All errors should be reported to

Sunday, June 11, 2017

AP surprised Trump is keeping his promises

Hey, Associated Press, I read your headline:
Trump wages battle against regulations, not climate change
What is your point?

As a candidate, this is what President Trump said he would do.

Less regulation, less worry about the imaginary problem of carbon dioxide reaching 400 parts per million. We'll survive. We'll thrive. Atmospheric carbon dioxide is a nutrient that makes more of the Earth habitable, and encourages plant growth with less reliance on fertilizers (as well as pesticides and the like).

But the Associated Press is shocked:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- While President Donald Trump's beliefs about global warming remain something of a mystery, his actions make one thing clear: He doesn't consider it a problem for the federal government to solve.
Trump's recent decision to pull out of the Paris climate deal was just his latest rapid-fire move to weaken or dismantle federal initiatives to reduce carbon emissions, which scientists say are heating the planet to levels that could have disastrous consequences.
Trump is waging war against efforts to curb U.S. dependence on fossil fuels. He's done that through executive orders targeting climate change programs and regulations, massive proposed spending cuts and key appointments such as Scott Pruitt as chief of the Environmental Protection Agency.
To what degree Trump will succeed remains to be seen. Despite the fanfare of his Paris announcement, including a pledge that his administration will halt all work on it, formally removing the U.S. from the accord could take more than three years. Rescinding the Clean Power Plan, President Barack Obama's signature measure to curb emissions from coal-fired power plants, likely would require three years. Trump's budget, which would slash funding for climate research and assistance to cities preparing for weather-related calamities, needs approval from Congress, where resistance is strong.
Still, the sharp change in course is being felt in ways large and small, down to the scrubbing of climate change information from federal agency websites. Environmentalists are predictably outraged. Even some Republicans are taken aback.
By "some" AP meant one -- a Bush 41 administrator.

I get that they are not rocket scientists at AP, but could they just for once ask one of these "scientists" who believe in global warming why not a single prediction in the last 20 years has come true?

On November 8, 2016, the American people said, "Trump the Establishment!"

Now read the book that explains how and why the press missed this historic election.

It is available on Kindle, and in paperback.

And then read the original, "Trump the Press," which chronicled and mocked how the media missed Trump's nomination.

It is available on Kindle, and in paperback

Autographed copies of both books are available by writing me at

Please follow me on Twitter.

Friend me on Facebook.


  1. It is a mistake for Trump to cut funding for climate research. The amount of funding is not huge, and what little is spent can be thought of as national or global insurance. The way to prove the climate alarmists wrong is to do the research, but in a way that helps to avoids the political bias we know infects the existing climate databases and the climate models. "Self-peer" review of that research will clearly not be enough to ensure it's unbiased by the politics of the researchers. How that problem should be addressed, I haven't the answer.

    In any case, the complex science of the climate models can and needs to be vastly improved, and in the process of doing so we will all learn a lot of interesting and ultimately useful physics that should benefit us in untold ways. It's right for Trump to be skeptical of global warming hysteria, but the proper solution-based approach is to support efforts to increase our knowledge of climate science, not our ignorance.

    1. Go back through what we know of the modeling that has been done regarding oil, population, climate, resource utilization and availability and costs. Club of Rome, population bomb, peak oil, etc, etc. We have fifty years of wasted money and political shenanigans based on Malthusian assumptions and historicist idiocy. And you say we need more of it funded by the government.

      Nonsense. We have plenty of billionaires who say they believe in this bullshit.

      Let them prove it on their own dime.

    2. Come back and report to us after you've read the last dozens volumes of a real science journal like, say, Physical Review. The government has traditionally funded basic research in the sciences, including work in theory and computational modeling, and this has produced demonstrably yuuuuge benefits for society. Even in your field of medicine. So, be a Luddite if you wish, but I see a place for federal support of the physical (i.e., natural) sciences of all kinds. It doesn't have to be a lot of money; there's a lot of bang for the buck in small investments in science over time if the money is well targeted. Climate modeling (or, really, what I'd call Earth Systems modeling) is just one area of basic and applied science where the potential benefits are enormous.

    3. I read the stuff going back for the last fifty years. I'm the scientist here. I don't need to read it going forward because I know all of the assumptions that are plugged in going forward. I've said before that most medical research is nonsense after a career in it. An ability to name a journal is not knowledge or judgement. As I understand it, Trump is not cutting off basic science research, and I didn't call for that.
      We have fifty years and many billions of dollars paying for models of all sorts that have had zero long term accuracy regardless of whether they were models of weather, climate, population,econometrics, resources, you name it. Throwing more money at a bad idea doesn't make it any better.
      Calling someone like me a Luddite is hilarious.

    4. Oh, and name one thing in medicine that has been considered a major advance that was based on a computer model. Not talking 3D printers or robotics. Something along the lines of what you are defending. No changing the subject.

    5. "I didn't call for that [cutting off funding for basic research]"

      Yes you did. Your words betray you. You called for the billionaires to fund the work on the basic earth science I said was worth continuing and even expanding.

      And when you choose to throw your credentials and expertise around, you need to be certain that the person you are attempting to intimidate isn't equally or even more credentialed than you. When you can say you have more than a million words in print in prestigious scientific journals regarding your work in the experimental, theoretical, and computational sciences, get back to me.

    6. Nice evasive answer that doesn't answer my question. Probably a million useless words, too. No matter if they make the SCI.

    7. A couple more things. I don't appreciate being called a liar. I was talking about speculative predictive computer modeling. That should have been obvious by the tenor of Don's post and my reply. You decided to make this about something it was not. I think you can gather what this implies.

  2. Perhaps Trump should form a tribunal of skeptical scientists to address this hoax. Have them address the nation. Only proof positive arguments from the hoaxers will be entertained. No 'could, may, might happen' scenarios, just solid proof!

  3. And where will they find honest "scientists" to conduct this research?

    1. From left-wing academia, of course, where the truth is despised.

  4. The AP wouldn't recognize the news if it hit them in the face. It would take a clue-bat, and they'd still get the story wrong.

    "I get that they are not rocket scientists at AP, but could they just for once ask one of these "scientists" who believe in global warming why not a single prediction in the last 20 years has come true?" Now, now, Don, that would be the rational thing to do (apologies for man-splaining), which is clearly beyoud the AP's knowledge and understanding capability.

  5. Meanwhile, we had the worst winter since 1978-79 here in Montana, and it's still kinda cold here-37 degrees this morning.

    1. Ah, the 1970s prediction of a new ice age is returning based on sun spots/sun's energy decreasing. Hey, but who knows.

    2. Ah, the 1970s prediction of a new ice age is returning based on sun spots/sun's energy decreasing. Hey, but who knows.

  6. There was a time when scientists could talk about science without getting the galloping fantods.