the past century rather than other much-‘adjusted’ series — supposed GHG effects included.

March 23, 2022 8:18 pm

The remarkable article quoted here can be found online at the Monthly Weather Review for 1922. What’s remarkable is how far the AMS has gone to potentially endorse catastrophic global warming predictions when the 1922 report is about actual observations of a very warm arctic. Here’s the original article: https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/mwre/50/11/1520-0493_1922_50_589a_tca_2_0_co_2.xml

Bob
March 23, 2022 8:31 pm

I don’t want to diss Trump but he is not my go to guy for CAGW information. Having said that he mixed up what was happening in the 1920’s, his mix up pales in comparison to the deliberate misinformation being excreted by the professional climate alarmists.

Geoffrey Williams
March 23, 2022 8:39 pm

Wisest words ever Trump spoke . .

Doonman
March 23, 2022 8:44 pm

Donald Trump lives on in the heads of liberals rent free. Just look at Yahoo or Huffington and Trump is all you see on the front page.

The best thing that ever happened to George Bush was Donald Trump. Liberals never say anything negative about him anymore. It’s like he disappeared.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  Doonman
March 23, 2022 11:29 pm

Just proof that there is no cure for TDS,

Derg
Reply to  Doonman
March 24, 2022 3:48 am

Trump figuratively ki11ed the Bush’s. Barbara went mad after “Low Energy Jeb.”

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Derg
March 24, 2022 7:04 am

Type “MAGA” and socialist dweebs like Simon go apoplectic on command. It is quite amusing.

Simon
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
March 24, 2022 11:45 am

But… what is more amusing is watching people on this website trying to convince the world that their side is right, then holding up someone like Trump as an expert, when in reality he is as clueless about climate change as he was about the pandemic. Bleach anyone? I mean come on, I get that the the guy is credible to the gullible, but he is certainly not to the discerning.

Last edited 4 months ago by Simon
Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Simon
March 24, 2022 12:50 pm

Simon nicely demonstrates the principal reaction, pulling out some tried old long debunked lies along the way.

Hey Simon the Idiot—please tell all your fans [tanf] how clorine dioxide is equivalent to “bleach”…

Waiting…

Simon
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
March 24, 2022 12:57 pm

Hey Monte the Moron… still defending the clown Trump and his ridiculous statements around covid I see. You sure can pick winners….

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Simon
March 24, 2022 1:41 pm

Your latest lie exposed, you dig deep and prove the headline of this post correct yet again.

What is the chemical formula for “bleach”, o great and mighty petroleum king?

MarkW
Reply to  Simon
March 24, 2022 2:04 pm

Don’t have to defend the comments, all you have to do is read the entire quote. Something which you are incapable of doing.

Reply to  Carlo, Monte
March 24, 2022 2:54 pm

how clorine dioxide is equivalent to “bleach”…”
From Wiki
Chlorine dioxide is a chemical compound with the formula ClO2 that exists as yellowish-green gas above 11 °C, a reddish-brown liquid between 11 °C and −59 °C, and as bright orange crystals below −59 °C. It does not hydrolyze when it enters water, and is usually handled as an aqueous solution. Potential hazards with chlorine dioxide include poisoning and the risk of spontaneous ignition or explosion on contact with flammable materials.[5] It is also commonly used as a bleach.”

Scissor
Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 24, 2022 3:46 pm

Bleach is a solution containing NaOCl unless one subscribes to the Great Barrier Reef being poisoned by chlorine dioxide.

But then, I’m not a marine biologist, but I am a chemist so I have this dilemma. We could all probably benefit from consultation with an English major, though that is not always the case.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Scissor
March 24, 2022 5:19 pm

Wiki likely worked that paragraph in just to support their TDS-worldview.

DonM
Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 25, 2022 11:46 am

Nick,

what color is your ‘bleach’?

do you have a reddish brown liquid in a one gallon jug?

do you actually believe the point you were trying to make was not a lie?

MarkW
Reply to  Simon
March 24, 2022 2:03 pm

When one lie doesn’t work, you can always count on Simon to find another one.

We don’t have to convince the world we are right, the data is doing that for us.

Simon
Reply to  MarkW
March 24, 2022 7:09 pm

Which data Mark? The data you came up with that said the average temperature for the last 10,000 years was warmer than today?

