Donald Trump: I Call It Weather

“The real climate change is going to be nuclear climate change if we’re not smart and tough and very, very careful because that’s a big danger and that’s a real danger. I think Obama just said that the biggest threat that we have on the planet today is climate change, and a lot of people are saying, did he really say that? We have people chopping off heads and he’s talking about climate change. I call it weather. I call it weather. You know, the weather changes. You look back and they were calling it global cooling and global warming and global everything, but if you look back and the biggest tornadoes were in the 1890s, the biggest hurricanes were in the 1860s and 1870s. It’s weather. You’re going to have bad weather. Maybe there’s a little bit of change, I don’t happen to believe it’s man-made.” – Climatologist Donald Trump, speaking on wingnut radio.

  • JT

    climate change. I call it weather. I call it weather. You know, the weather changes.

    Does anyone need more evidence that Trump is loony?

    • jomicur


    • MarkOH

      Having a “discussion” on American Thinker right now. They really spend a LOT of time trying to disprove climate change. Their big thing – it’s not 97% of scientists who accept global warming, it’s less. Even if it’s 75%, that’s a LOT of people, in the field, who study it daily.

      Lastly, if Trump thinks his hair looks good, how good is his knowledge base?

      • LonelyLiberal

        How can they call themselves American Thinker if they can’t think?

        I’m not a fan of Argument by Popularity myself, but the simple fact of the matter is that every possible avenue the dissenters have come up with has been disproven.

        • oikos

          It’s not popularity, in science it is consensus. 13,900 peer reviewed papers say the climate is changing, 24 paper disagree.

          • LonelyLiberal

            Which could be a problem if journals are refusing papers that disagree due to the popularity issue, while accepting weaker ones that do agree.

            Do I honestly think that 13,900 papers have made measurement errors? Of course not.

            In science, contrary to popular belief, the maverick is always, without exception, wrong. The jumps that look mavericky are simply new data combined with a unique method of thought, and never negate any earlier conclusion completely.

            The standard winger example is Einstein, but Einstein’s equations collapse into Newton’s (and others) at low energy levels. Einstein simply extended the domain without changing the basics.

          • JT

            Scientific journals do not refuse papers which go against others, so long as there is substance to back them up. In fact, the way consensus emerges is by having opposing views presented until, after much investigation, some views get rejected.

          • oikos

            Unfortunately for the mavericks in this case (climate deniers) they haven’t been able to disprove anything. While some of the parameters may change since we don’t fully understand how all of the processes are affected, the overall data of a warming world has not. There was a study done a few years back on Lake Champlain that looked at ice cover from the industrial revolution on and found a drastic decrease in ice cover from 1970 on. There was 64% less ice cover on a yearly basis during that time.

            John Oliver did a brilliant takedown of this
            ‘It is like asking which number is bigger, 15 or 5?’ or ‘Do owls exist?’ or ‘Are there hats?’”

          • LonelyLiberal

            Excellent, actual information. Which was my point; the over the top summation of papers tells us nothing.

            Honestly, people, when have I ever given you ANY indication that I’m a climate denier?

            (getting mildly annoyed) You’re confusing acceptance of the science and the issue with using a logical fallacy to prove it.

          • oikos

            I am not at all accusing you of being a denier and my apologies if you perceived it that way. My only point is that it is not at all popularity, but consensus that drives science. If the vast majority of papers disagreed with climate change and the scientific community as well then that would be the consensus until large consistent quantities of new data that could disprove that consensus emerged. I work in the sciences and am trained to be very skeptical of data.

          • LonelyLiberal

            I’m aware of that. I’m also commenting that this is not how the argument is presented on the surface.

            Don’t think like a scientist. Think like a commoner. Arguments like, “Could one billion Christians be wrong” is common, and this argument is very, very similar.

            If you’d said “13,900 papers from 34,000 scientists using 4,000 independent studies versus 24 papers from 36 scientists from 1 study we know was flawed because…” you’ve gotten around the argument from popularity by providing further data.

            Is it a more complex argument? Yes. Are you going to lose some people because of that? Yes…but you never had them anyway and weren’t going to get them.

            The concept of peer review is beyond most people, so I wouldn’t bother. They’d assume an old boy network, not realizing that most scientists would kill to be able to come up with a new and better theory on any subject.

