As cold wave sweeps North America, Trump makes light of climate change

Al Gore will not be pleased about this?

That's why it's called climate change, not global warming. To stop "know it all"s claiming that a short cold spell disproves everything.

As for Trump, what a poor example to the children of America. The man has no decorum or gravitas at all.

It's not called global warming anymore, it's called climate change. Because as almost anyone with any knowledge agrees, the climate is changing in extreme ways... This just shows how out of touch with reality and common knowledge Trump is.

No wonder Trump's professor remembers him as the dumbest student he ever had.

So we spent billions on global warming initiatives for nothing? now because it’s cold you just conveniently try to call it “climate” and “weather” to keep the money rolling in?

Perhaps we could use a little bit of that good old Global Warming that our Country, but not other countries, was going to pay TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS to protect against. Bundle up!

Uh, countries in Asia (including, notably, China), in the EU, and across other regions of the world are taking climate change seriously and are spending resources for mitigation. Many US states are as well, in defiance of the ignorance of the troglodyte currently inhabiting the White House (or, more frequently, Mar-a-Lago ー which you'll notice is in Florida). Such callousness combined with stupidity is astounding.

Good on Trump for making light of the climate change scam artists.

What happens when NOAA can’t make their data jive with their politics?

Change the data. The only change going on...

MrBumToday  11:51 am JST

It's not called global warming anymore, it's called climate change.

Let's be honest, it wouldn't matter what scientists called it - the scam artists and trolls who dispute it now would dispute it no matter what it was called - the former group because pollution without consequence is wrapped up in their business model, the latter group because they're so sad and pathetic that the only thing that makes them happy is believing they've hurt a liberal person's feelings.

What happens when NOAA can’t make their data jive with their politics?

You clearly have no idea how the scientific community functions.

Laguna - No, I'm pretty clear on it.

Scientists like their sweet politically-dependent funds. Then they fudge their numbers to ensure they get those funds.

Trump is a complete joke. He doesn't know much of anything, including the difference between weather and climate. Please can we end this nightmare.

Republicans are a minority on the environment. It's just a matter of time before the younger generation pushes them out of the way.

Scientists like their sweet politically-dependent funds. Then they fudge their numbers to ensure they get those funds

Kinda funny how people who don't work in the field believe that. Competition is intense in the scientific world - it's about the dog-eat-doggiest field in existence - it makes the corporate world look like kindergarten. Screw up and a competitor from somewhere in the world will notice immediately and pounce - and you're gone. There really are no friends; there is only evidence.

For example, scientists predicted a decade ago that higher water temperatures in northern-latitude lakes and oceans would result in increased atmospheric uptake of moisture and thus heavier snowfall when arctic cold moved south. And guess what? - recent (meaning over the previous few years) events have proved them right.

So you can cling to your paranoic distrust of science if that makes you happy; nature will not play along.

Republicans are a minority on the environment. It's just a matter of time before the younger generation pushes them out of the way.

You and I won’t probably be witness to that when and if that happens.

Perso I don't think Trump believes everything he says/tweets. He just craves attention, even (especially?) negative one, and love pi**ing off liberals, scientists, elites and basically everyone who think they are smarter than he is.

Imo he, like many of his supporters, is just pathologically addicted to controversy, conflicts and anything outrageous.

Trump would not know, as he is uninformed on the subject.

Trump is catastrophically stupid. Never fails to disappoint.

Trump's deliberate ignorance on the subject of Climate Change...is truly staggering. He is truly a deplorable...offensive creature.

Vote in 2018 to throw out the Republicans so we can throw out Trump...

Vote like your life and the lives of your children depend on it....because it does.

I'm sure the survivors a few generations down the line will thank him bigly. If there are any.

You can't cry global warming, then cry about extreme cold weather in the same breath.

That would be Trump's interpretation, yes. But who would take this know-nothing liar's word on anything, ever?

Scientists like their sweet politically-dependent funds. Then they fudge their numbers to ensure they get those funds

Kinda funny how people who don't work in the field believe that.

https://science.house.gov/news/press-releases/former-noaa-scientist-confirms-colleagues-manipulated-climate-records

Kinda funny like this?

