Essay by Eric Worrall
But, but, devastating storms…
TRUMP WANTS TO CONVINCE THE WORLD THAT CLIMATE CHANGE IS A GOOD THING
The president, who regularly attacks renewable energy, is apparently ready to argue that climate change would benefit humans
By THOR BENSON
MARCH 31, 2025Windmills cause cancer. They’re killing birds and whales. Electric vehicles don’t work. Have you heard about the electric sharks? Climate change is a hoax. There are many things Donald Trump has said about climate change and renewable energy that are difficult to make sense of, but Trump’s newest line on climate change is both dumbfounding and truly dangerous: He is now determined to convince the world that climate change is a good thing.
Trump has certainly downplayed the effects of climate change in the past. He’s claimed rising sea levels will create more beachfront property, which would seem to be a misunderstanding of how land works. He’s talkedabout how people would actually be happy if it was a little warmer outside. Even Trump adviser Elon Musk, who runs an EV company, has downplayedthe threat of climate change in recent months.
Now, Trump is aiming to use the power of the federal government to reframe climate change as something that will benefit humanity.
…“It’s so outrageous that no one except [Trump] would try to do this,” says Edward Maibach, director of George Mason University’s Center for Climate Change Communication. “In America, anyone is free to call devastating storms, floods, droughts, air pollution, killer heatwaves, and a growing threat of mosquito- and tick-borne diseases a good thing. But saying it doesn’t make it true.”
Read more: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/trump-convince-world-climate-change-good-1235306675/
…
Here is what the IPCC has to say about extreme weather – from Chapter 11 of AR6, the latest official IPCC report.
Extreme Storms, Including Tropical Cyclones
The average and maximum rain rates associated with tropical cyclones (TCs), extratropical cyclones and atmospheric rivers across the globe, and severe convective storms in some regions, increase in a warming world (high confidence) . Available event attribution studies of observed strong TCs provide medium confidence for a human contribution to extreme TC rainfall. Peak TC rain rates increase with local warming at least at the rate of mean water vapour increase over oceans (about 7% per 1°C of warming) and in some cases exceeding this rate due to increased low-level moisture convergence caused by increases in TC wind intensity (medium confidence). {11.7, 11.4, Box 11.1}
It is likely that the global proportion of Category 3–5 tropical cyclone instances2has increased over the past four decades. The average location where TCs reach their peak wind intensity has very likely migrated poleward in the western North Pacific Ocean since the 1940s, and TC translation speed has likely slowed over the conterminous USA since 1900. Evidence of similar trends in other regions is not robust. The global frequency of TC rapid intensification events has likely increased over the past four decades. None of these changes can be explained by natural variability alone (medium confidence).
The proportion of intense TCs, average peak TC wind speeds, and peak wind speeds of the most intense TCs will increase on the global scale with increasing global warming (high confidence). The total global frequency of TC formation will decrease or remain unchanged with increasing global warming (medium confidence). {11.7.1}
There is low confidence in past changes of maximum wind speeds and other measures of dynamical intensity of extratropical cyclones. Future wind speed changes are expected to be small, although poleward shifts in the storm tracks could lead to substantial changes in extreme wind speeds in some regions (medium confidence). There is low confidence in past trends in characteristics of severe convective storms, such as hail and severe winds, beyond an increase in precipitation rates. The frequency of spring severe convective storms is projected to increase in the USA, leading to a lengthening of the severe convective storm season (medium confidence); evidence in other regions is limited. {11.7.2, 11.7.3}.
Read more: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter-11/
Before you get too concerned about all these “medium confidence” assertions, there is a lovely climategate email where scientists explain what they actually mean by “Medium confidence”. “Medium confidence” is a replacement for “inconclusive”.
Climategate Email 0967041809.txt
…
To: Thomas Stocker [redacted]
cc: [redacted]
Subject: Re: THC collapse
Hello all. I appreciate the improvement in the table from WG 1, particularly the inclusion of symmetrical confidence levels–but please get rid of the ridiculous “inconclusive” for the .34 to .66 subjective probability range. It will convey a completely differnt meaning to lay persons–read decisionmakers–since that probability range represents medium levels of confidence, not rare events. A phrase like “quite possible” is closer to popular lexicon, but inconclusive applies as well to very likely or very unlikely events and is undoubtedly going to be misinterpreted on the outside. I also appreciate the addition of increasing huricane intensities with warming moving out of the catch all less than .66 category it was in the SOD.