          • oikos

            I will agree with that. Complexity is perplexing to the scientifically illiterate and framing is everything in communication. Like yourself, my education and expertise is in plants and I am seeing observable change in plant community composition that can be documented. In those cases I can point out that there are things growing here now that historically have not before and vice versa and that is due to climate change. That is something people without scientific knowledge can understand more readily than a journal article..

          • LonelyLiberal

            Ditto. My crowning argument?

            All my boreals have died (except one tiny patch in the north garden that’s very shielded). Gone. Toast. Broiled. I used to raise gorgeous Siberian iris, but they no longer tolerate this climate. Most of the mountain heather, forget it.

            Even the cool season annuals no longer produce very well. Snapdragon, petunias, and so on are unrealistic except in special conditions. Viola fry in July. Impatiens, even protected, up and die in early August. Pansies manage, but now bloom in March and October instead of April and September.

            Over the years, the garden has migrated to marigold, zinnia, salvia (several species), Melampodium, and dahlia. All of them are sub-tropical to southern temperate, and are now the only things that work well over the summer in my Pennsylvania garden.

            And even there, fungal issues are becoming a problem due to increased rainfall and heat. I’m forced to either treat them (which I hate doing) or ignore them and lose plants gradually over the season, knocking holes in a 2,000 square foot garden.

          • oikos

            Hydrangea quercifolia , Aesculus pavia and Crocosmia now grow here readily while Crowberry (Empetrum) cannot tolerate the too warm summer nights. Also seeing lots of plants here that were formerly not common (but present) expanding their ranges. If everyone gardened they would be able to see in real time the change occurring.

          • LonelyLiberal

            Yet my farmer cousins refuse to “believe” in climate change. Though they do keep losing trees to infections and Very Strange Bugs that weren’t native here before…not to mention breakage from the incredibly severe thunderstorms that keep rolling through every summer now.

            Farmers, though, don’t push the envelope on climate very much. Gardeners do.

            Recently, though, I’ve been forcing myself to develop an appreciation for tropical plants (that have to be lifted and winter-stored). The number of dahlia varieties around here is burgeoning, and it does mean that the vases in the house are full from July through October.

          • oikos

            Use to do lots of tropicals buy don’t have the room to overwinter them anymore with 60+ orchids living in the house.

          • LonelyLiberal

            Paper bags, cellar, corner. 🙂 Those that sleep do well enough. A few I bring in after swatting the fifty billion insects off them!

          • oikos

            Other than Acidanthera, I let anything else die and replant anew the next year.

          • LonelyLiberal

            I love peacock orchid, but the colors and flowers aren’t dominant enough to pull off my garden. Er, well, I never met a bright color I didn’t like, particularly when combined with every other bright color I like all at once. More subtle flowers get lost in the tussle. Although I do accent with the occasional white Zahara zinnia.

            I do love saving dahlia tubers. The second and onward years feature faster development, more branches, and more flowers. My Color Spectacle burst into bloom in the pot on July 10, and even potted it’s throwing a dozen huge flowers at a time.

          • oikos

            Try Blephilia ciliata. It is a native mint (clumper not a runner) and looks great en masse. The photo color is off. It is actually a nice blue. Also Scutellaria incana blooms midsummer. A delphinium shade of blue when there is very little blue. Also native.

          • LonelyLiberal

            Nice, thanks! I enhance blues in the garden with Salvia farinacea (I prefer Rhea over the more common Victoria).

            Plus most people report problems with ageratum. My only problem with the stuff is keeping each plant from covering three or four square feet each so it seems to like my gardens, volunteers freely, and sprouts very easily in flats from stored seed.

          • oikos

            Joe will probably boot us for being so off topic. 🙂

          • LonelyLiberal

            It’s never happened before. 🙂

          • oikos
          • LonelyLiberal

            It still doesn’t look quite dominant enough for my garden. This image is old, I have to take more. Stuff’s grown in a lot!


          • oikos

            It grows in big masses. That was a pic of single plant. I have clumps that are 5′ across but takes a few years.

          • stuckinthewoods

            We’ve gone from Zone 6b to 7a in the years I’ve lived here. I’ve recorded day and night temperatures for years and plot them against (former) normals and have noticed that all temperatures have deviated upwards – but night temperatures have gone up far higher than day. It isn’t cooling at night as much as it did. That’s an important trigger for many life cycles.

          • oikos

            I’m in a solid zone 4 most winters but increasingly I can grow zone 5 plants.