Anyone who still thinks man-made climate change us still a myth is someone without the intelligence to fact check themselves.

Kinda funny like this?

Yes! - and thanks for supporting my point!

The senior scientist who reported improper handling of data, John Bates, later clarified there was “no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious.... It’s not trumped up data in any way shape or form.”

Rather, Bates claimed Karl and his group hadn’t followed NOAA protocol in “the way data was handled, documented and stored, raising issues of transparency and availability,” the AP reported, adding that Bates thought the study was rushed “to influence the December 2015 climate treaty negotiations in Paris.”

As I mentioned, there are no "friends" in the science world - there are colleagues who will jump on you immediately even for such an inconsequential event as rushing data.

Lesson learned: Pay attention to scientists, the vast majority of whom believe evidence strongly indicates the existence of anthropogenic climate change.

https://www.factcheck.org/2017/02/no-data-manipulation-at-noaa/

Lesson learned: Pay attention to scientists, the vast majority of whom believe evidence strongly indicates the existence of anthropogenic climate change.

How dare you not see conspiracy theories, and fact-check against bias confirmation. How. Dare. You.

...breathlessly parrots whatever is reported by shills like NOAA ....

I'd just like to note that the report you linked to below was written by Republican members of a congressional committee. No Democratic members were quoted, and the allegations included in the Republican congressional report were directly refuted by the very scientist to whom the allegations were attributed.

So, uh - yeah: Avoiding breathlessly parroting is generally wise. Stick with the science.

I'd just like to note that the report you linked to below was written by Republican members of a congressional committee. No Democratic members were quoted, and the allegations included in the Republican congressional report were directly refuted by the very scientist to whom the allegations were attributed.

Hmm, and someone mentioned a shill....d

Stranger: Are you saying fishing isn't affected by climate change?

By climate change, I clearly mean there has been absolutely no shifts in the climate. Even the weather has been the exact same in the exact same areas for the past 40 years. Everyone knows this from their own experiences.

Ok fine. So what is the current temperature of the earth, what should it be and at what temperature do we all burn up and die?

Ok fine. So what is the current temperature of the earth, what should it be and at what temperature do we all burn up and die?

Let me help you with search terms for google:

Current global temperature

optimal global temperature

We'll die from lack of arable land, etc. far before we burn up. Love the reference to that Vin Diesel film.

The Earth has been here for a couple billion years, survived a few devastating meteor hits and other natural disasters and horrific changes. I’m sure next year this time we will be ok and survive this cold that liberals think is the Armageddon.

In school, I was taught that the sun revolves around the galaxy, not around the brain of humans.

This may provide clues to this:

Why do humans consider every other species and their activities not to be a problem, but when man so much as places a toe in the forest, humans condemn such actions as going against nature?

Poor little Soyboys call these "hate facts"

How is this not offensive/vulgar/impolite to other users?

Have it your way but I’m surprised by this sudden idea that climate and weather are so different. Especially when any weather event except cold that might fit the narrative is blamed on what used to be called global warming.

Here's a brief primer on the difference between the two, via NASA: "Weather is what conditions of the atmosphere are over a short period of time, and climate is how the atmosphere 'behaves' over relatively long periods of time."

That it is cold on any given day -- or week! or month! -- is not indicative of much of anything about the climate and whether it is warming or not

This is from the CNN article making fun of Trump for not knowing the diff between weather and climate.

Soooooo if there is a hurricane or wildfire or a flash flood or earthquake on a day why are these all blamed on climate (global warming) not weather?

As world president, he is right.

Cows are a major cause of greenhouse gas (methane), but cows are not intelligent enough to grasp this. Humans possess the intelligence to grasp the impact our existence exerts on our ecosystem; what isn't known is whether we'll get our act together promptly enough to deal with it, or whether we'll all perish together in our own filth (or by nuclear weapons). It is a salient question.

Ultimately, Homo sapien faces one of two fates: extinction at our own hand, or evolution (perhaps through technology even by our will) to something unrecognizable. I'd kinda prefer the latter. Either way, it is our choice.