…
With the aid of this Climategate gobbledygook translation, we know that “medium confidence” in IPCC speak means “inconclusive”. Given the number of “medium confidence” claims in the IPCC quote above, I think we can reasonably conclude claims climate change is causing extreme weather are not supported by the evidence.
As for claims climate change will increase mosquito borne disease, this is such an absurdity I’m surprised scientists still have the effrontery to keep making this claim. Anyone who has ever visited the far North will have observed first hand that mosquitoes don’t need a tropical climate to thrive. Those far Northern mosquitoes are just as capable of carrying mosquito borne diseases like Malaria as their tropical cousins.
And of course, there is robust counter evidence to food scare narratives in the form of skyrocketing food crop yields.
The saddest part of this for me, as a kid I once thought Rolling Stone was a media group which stood for something.
I think it’s safe to say I no longer believe this – the Rolling Stone article I quoted in my opinion is an especially substandard piece of lazy journalism.
The Rolling Stone journalist made no evidence to research reasons why Trump might be right about global warming. The journalist made no attempt to research the history of diseases like Malaria, how mosquito borne diseases used to be the scourge Britain, and even far Northern countries like Sweden – definitely NOT a disease which needs a tropical climate to thrive. As a bonus, the journalist could have asked a few questions to the quoted scientists about why if global warming is so bad, agricultural yields are skyrocketing – and whether the scientists could put a date on when if ever they expect this to change.
“Rolling Stone: President Trump Falsely Claims Global Warming is Good”
“Falsely” “claims”? Seems pretty obvious that conditions have never been better in the overall sense of human welfare. How about “Rolling Stone Falsely Suggests Global Cooling would be Good” along the lines of Tom Nelson’s standard line on X?
There.
He’s claimed rising sea levels will create more beachfront property
Funny how many of these climate alarmism oligarchs have purchased or build mansions on the beaches.
My favorite example is the unlikeliest multimillionaire – former President Obama. He even installed thousands of gallons of additional underground propane storage capacity at his Martha’s Vineyard beachfront property.
I did not know that. I believe it.
Correction. The new total was 2500 gallons.
https://propane.com/2022/07/22/about-that-propane-tank-at-the-obamas-estate-bwp/
What? No windmills!?
AI says….
AI is wrong.
A simple look at their formulas should tell you that C3H8 vs CH3. And the EIA puts it at 62.88 kg per mbtu vs 52.91.
And they are ranked 1 and 2 as the least carbon intensive of any fuel.
But besides their carbon output both of them emit another nasty greenhouse gas, H2O.
We’d be in deep doo doo if “climate” ever stopped changing. So just sit back and relax, and adapt to whatever happens.
One professor of mine was fond of saying that change is neither “good” nor “bad”. Change is disruptive.
I think it is safe to say that no matter what the climate does, gets a bit warmer, colder, or stays the same—it will be good for some, bad for others, and about the same for most.
Mosquito borne diseases were endemic in East Anglia, England, until the marshes, the ‘fens’, were drained. People in Norfolk had the reputation of being ‘weird’. The reason why was once explained to me as follows.The country folk, farmers, would get to the towns to find themselves a wife. However, the country folk had a better degree of immunity than the townies for in particular malaria, so sooner or later the wives succumbed. Then a new journey to the town was made. That, I was assured, makes for very weird people.
When we took a Cruise America Campervan from Anchorage to San Fransisco in the Autumn some years ago we were warned that the mossies on the Alaska Highway were so large that they would carry us off and then come back later for the van. We took lots of anti insect stuff with us.
In 5 weeks we saw one mosquito!
See, the anti-insect stuff worked.
At age 12 I spent most of a summer in Alaska. We had “Off”, 25% DEET. It helped but I still got drilled many times a day, usually through my sweatshirt.
Yes, DEET is the answer for mosquitos…45% is even better. But don’t let it get anywhere near your glasses…it will eat the plastic!
______________________________________________________________________________
Excellent find, very well done. Deserves a Pew-Litzer.
Medium confidence means 50/50. Lets just flip coins to come up with climate predictions.
Does that mean that low confidence translates to, it ain’t gonna happen?
It means “we’re most likely wrong”.