          • JT

            Actually, Einstein did change the basics since his findings apply even at the “Newtonian” level. It’s just that there the effect is so small it usually needs advanced methods to detect. However, even at the time of Einstein, detection was sufficiently precise to confirm his theory in the very Newtonian case of planetary motion–of Mercury.

          • LonelyLiberal

            Sort of. We still use Newtonian math to wing our probes through the Solar System. The difference between the Newtonian and relativistic solution just isn’t enough to notice, much less worry about.

            Similarly, most human-type Earthly calculations just use Newton. Velocities are too low and the results are well within measurement error.

            (Or, it’s not that there isn’t a difference, it’s that it depends on your measurement errors; Einstein’s equations fall into Newton’s as energy levels fall toward zero. Work at low enough energies and you simply can’t measure the differences accurately and don’t usually need to account for them for that reason).

            Mercury is the only planet where the motion requires relativity, and even there the difference is only in arcseconds per century. Measurable, yes, but not necessary (for instance) if I’m calculating a differential ephemeris from present location over a few weeks. My telescope’s “measurement error” is large enough that the planet will be in the field of view and so close to center my eye can’t tell the difference.

            Now if I wanted to know where Mercury would be a thousand years from now, absolutely–or wanted to calculate an accurate set of orbital equations.

          • JT

            You’re agreeing with my point.

            The difference between the Newtonian and relativistic solution just isn’t enough to notice, much less worry about.

            That’s just what I said.

            Also, the reason I mentioned Mercury is that that’s precisely the original confirmation by Eddington of Einstein in 1919 (and predicted by Einstein). The instruments used then and the precision maintained was sufficient. Very old technology. That of course does not mean that any amateur equipment available now would necessarily be up to the task.

            That Newtonian calculations are good enough for most cases is something that follows from my point about the relativistic effects in such cases being so small. The point is this: the relativistic effects are actually there in all cases. It’s just that in a large number they are not detectable for ordinary purposes. I think we’re pretty much saying the same thing in different ways. My point is that relativistic effects are there in all cases, even when they would require extremely sensitive measurements to detect. Your point is that in those cases Newtonian equations do the job as well as is needed.

          • JT

            Scientific consensus: what people with scientific expertise and data agree on.

            Popularity: what any damn fool can have a say about.

          • LonelyLiberal

            Agree on currently, at any rate. New data can change things. We regularly reclassify plants (my area of limited expertise) when genetic testing is done. Morphology indicates one family, genus, or species, but gene testing shows it actually belongs to another (usually closely related) one.

            I don’t assume we have all the salient data to determine climate change’s speed and extent.

            At this point, even a quick review shows you that we have more than enough data to determine it’s happening and that it’s man-made. There’s only one major energy source in the Solar System, and that’s not increasing, nor is the planet pumping gigatons of carbon into the air. QED.

          • JT

            Of course new data can change things. That is just what happened with Einstein’s relativity. The point is the other side has no such data.

          • LonelyLiberal

            Yes, I mentioned that above.

          • 2guysnamedjoe

            And the other side’s positions are impervious to new data.

          • People4Humanity

            How dare you go all fact-like!?

          • LonelyLiberal

            Without a review of the data, that’s an argument from popularity. We wouldn’t know if those 13,900 papers were written based on the same (rich) data source that happened to be gathered from the same study or set of studies and happened to be wrong.

            If the 24 papers came from diverse and very reliable sources of information, you’d have a problem.

            Is it? No, and I know that. But invoking the numbers game is always a loser without further information.

            What I’m saying here is that using the same logical fallacy as your opponents is a really bad idea. Back it with further proof. Numbers in and of themselves don’t impress me (or scientists). Quality does.

            (I do feel like I have to keep saying it; I’m not a climate denier. I’m simply stating that you’re using a logical fallacy to prove your point and you can expect that to be a weak point that the deniers will attack once they finally figure it out in 2040 or so).

      • JT

        These are the people who invented the term “creation science”, remember.

      • lymis

        I don’t follow the specifics of climate change. But in things I have followed, like genetics, I keep seeing a technical disagreement about a detail reported as some fundamental “scientists don’t agree” or geneticists who feel more than one gene may be involved in homosexuality as saying “there is no gay gene” – when they feel it’s genetic but not limited to a single gene.