Or I couid simply ask why all weather events( except cold) are blamed on climate change when they are simply weather.

166 billion dollars spent by the US on climate change from 1993-2014. What did we get for this!?

166 billion dollars spent by the US on climate change from 1993-2014. What did we get for this!?

$166 billion over 21 years is nothing compared to that $1 trillion you all are throwing in the debt over 10 years.

What we got for that was technological advances in renewable energy along with a better understanding how the world works.

Which is worse, his ignorance or that so many of his followers buy it?

Apparently, idiots like Trump have never had a drink with ice. So, they have never seen how melting ice makes the drink colder. So, they cannot grasp the simple concept that melting polar ice is making the oceans colder, and thus affects the weather in unusual ways. (It also dilutes the oceans, which causes many other harmful affects such as altering Ph and salinity, as well as rising sea levels. But, that much information might make their brains explode.)

Yes, but in Trump's defence, you can't expect a person of his intelligence to understand the difference between "weather" and "climate" Because "climate" happens over time, and Trump can only focus on the present, that's why weird "FACTS" always just pop out of his mouth! "Brain to Mouth" "Brain to Mouth" "Brain to Mouth" "Brain to Tweet" that is all the time he has to get the "FACTS" straight!

You could educate yourself out of ignorance by spending a few days researching the actual data, and not only things that fit your confirmation bias...

And what happens when you try to do that? Back in the 1990s, I pretty much accepted the warnings given out by the IPCC and similar bodies. Then I happened to read an article about the practical difficulties of interpreting historical temperature records. It seemed to me an innocuous article, focusing on the history of a single weather station, and how its circumstances had changed over the years (changed times of daily readings, occasional relocations, nearby urban development). I found it interesting. Then I came across a response to the article that damned it as a piece of climate denial propaganda. I also saw that the response misinterpreted the original article. Later I discovered that the writer of the response was one of the noisier participants in the online "climate wars". My interest was a little peaked, and so I read more.

My current view is something like this: CO2 is a greenhouse gas; man-made emissions account for some of the warming that have been measured over the last 100 years or so, how much is not clear; the climate models developed so far have been very poor at matching observed data; there remains a lot of disagreement about how sensitive the climate is to increases in CO2; having a sensible discussion is very difficult; Donald Trump's and Al Gore's outpourings are not very helpful; climate is a very complicated topic and its research depends perhaps more on statistics and mathematics than basic physical science. I still feel fairly ignorant.

The Earth has been here for a couple billion years, survived a few devastating meteor hits and other natural disasters and horrific changes.

Yes, the earth has also seen mass extinctions. Many gibbering lunatics in the Republican Party don’t recognize this apart from the idea of a flood a few thousand years ago. I think the delirious GOP headbanger who brought a snowball into congress thinks this way.

I’m sure next year this time we will be ok

We are talking about the longer term although changes are affecting us now.

You haven’t really looked into this, have you?

Yet another moronic tweet to add to the list from Trump. What a balloon head.

Just because it's global warming does not mean that every part of the globe warms up. It means when ya add up all the temperature changes in the whole world, the resulting sum is a positive higher temperature number.

Here's a quick brain quiz for it:

If all of the northern hemisphere cooled down -5 degrees, but all of the southern hemisphere warmed up +10 degrees - is it global warming?

So even if all of the northerners are freezing their nuts off, yes it is global warming because once ya add it all up for both hemispheres, -5 plus +10 = +5 which is a positive higher temperature number for the globe (meaning the globe warmed up)

I find Donald trump as stupid as they come, he has the intellect of a 6 year old, ( my apologies to all 6 year olds) why can't he keep his mouth shut especially when he does not know anything about the subject his talking about! which is 99%.

Albaleo:

the climate models developed so far have been very poor at matching observed data

Actually, considering the complexity of forecasting weather - not to mention climate - the models have been shockingly accurate. I would challenge you to show data otherwise.

Trump's carers should only let him tweet on issues on which he is knowledgeable. That should reduce the number of tweets by 99%.

It is irresponsible, short sighted, and delusional to be encouraged by these extremes in weather to deny climate change.