Trump Shows His Fundamental Ignorance About Weather and Climate Change in His Latest Tweet


every liberal in america is pissed about this tweet. stop swallowing the bait. he's trolling.

@1: bye bye
"Phenomenally dumb"

They should print that on our munnie to commemorate our Golden Age of Sinister Stupidity.
He's telling his most loyal supporters exactly what they want to hear: "Fuck you libs! You're not better than me!" He's further cementing his solidarity with the group of Americans who are 1) most likely to vote in every election and, 2) least likely to be disenfranchised in elections.

Trump will be re-elected easily. He'll win the popular vote next time too.

Pointing out how stupid and backwards he is makes his followers despise you even more (if that's possible) and their hatred of you will turn them out at upcoming elections in even larger droves than before.
Uhhh, didn't trump claim that one of his golf courses needs a new sea wall because of sea level rise caused by global warming?
@4: The Two Minute Hate feels way too good, it doesn't matter if it helps or hurts in the long run. Hate just makes us feel secure and satisfied, and as humans we are loathe to admit it, but we all know it is true.

Like many things we do, it is a good survival mechanism on the wild savannah, but fairly detrimental in the modern world.
As long as the weather is unpredictable, climate change is going to be the butt of jokes. Just get used to it and move on.
[The Two Minute Hate] is a good survival mechanism on the wild savannah, but fairly detrimental in the modern world.
Unless, of course, you're trying to distract everyone from the autocracy's control over their lives.

Do you have ANYTHING constructive to contribute to conversations these days aside from some variation of "just get over it"?
"inherent danger in public scientific equivocation about weather attribution"

pretty much
@9: You've slipped into attack mode again. Isn't very fitting considering the season.
Someone needs to forward this piece to Charles Mudede. He thinks every extreme weather event is a sign of climate change.
@8: I like to keep a huge wall between Darwinism and the unfortunately named Social Darwinism. But yes, taking advantage of our deep rooted, evolutionary legacy thought processes is the oldest technique of the power-hungry.

@11: But you have to be honest, neither of you are adding anything, so are both guilty of what you accuse the other of. You can't control people attacking you for no reason, but you can attempt to be more constructive yourself. Post a link or reference something that proves your point of view, or make the argument yourself, at the very least.
#4 Or....Things will go the way of the Roy Moore election and certain people on the left will not sit around and think they're not needed when they always were needed and will continue to be needed. People on the right will think he will win again because of the electoral college and think it's all in the bag.
@13: Well taken - for opinions with applicable links.
@13 "You can't control people attacking you for no reason."
"Attacking you for no reason."
"For no reason."

Denial's not just a river in Egypt.
If it is dumb to point to weather extremes in an effort to debunk climate change, wouldn't it be equally dumb to point to weather extremes in an effort to confirm climate change? After all, weather is ephemeral, episodic and local. How is that every record high temp or forest fire is proof of climate change?
#12 is spot on.
@16: Nor is Truth or Consequences just a town in New Mexico.
In addition to increasing the probability that such an event would occur, "[t]wo research groups found that the record rainfall as Harvey stalled over Texas in late August, which totaled more than 50 inches in some areas, was as much as 38 percent higher than would be expected in a world that was not warming."…

Why did Cliff Mass claim that climate change played essentially no role in Harvey?
So I guess calling women twats is acceptable on Slog.

Good to know.

You want charity and forgiveness, go to a church.
President Trump, the world's foremost authority on everything that can be encapsulated in a late night tweet, has again engaged in his usual proclivity of shooting first and aiming later. His disdain for facts (as opposed to the alternate variety) and the scientific method is well known. There is overwhelming evidence, compiled over decades, supporting the conclusion that human activities are affecting the climate in a profoundly negative way. Only someone who thought his inauguration crowd was record-setting would be this out of touch. “There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.” ― Søren Kierkegaard

Trump Shows His Fundamental Ignorance in His Latest Tweet

Fixed that for you, you're welcome.

If we have less climate change, would that mean fewer Raindrops polluting our threads here with vacuous inanity?
in the midst of all this nonsense, nobody mentioned 2017 will one the 3 warmest years on record (with 2015 and 2016), and the warmest non-El Nino year on record (!).
@27 "2017 will be one of the"

That should be phrased:

2017 will be the 3rd warmest year on record. (with no "El Nino" exception, because the 2017 ENSO data can not be categorized as La Nina, nor as El Nino).

But then, I suppose the phrasing only matters if you care about scientific accuracy more than ideological slant.
@29: So sad that the ideology forgoes scientific accuracy.

Ideology ignores all manner of accuracy and consistency, science is just one of many in that regard.
@29 "the 2017 ENSO data can not be categorized as La Nina, nor as El Nino"

I didn't said that if you care about reading comprehension. I said that 2017 was not an El Nino year, which is factual according to even yourself. As for your rhetoric about "ideology", it's pretty transparent as an attempt to stigmatize

I'll note you didn't answer the comment about the peer reviewed paper that showed extreme events with increased precipitation.

@30 shove off, Fox lover.

'...on record';
the period during which climate has been recorded being a teeny tiny itty bitty sample of the planet's climate history.
"Temperatures in 2016 and, to an extent, 2015, were boosted by an exceptionally strong El Niño. 2017 is set to be the warmest year on record without an El Niño influence. The five-year average 2013- 2017 is provisionally 0.40°C warmer than the 1981-2010 average and approximately 1.03°C above the pre-industrial period and is likely to be the hottest on record."…

part of the World Meteorological Organization 2017 state of climate, Jackass Robotslasve will make sure to note how ideological it is, then fuckwit Raindrop will obsequiously concur, of course.
@34: Nobody is discounting the science here.