Andy Pattullo
Reply to  Simon
March 24, 2022 9:09 pm

You’re off base here. Yes he says some things in an awkward way that doesn’t get to the real science of a problem but he gets the important principles of hard issues like covid better than the vast majority of leaders. My expertise is in infectious diseases and I find Trump was far more perceptive about the truth and what would make good covid policy than the vast majority of other leaders. And yes bleach kills the virus but I doubt Trump was really intending people ingest it. I think people love to focus on these minor distractions so as not to admit Trump is far smarter than average politician.

Trump knew it came from the lab, he knew China and WHO were lying, he knew it was a mistake to shut down the economy with all the massive costs and losses that entailed and he knew long before most that at some point the pandemic was just going to have to run is course as nothing we did really stopped it – pretty good for a non-scientist.

Simon
Reply to  Andy Pattullo
March 24, 2022 9:17 pm

Andy
I don’t mean to be rude but I doubt very much that “My expertise is in infectious diseases ” if you think Donald Trump in any way at any time got the covid thing right. He totally screwed it up which is why he lost the election. Had covid not come along, he probably would have won, but the pandemic highlighted once too often that he was winging things.

Andy Pattullo
Reply to  Simon
March 25, 2022 7:58 am

Everyone was winging things with CoVID. That is the nature of new epidemics when you don’t know a lot about the disease. Trump made several judgment calls about what experts were saying and what was more likely true or not and in most cases did get it right. I was in the midst of this and made several predictions at the outset, most but not all have been true. I do this for a living. My point is that Trump was much smarter than most leaders about seeing though the propaganda that was being endlessly promoted by WHO, China and many domestic and European experts. That is because he is much better at mistrusting experts and seeing through self-serving story-telling.

Simon
Reply to  Andy Pattullo
March 25, 2022 12:17 pm

My point is that Trump was much smarter than most leaders “
Really? So why then was the US’s performance under him with regard to covid one of the worst on the planet? Answer, his decisions were about his political survival not what was best for the people he was voted in to represent. “It will be gone by Easter” a good example.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Simon
March 25, 2022 3:00 pm

Did you ever figure out who Peter Daszak is, Simon the Zealot?

Simon
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
March 25, 2022 11:22 pm

Yawn.

Geoffrey Williams
March 23, 2022 8:45 pm

Exceedingly interesting newspaper cutting from 1922 on climate conditions in the Artic . .

March 23, 2022 8:52 pm

Trump was right again.

b.nice
Reply to  John Shewchuk
March 24, 2022 12:02 pm

Amazing how often that happened 😉

March 23, 2022 8:56 pm

“…though some scientists hypothesized, in largely discredited findings, that world temperatures declined from 1945 to 1972.”

So much BS in this. I was there. I saw the headlines and photomemes in science mags.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Sam Grove
March 24, 2022 12:21 pm

Me, too.

At the time, I wasn’t skeptical about human-caused Global Cooling. I thought it could be a possibility, and had an open mind on the subject.

But over the years, I realized that the proponents of human-caused Global Cooling did not have definitive evidence to prove their case.

The problem for me was they kept presenting their assumptions and assertions as facts rather than the speculation that it really was. And that didn’t sit well with me. They couldn’t tell me how this process worked, but they wanted to tell me it did work. No. That’s not science.

And now the human-caused Global Warming alarmists are doing the very same thing claiming assumptions and assertions are really facts. No. They are not.

This is not legitimate science. Unsubstantiated assumptions and assertions are not evidence of anything.

March 23, 2022 9:12 pm

Trump could say the sky is blue and some idiot, triggered, TDS-suffering git reporter would call him un-informed and claim he’s misusing color schemes.

Russell Johnson
March 23, 2022 9:15 pm

President Trump knows CC is a con designed for control not eliminating any risks of Earth’s weather. Climate mavens and anti-TRUMPERS have screamed that Trump is angling to become a totalitarian despot, while all along it’s them seeking that crown! As Brandon continues destroying American hopes and dreams with inflation, taxes, regulations,unrestricted migration, laws, executive orders and tepid non-existent leadership he mouths going green and says he will lead the NWO-I say he’s full of it!! All of you critics and true-CC believers are now angry as a cloud of hornets——but before you attack please tell everyone what is guaranteed if everyone goes “green”. When we sacrifice ourselves on the green altar for our “sins” do you promise a “new garden of Eden”? Will droughts, hurricanes,tornadoes, floods, heatwaves, wildfires, derechos, severe thunderstorms decrease to insignificance? Will atmospheric CO2 decrease to 350 ppm? Will Gore’s ozone hole shrink followed by record sea ice at both poles? If you say yes, eons of history say you’re lying! Unless all of you climate extremists guarantee normal climate variation will cease followed by climate utopia why would anyone chance to view your movement as anything but totalitarianism in sheep’s clothing? You’ll have more success enlisting beautiful virgins as sacrifices to Vulcan!