It means “we don’t know, we’re just guessing”
Story Tip
https://www.mk.co.kr/en/it/11280528
Analysis of KAIST Professor Jeon Hae-won’s research team, “A reckless response could lead to a food crisis.”
Research has shown that responding to the climate crisis can lead to a food crisis by reducing agricultural land around the world.
Got that right.
If the 1.5-degree target is achieved after 2030, there could be an ‘overshoot’ phenomenon in which global temperatures rise significantly for decades.
How? If CO2 is the “control knob” and CO2 emissions are reduced to achieve the 1.5C target, then what causes the “overshoot”? Maybe there is yet another unidentified “positive feedback” that violated Kirchhoff’s law and creates energy out of nothing.
“Unintended side effects can occur if we do not see the greater context of sustainability of the global ecosystem by focusing only on greenhouse gas reduction.”
Got that right.
It’s not what we know we don’t know that is worrisome. It is what we don’t know we don’t know. Unintended consequences fits that.
I just read a negative fisheries paper on “The Sustainability Myth.” It used to be a “Geriatric Privilege” to complain but now stolen by a younger generation. AI for homework? How about Peer Review–
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00894-7
Are these Mackay’s “Popular Delusions” or Chamberlin”s “Ruling Theories” or both ?
There is no land that would be taken out of production IF temperatures rise.
IF temperatures do rise, land that is not useful for farming now will become useful.
More CO2 in the atmosphere makes plants grow bigger and since they will use less water, land that is currently too dry, will start being farmed.
So far, ALL of the claimed downsides to rising CO2 levels have turned out to be non-existent.
1. More rain is not a problem.
2. Warmer weather is not a problem.
3. More arable land is not a problem.
4. Longer growing seasons is not a problem.
5. CO2 greening of the earth is not a problem.
6. There isn’t any Climate Crisis.
Number 3 and 5 on the list.
Steve you leave out Sea Level Rise, the poster child of the doomsayer scenario…on the other hand it’s been rising at it’s present rate for the past 6000 years without any noticeable effect on humanity, not even noticed until mid last century….admittedly a much lower melt rate extension of the big glacial melt 8 to 20 thousand years ago ….but No. 6 still is looking like the logical conclusion !
Thanks, I’ve been slapping that list up here at WUWT for at least a year
and you are the first with that critique.
Those six points also leaves out methane madness. As far as I know,
Bovaer® (3-nitrooxpropanol) is being fed to cattle on the ranch and dairy
herds to reduce methane emissions and our friends on the left are just fine
with that, but growth hormone to increase milk production, not so much.
Don’t you just love how any climate/carbon/”sustainability” panacea gets a free pass from regulators but anything else, no matter how beneficial gets put through the “3rd degree”?
From Google search’s AI:
Safety: The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) has approved 3-NOP as a new livestock feed ingredient, and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined that they have no questions or public health concerns about 3-NOP feeding to dairy cattle.
Other considerations: While 3-NOP is effective at reducing methane emissions, studies have shown variable responses in the lactational performance of dairy cows supplemented with it, and further research is needed to fully understand the long-term effects and interactions with other methane-mitigating compounds. ”
So left wing governments care more about some statistical trivia regarding the levels of some trace gases, than the lives of the voters.
Your list requires one to believe that there is no place on the planet where temperature is already above optimal or rainfall above optimal.
Leave the nonsensical absolutist statements to Sith and global warmists.
The Climate discussion has always been about the “whole world” and the fact that increasing temperatures would be a great thing for Canada and Russia was never factored into the equation – it was to be maintained with religious authority that warming = bad.
The list assumes a global outlook and yes warming = good.
Even the Sahara and Saudi deserts have gotten more green during the past warming phase, so even your limited premise would be hard to justify.
Warming = Good
Regardless whether any of those are problems, they are what they are. Trying to stop any of them is a completely idiotic concept. Adaptation is our best defense.
The point the article made was the expanse of land dedicated to solar farms, etc., reduces farmland resulting in less food production.
I agree with you.
Another notice in the paper yesterday about an application to build a solar farm in Lincolnshire UK covering 1409 hectares near Newark. There have been several others over the last 2 years in this area, All on what was previously good agricultural land. This one has the pretentious title ‘One Earth Solar Farm’, includes battery storage and will have a capacity of over 50MW.