        So I could see 20% of experts disagreeing on some mechanism or time scale while still agreeing on the main idea – but having that blown out of context into “Scientist don’t believe in climate change.”

        • MarkOH

          Well put. They put down an idea because it is not 100% known, exactly. But spew their own beliefs as if they are true while lacking ANY data to support it.

    • fuow

      Hmm. Can I think about that one for a bit?

      Global climate change is real. While it is fun to run around screaming ‘correlation is not causation’, if it quacks like a duck and it walks like a duck, it’s quite probably a duck.

      We’re causing this major extinction threat. Any other conclusion is too unlikely.

      • clay

        The physical chemistry of the Greenhouse Effect has been known for more than 125 years. Humans’ use of coal and other fossil fuels accelerating the Greenhouse Effect has been known for two generations. The time lag between emissions and effect has been known for 15 years. The debate is about improving the highly complex circulation and prediction models.

        • fuow

          Why yes, yes, it is.
          I work in the field of canine genetics, so I have good reason to question every new ‘finding’ to come down the pike.
          When the experimental evidence piles up like it has here, though – you really need a good reason to dismiss it.
          We have none.

    • Cattleya1

      Why do the old pics from the early 80’s show the Donald with brown hair? Now he has that red tribble on his head,,, We have lots of blondes and redheads in my family – they don’t get lighter as they age until their hair turns grey. What gives?

  • Gustav2

    If climate change was man-made it would have a gold plated 50 foot high “TRUMP” on it!

  • Sam_Handwich

    modern conservatism is willful ignorance

    • Steverino

      Which is synonymous with stupidity.

      • Sk3ptic

        It’s worse. It’s active avoidance of information that you know will likely challenge your belief system. It’s laziness.

        • David L. Caster

          It’s worse still: malicious ignorance.

        • popebuck1

          Not even that: just that it’s information they think will cost them profits.

    • MDB

      Trump also thinks that a meteorologist is
      an expert on meteors.

    • JT

      When their base is the abysmally ignorant, that is the route of greatest expediency.

  • GarySFBCN

    I guess we should be happy that the Republican front-runner isn’t blaming climate change on ‘the gays.’

    • sherman

      But as soon as they accept that climate change is real, the gays will be the reason.

  • John P.

    Why is he talking about weather in the 19th century? They didn’t exactly have the technology to gauge storms. Oh never mind, it’s just more hot air from that asshole.

    • clay

      and he’s absolutely inaccurate about the tornadoes.

    • clay

      They could measure deaths, which were greater, because we had no warning systems, we were relatively new to the Plains, and we had a much greater population in the Plains. The F-5 tornadoes have been since the mid 1960s and the total number has been increasing.

  • wmforr

    That’s why I worry about a Republican President.

    He’ll be afraid to fly to Asia, because he might fall off the edge of the flat earth.

    • Paula

      Well, of course! With the monsters and all, its scary

    • Larry Ft Pierce

      Florida has its own Sarah Palin:

  • madknits

    Keep it coming, Donald. You are such a shit show! Too twisted for TV!

  • Wynter Marie Starr

    Why, yes, it is called weather, which differs significantly from climate. I’m beginning to think that people on the right think education might be painful.

    • fuow

      It is when your head is full of nothing but thoughts of hatred and fear.

  • crewman

    A sign of a good leader is knowing he’s not the expert of everything but who surrounds himself with people who are. In contrast, Trump is a hot-headed know-it-all.

    • TampaZeke

      He said yesterday that he wants to surround himself with brilliant leaders like Sarah Palin.

      Need more be said?

  • geoffalnutt

    It looks as though he’s pointing to his wig…and calling it ‘weather’. Well, there does seem to be some sort of toxic cloud hovering over his head.

  • olandp

    But I thought The Donald had the biggest and best tornadoes and the biggest and best hurricanes.

    • Joe in PA

      he had trouble putting his name on them.

  • oikos
    • Sk3ptic

      Always loved this line.
      People who deny science should put down their computers, cell phones, move out of their homes, stop driving cars…essentially go back into the trees and caves.
      Because science is what makes all this possible. And scientific principles that make the TV work also tell us that current climate change is real and is heavily influenced by human activity.

  • Treg Brown

    • oikos

      Winning graphic of the day, Treg!

    • JT

      The weather changes. Sometimes you find a trash can on your head.

      • Exatron

        Or a Tribble in Trump’s case.