Geoffrey Williams
Reply to  Russell Johnson
March 23, 2022 10:45 pm

Correct. Your first sentance says it all . .

Peta of Newark
March 23, 2022 9:26 pm

Minor nit-pik here but I perfectly understand where it’s coming from….
……Is Mr Trump still ‘president

Never mind that, Mr Trump has a Good Sense Of Humour
That does not mean he is adept at telling jokes, he is not a comedian.

If you don’t understand what I just said, put down the whiskey glass, never ever pick it up again and after 6 months but probably within 12, you *will* ‘get it’ and understand.

sorry. there are no links, no (waste of time) authorities I can appeal to.
Apart from the one you see in the mirror. That is the only true authority in this matter, and many others.

Use that authority before it disintegrates into a nappy-wearing cabbage imprisoned in a care home.

John Dowser
March 23, 2022 11:56 pm

Well, Trump is known not to be a numbers guy. “Global cooling was a conjecture, especially during the 1970s, of imminent cooling of the Earth culminating in a period of extensive glaciation, due to the cooling effects of aerosols and orbital forcing”. So he mixed up the 20’s warming claim with the 70’s cooling theories. Then again, the gist seems correct.

Mike
Reply to  John Dowser
March 24, 2022 2:03 am

“Global cooling was a conjecture,”

No. It was a fact. The temperature was measured to drop for over 30 years.

Reply to  Mike
March 24, 2022 2:40 am

 The temperature was measured to drop for over 30 years.”
People are so impatient here with reading. What it said was
“Global cooling was a conjecture, especially during the 1970s, of imminent cooling of the Earth culminating in a period of extensive glaciation”

Measuring a past drop doesn’t make future cooling a fact.

Derg
Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 24, 2022 3:52 am

You really are a clown.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Derg
March 24, 2022 7:05 am

I am most certainly in agreement with this assessment.

Scissor
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
March 24, 2022 3:49 pm

Climate science could be described as a circus.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Scissor
March 24, 2022 5:20 pm

With lots of animal trainers.

Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 24, 2022 5:36 am

Measuring a past drop doesn’t make future cooling a fact.”

Then the inverse must also be true:

Measuring a past rise doesn’t make future warming a fact.

MarkW
Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 24, 2022 7:52 am

Measuring a past increase doesn’t make future warming a fact.

b.nice
Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 24, 2022 12:04 pm

STOP LYING

The ice age scare was real and widespread.

https://realclimatescience.com/1970s-global-cooling-scare/

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Mike
March 24, 2022 12:29 pm

“The temperature was measured to drop for over 30 years.”

According to the U.S. temperature chart, the temperatures dropped by about 2.0C from the 1930’s to the late 1970’s.

Then, the temperatures climbed by about 2.0C from the 1980’s to 1998.

Temperatures today have cooled by 0.7C from the high of 1998/2016. About 1.3C more cooling and we will be back to the cool 1970’s temperaturewise.

Ben Vorlich
March 24, 2022 3:15 am

Had Trump said 1912 then he’d have been nearer the mark, a cold wave i North America, Titanic sunk by an iceberg, Scott encountered a severe Antarctic weather and perished along with his companions

Lars Nielsen Lind
March 24, 2022 3:16 am

We are heading for the normal.

Mark Pawelek
March 24, 2022 4:19 am

Trump had his chance to make a difference; but he decided to play safe.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Mark Pawelek
March 24, 2022 12:33 pm

Trump had a lot of obstacles thrown in front of him. An unprecedented amount of obstacles. I thought Trump handled it pretty well given the circumstances.

Bruce Cobb
March 24, 2022 4:51 am

Trump always sounds like a grade-school dropout. Not really the best advocate for skepticism/climate realism. But the Climate Caterwaulers are hoist by their own petard with their “extreme weather” gambit. According to them, the weather is climate, but only when they say it is.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
March 24, 2022 12:37 pm

Trump leaves himself open to misinterpretation by his detractors by saying imprecise things.

I don’t think Trump can change his method of delivery, that’s ingrained in him, and it doesn’t bother me a bit, but it bothers some people.

But you can’t argue with Trump’s results. The differences between a good president and a bad president ought to be blindingly obvious today.

Scissor
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 24, 2022 3:55 pm

Gasoline was $0.10/gal higher when I bought it today than last time that I did. It was about $60 to fill up. It was often under $30 during Trump’s time in office.

Joe did that.