Malaria was a scourge in Russia before the 20th Century. It was also a scourge in the Po River Valley of Italy (~44°N) from the 5th through the 19th Centuries. in Roman times it was not a scourge there. Why? Drainage. The Romans drained swamps. After the Roman Empire Collapsed, the drainage works fell apart and Malaria returned. Malaria is a disease of bad drainage.
Don’t get me started about ecologically important wetlands.
Remember that Rolling Stone proclaimed that fraternities at the University of Virginie committed gang rape. The story was made up, and thoroughly debunked. Rolling Stone paid several million dollars to settle defamation suits against them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Rape_on_Campus
Why should we ever believe anything Rolling Stone prints?
Not the first time Rolling Stone has failed with bad journalism.
What??? Co-President Donald Trump stating something that may, or may not, be true?
To paraphrase a memorable line from a famous movie:
“I’m shocked—shocked—to find that
gamblingmisinformation is going on in here!”As but one example, this from https://apnews.com/article/trump-electric-vehicles-past-criticism-hoax-d58758e990f13482e0c6e3a79150abbe (updated March 11, 2025):
“WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump, who said Tuesday he was buying a Tesla to show loyalty to company CEO Elon Musk, has had plenty to say about electric vehicles over the years. Most of it is not good.
“Of course, Trump was once a sharp critic of Musk, too, which is especially notable given how tight the pair are now.
“A look at some of Trump’s comments on EVs — and Musk:
“Trump includes electric cars in a sour Christmas message
“Trump marked Christmas 2023 with a social media post lumping ‘All Electric Car Lunacy’ in with a number of political enemies that he said ‘are looking to destroy our once great USA. MAY THEY ROT IN HELL’.
“A few weeks earlier, during a rally in Ankeny, Iowa, Trump said of EVs: ‘They don’t go far. They cost a fortune.’ He also suggested that the U.S. military was looking at making ‘Army tanks all electric’ and scoffing, ‘you’re in the middle of the desert and you say, ‘You know what, we’re running low on electric. Do they have a charger around anywhere?’ “
I would be surprised if Trump has a current driver’s license or even knows how to drive a car.
ROTFL.
It is the Rolling Stone rag that is claiming Trumps statement is false.. when it isn’t.
Trump is correct that for most parts of the world, minor warming would be beneficial.
What Trump said about EVs is also basically correct.
They don’t go far, they are expensive, and trying to go “All EV” would certainly destroy the US.
Your idiotic “Co-president” comment shows how deeply ignorant you are of the real situation.
ps, The only people who think they are “Co-President”, are the un-elected activist left-wing district judges, trying to countermand and stop what Trump was elected to do.
Get back to me in, oh, November 2028 or so.
Thanks for your post SUPPORTING President Trump.
Hey, no problem whatsoever . . . I’m always glad to offer help where it’s really needed.
More storms, not happening.
More floods, not happening.
More droughts, not happening.
More fires, not happening.
More diseases, not happening.
More earthquakes, not happening.
Tell me again, why global warming was supposed to be a bad thing?
Human-caused Climate Change, not happening.
Warming IS good. Cooling is bad. If you think about it even a microsecond or two, that’s obvious.
Yes Again cooing bad, warming good.
The idea of destroying cult climate is great but to stop its return the basis has to be unassailable not emotive bluster.
If Trump really is saying stuff like this he is miles away from driving a stake through the heart of zombies kneeling before dangerous man made climate change and is as ignorant of the topic as he is on almost everything. He needs a respected person to calmly point out no definitive cause and effect evidence evidence exists for the claim despite decades of searching. Weather is doing what weather always does.
If he doesn’t a real good chance exists that all his climate actions will be overturned once booted out.
Keyword: IF.
Could be why I put it in ……
The rest of your post does not convey that intent.
Only by not understanding the term “if”
Climate change is good.
Climate continuously changes, within certain bounds. Not too hot, and not too cold, during the human era.
There is no evidence that humans are causing the climate to change.
Mr. THOR BENSON,
Please point to the place(s) on the “doll” where President Trump’s statement that Climate Change is good hurt you and where it is not true.
Here in England as l have posted on WUWT before, I think there has been a natural warming of the climate since around 1980. Caused by a increase in high pressure forming over the Azores and Europe. So allowing for a increase of warmer air flowing up from the southern regions. Especially during the late winter and spring.
But as a have also mentioned before, l think a large part of the warming trend has been caused by the switch over to putting highly sensitive electronic thermometers in unsuitable small screens which are been warmed by been palaced out in the sunshine.