We're only really talking about the rhetoric of the various sides and how, despite their altruism, those whose hair-is-on-fire over the matter of climate change (like you) remain exasperated that the crisis doesn't translate into a dire sense of urgency in everyone as they demand.
Long as the Kochs don't give a fuck about Katastrophik Klimate change, the masses won't either. (Isn't it Nice to own/kontrol the 'liberal' Media?)

Don't you wish you, too, had some old abandoned mine to hunker down in, to wait out the coming Apocalypse?
@35 BS you were attempting, along with jackass, to paint me as an ideologue for saying that 2017 was the warmest non-El Nino year on record.

Claiming there is no urgency IS climate change denialism. Deniers have always falsely claimed there is no urgency to address climate change (a la Lomborg), They used to do so just following their denial of climate change and just before claiming it'd be to expensive to do anything about it, just to edge their bet; but straight denial of climate change has become untenable for anyone needing to remain credible so deniers are left with pretending we have all the time in the world to act. It's false. It's a lie and it will cost us dearly given It's now likely too late to contain warming to 2 deg C.
@37: I wasn't painting you anything. Comments @30 and @31 are tangential to @27 in the sense that I made a quip about ideology and science. Stop being so paranoid.

Again, nobody is discounting climate change on this thread. However, it seems that as long as everyone's sense of urgency isn't as high as yours (and those like you) you feel entitled to play Paul Revere except there is limited things us mortals can do for this cause célèbre - as important as it is.
@38 Now you are trolling (the alternative being not very flattering). [expletive here]
There are some issues with this opinion piece. Weather and climate are NOT separate domains, as suggested by Sarah Myhre. Climate depends on weather scales and the fidelity of climate models depends on getting weather right. For example, a major issue with current climate models is that they don't do convection (e.g., thunderstorms) well.... weather scientists will play a critical role in fixing these deficiencies. And essentially the same models are used for both.

I would also ask Dr. Myhre to be consistent. If we can't use weather events to disprove anthropogenic climate change, we can't use weather events (like warm or dry periods of a few days, hurricanes, etc) to PROVE that climate change is happening. Dr. Myhre and Mr. Mudede make this error all the time.

Finally, don't be Trump's helpmate. By calling him and, indirectly, his followers dumb, you are playing his game. Another liberal calling his folks names. Name calling is a bad idea and some climate activists do it all the time. Bad idea. Strengthens him and his base. His is not dumb....he is playing you and folks like you like a violin.
@39: I expected that. Being called a troll is a predicable return volley when faced with "cat-got-your-tounge" revelation.

See @40 for additional information.
I didn't even read this or Trumpzilla's criminally pathetic Tweet. Shit like this is why I avoid Twitter altogether. Viva la Resistance in 2018!
@40 Quite some spin there, fella. Nobody but you claimed that people were attempting to use individual weather events to prove climate change when in fact, many are now showing that extreme weather events are significantly affected by climate change despite your continual claiming of the opposite on your blog.
Given the multiple scientific factors and variables involved, @40 and @43 can only reverberate on each other. Agree to disagree.

Happy new year!
@40 Cliff Mass

First off, the very first climate model everyone taught is a zero dimensional energy balance model. No weather. None. "Getting weather right" is hardly a prerequisite to model climate. This is not to say that there is no overlap nor means for meteorology to inform climate science and vice versa, but the premise of the claim is patently false.

Secondly, your claim about individual events is also wrong. Data points consistent with a trend or expectations are fine to use to highlight the thing in question. Data points inconsistent with the trend is cherry picking and wrong. These could not be more different.

Third, it's not too late to make a New Year's resolution. Listen more, comment less. You might learn something from Dr. Myhre, and at the very least you'll embarrass yourself less.

Happy New Year!
Thank you, Sarah Myhre, for a well written article.
@3 Original Andrew: I agree. I can see the world's first Zero Dollar Bill minted after the flailing, once mighty U.S. Dollar is overtaken by the Chinese Yuan in the global market, with Twitler's ugly head on it: "E Capitalist Dumbfuck".
@21 seatackled: No, calling women twats is NOT acceptable, ever. If you want to openly spew raw sewage, feel free to return to Twitter and stay there in the slimehole with the rest of the trolls.
@26 tensor: I nominate you and Original Andrew for the comment thread win!

Here's hoping that 2018 is truly a planet-saving blue wave turn-around for the better. The future of the Earth and all her inhabitants depends on it.


As for @21, at the time of posting, @1 was still on Slog. See the timestamp @2 to get an idea of how many hours that was, and take one guess what @1 called the author of the post.

Thankfully they eventually did remove @1--who made just that one comment before deleting the profile--but that also removed the context for @21.
A few points for your consideration:

1) If you care about emissions, support 4th gen nuclear energy; there is no reason to spend $100 Trillion on Massively unsustainable RE:…
Save $90 Trillion by building MSRs not the planned 2500 coal plants going up worldwide: Case for the Good Reactor…

2) Understand natural climate cycles; sun cycles 24-27 return a 400-year cooling grand minimum cycle. Expect more forests burned for basic heat, crop failures and famine...