Something that suggests to me a more limited warming trend then the temperature grafts suggest. Is the fact am able to compare the springtime now. With the springtime photographic evidence of plants and trees between 1913 to 1942, all thanks to owning the book called ‘Seasonable Weather’. With which l have been able to compare the leafing of a Chestnut on April 1st this year with that of a Chestnut tree between 1913 to 1942.
From which the photographic evidence has shown me that the leafing of the Chestnut tree on April 1st of this year, is well behind that of the years 1913, 1920, and 1938 taken on the same date.
But the Chestnut tree is in the pay of big oil !!! (:-))
An increase in received sunlight since then as well.
I think you should write a WUWT article taxed, love to know more about your research into historical leafing times.
Obviously up to you if you want to remain anonymous, given the UK’s new policy of arresting anyone who upsets Starmer.
Please use submit story or compose story if this interests you.
“Obviously up to you if you want to remain anonymous, given the UK’s new policy of arresting anyone who upsets Starmer.”
Merry Old England. Not so merry anymore. That’s what happens when radical Leftists take control. They don’t like criticism. They will put you in jail over it.
Don’t elect radical Leftists if you value your personal freedoms. Radical Leftists don’t value them at all.
Hi Eric.
The historical data am getting is from the book ‘Seasonable Weather’ by Lionel P. Smith published in 1968. Within which there is a series of photograph’s of plant’s and trees taken in Norwich, England on certain dates during winter and spring between the years 1913 to 1942.
One of the series of photograph’s is of a Chestnut tree branch taken on April 1st each year between 1913 to 1942. With which am able to compare to a local Chestnut tree. The next in the series of photographs which l will be able to compare with local trees is that of a branch of a Beech tree taken on May 1st between the years 1925 to 1942.
This book is a great resource to anyone in England who interested in comparing the current progress of spring with historic data from around a century ago.
“It is likely that the global proportion of Category 3–5 tropical cyclone instances2has increased over the past four decades.”
That sentence from the IPCC report is such a beauty of misdirection that magicians are actually jealous.
Most normal people reading that sentence would conclude that the most powerful and deadly hurricanes are increasing … which is exactly the conclusion that the authors intended you to reach.
In actuality, the data shows that the number of Cat 3-5 storms are going sideways and the number of Cat 1-2 storms are slightly decreasing.
That is definitely good news, yet they managed to frame it as “apparent” bad news.
Another example of a way to “hide the decline”.
Notice the word proportion?
So if there are 20 storms and 10 are cat 3+, the proportion is 50%
Now if there are 10 storms and 8 are cat 3+, the proportion is increasing to 80%.
You are correct. A beauty of misdirection.
Torturing the language is standard operating procedure for Climate Alarmists.
It’s all they have.
Chinese wheat yields of 5.78 tonnes/hectare are quite impressive – only slightly below the 6.7 tonnes/hectare chalked up by Saudi Arabia!
/s
Considering CO2 a problem instead of a benefit below 800 ppm is the most ridiculous thing I’ve experienced in my lifetime, even crazier than thinking ethanol from corn is a cost effective transportation fuel. Bizarre!!
“Considering CO2 a problem instead of a benefit below 800 ppm is the most ridiculous thing I’ve experienced in my lifetime,”
It’s not ridiculous to those making money off the concept, or gaining political power off the concept.
I’ve seen estimates in the past that claim we could barely reach 800ppm if we put all the discovered fossil fuels in one big pile and burned it all at once.
Happer says 800ppm is not a problem.
Very nice Eric.
Just did some research. 95% of Chinese wheat is winter, grown in a limited area of a northern China. They have put much effort into higher yielding varieties for that limited area, because they cannot expand the growing area. US has no such incentive.
It’s been said before and this article repeats it. If climate change is such a threat to the planet, the human population, life expectancies and global food production should be dropping, while infant mortality, extreme weather deaths and widespread famines should be increasing. All of these are false; yet the alarmists can’t desist from playing the same discordant tune.
“yet the alarmists can’t desist from playing the same discordant tune.”
It’s the only tune they have.
“Likely” is NOT science. It’s guesswork. It’s speculation. It’s assumptions.
These, and unsubstantiated assertions, make up the entirety of the Human-caused Climate Change Narrative.
They got nothing! It’s been 50 years! And they still got nothing! It’s absurd, and it’s not science they are practicing. A bunch of Climate Change Charlatans, lying to the Public.
Story Tip
Emerging Nations Turn To Fossil Fuels For Growth, Defying Net Zero Push – Climate Change Dispatch
Another great report from Vijay 🙂
Net Zero is a dead duck.
The UK and Germany and a few States in the U.S. will continue beating their heads against the wall for a little longer, but eventually even they will see the obvious.
Net Zero is not going to happen. If you fear CO2, then you should adapt. Move north if it gets too hot for you.
If you don’t fear CO2, carry on, because there’s nothing to fear. Live your life and prosper free from the fear of the CO2 bogeyman. Tell the CO2-phobes to “talk to the hand”.
Mosquitoes – I grew up in Jersey City New Jersey USA. In the early 20th century it had a minor league baseball team. It was called the SKEETERS LOL. The city had many swamps which were filled in. Also DDT was used. It is at 40 degrees north latitude
Here’s the crux phrase in Stocker’s email: “the .34 to .66 subjective probability range”
The IPCC likelihood categories are subjective. They’re not objectively determined. They’re guesses by experts – long known to be entirely unreliable.
That the IPCC use categorical guesses hadn’t occurred to me. This puts them into a whole new depth of bogosity. IPCC: the benthos of bogus.
All the IPCC has ever had were guesses, speculation, assumptions and unsubstantiated assertions. That’s it, as far as proving that CO2 is detrimental to human beings.
The IPCC has gathered a lot of data, but none of that data proves CO2 is dangerous to humans or needs to be regulated. The actual data the IPCC has collected actually debunks CO2 as the cause of extreme weather because the IPCC itself says these extreme weather events were just as frequent in the past or more so, that in the present.
All this “likely” and “confidence” levels are guesswork, they are not science and they don’t establish anything about CO2, other than it is a greenhouse gas. They can’t connect any weather phenomenon directly to CO2, including the Earth’s temperatures. They are guessing on that, too.
In fact, there is direct evidence that CO2 does not affect Earth’s temperatures to any great degree. The written, historic, original regional temperature data from all around the world shows that the temperatures in the recent past were just as warm as the temperatures today, but the CO2 concentrations in the past were lower than the CO2 concentrations of today. That means that it was just as warm in the recent past with less CO2 in the air, than it is today with more CO2 in the air, so logic would tell a real scientist that CO2 has had no noticeable effect on the Earth’s temperatures.
CO2 is a benign gas, essential for life on Earth, and there is no evidence it presents a danger to humans in any way, shape or form.
Actually, the IPCC had and still has an agenda.
That’s true, but they don’t have the data to back up the agenda.
Where are the Climategate emails these days?
I’ve got a private copy, otherwise they’re really hard to find these days. Almost like they’ve been memory holed. I wrote a climategate app for iOS and Android, but got kicked off both stores.
Geez. Thanks, Eric.
“I wrote a climategate app for iOS and Android, but got kicked off both stores.”
That sounds like corporate censorship to me. Have you talked to Attorney General Pam Bondi? I bet she would be interested to hear this.
You know, Apple and Meta are changing their tunes on Trump, and apparently on Net Zero (AI), so maybe they would greenlight your app in today’s atmosphere.
If they still blackball your app, you could bring this to the attention of EPA administrator, Lee Zeldin. He’s good friends with the Attorney General.
Or, you could file a lawsuit against Apple and Meta for conspiring with the Biden administration to silence you and the scandal that is Climategate, although it would be better if the Justice Dempartment took up this lawsuit.
I would like to have that app. 🙂
I wrote the WUWT web app, so I seriously considered publishing it as a web app, to avoid the whole app store / play store censorship issue. But even in the early days I got hardly any downloads. Maybe one day we’ll persuade Anthony to publish a WUWT Climategate archive web page 🙂
No one has ever been able to explain how warmer temps leads to both droughts and flood.
Going by that theory, as it becomes cooler we would have less and more rain.
The Climate Alarmists just make it up as they go. Every weather event is caused by CO2, according to them. They can’t explain the mechanism for this process, but that doesn’t stop them from making the claims.
Mike: I’m surprised one of our low grade trolls hasn’t chimed in to explain how AGW causes drought somewhere and flooding somewhere else, both worse, very scientific. When you point out the fly in this ointment, a crisp game of whack-a-mole follows.