        • Craig Howell

          There’s the Trouble!

      • Sk3ptic

        Sometimes you’re the trashcan, sometimes you’re the trash.

    • People4Humanity

      It looks like a hologram — too good to be true!
      Did she dO that?

  • JaniceInToronto

    Keep it up Donald. The Democrats are loving it.

  • Big Gay Sam

    Why, America? Why? O.o

  • Octavio

    This is yoooge!

  • LonelyLiberal

    Yes, dear, the fact that it’s already 80 degrees out there at 9:30 AM is weather.

    The fact that the entire world is setting record after record, year after year, for heat, cold, and irregular weather is planetary climate.

    Science is not that hard, but it does require that you acknowledge that other people have areas of expertise, and that you listen to them.

    • fuow

      Worse, it means acknowledging that you not only don’t know everything, but that intellectual rigor is beyond you.

      • Rigor? I’m pretty sure he’s not even up to intellectual mediocrity.

        • Paula

          he doesn’t have to think, he’s got people for that. (and not very good ones, evidently)

      • LonelyLiberal

        Even if you have intellectual rigor out the ass, expertise in every field is absolutely impossible these days.

        I did read once that it was possible to know every fact then known in the world in the early Renaissance (you’d have to know what was a fact and what wasn’t and ignore the dross, however).

        Post that, no. The sum total of human knowledge was too large for even an exceptional human to memorize, much less understand.

  • TampaZeke

    Of course he calls it “weather” and THAT’S the fucking problem! People who are actually in charge of the policies that could save us from climate catastrophe don’t know the fucking difference between “climate” and “weather”.

  • Michael Rush

    Donald Trump … ” I call Chernobyl ” real estate “

    • DaddyRay

      Donald can go Fukushima himself

  • Marides48

    I thought the tornadoes were worse in Kansas in 1939. After all, didn’t Dorothy’s house land on the wicked witch in Munchkenland?

  • Trump lives in his own bubble – one that happens to resonate with the TEA folks out there. While the conventional wisdom sees him flopping on his face, every time he says something nutty, he garners more support from the same sort of people who believe in a flat earth and literal 24-hour-a-day-for-six-days creationism, and who believe everything they hear from the Koch brothers – though the Koch brothers have not come out for him, yet. (They likely won’t unless he gets real momentum – he has enough money of his own that their only influence on him would be if they say what he wants to hear . . . )

    • leastyebejudged

      Actually, no.

      He lives in the real world. You might not LIKE the world he lives in, it may not match the little ideal world that you carry around in your own head, which is entirely factitious and IRRELEVANT to anybody but you, but make no mistake, it IS the real world.

      He knows exactly how to conduct business, how to turn a profit, how to game the system, how the system you do not understand actually works, and is, by any measure, successful.

      He knows how people are, what their biases are, how to exploit them, how to give them what they want, and how to influence them to want things they didn’t know they wanted.

      The ideal you carry around in your head, that dream world of fairness and structure and how things are supposed to work, that world is pure fiction, it does NOT exist.

      • Eric in Oakland

        You do realise we are discussing science, right? Just because Trump is able to profit from the ignorance of the scientifically illiterate doesn’t mean they are correct. It just means there are a lot of stupid people.

        • leastyebejudged

          I didn’t say it was correct, I wasn’t defending Trump.

          I think I was pretty clear. In the real world, Trump is successful because he knows exactly how to exploit the systems that comprise it. It’s not about right or wrong, it’s about reality.

          • Eric in Oakland

            Science is reality. And nobody has mentioned “right or wrong” except you.

          • leastyebejudged

            Another idiot with reading comprehension issues.

            Read the fucking posts you’re replying to, asshole.

          • Eric in Oakland

            Again, you’re the one who brought up the issue of “right or wrong”, not Joann or me. Perhaps you got confused about who you were responding to or which thread you were using?

            Also, since you’re the only one using profanity and name calling, I think it’s clear who’s the “asshole” here.

          • leastyebejudged

            Fuck off you stupid twat.

          • Eric in Oakland

            How charming. With people like you representing Christianity, is it any surprise that you’re seen as hateful and ignorant?

          • Eric in Oakland

            How charming. With Christianity represented by people like this, is it any wonder they are viewed as ill-mannered, hateful, and ignorant?

          • leastyebejudged

            Yeah, see this is what trolls like you always do, you lie.

            I’ve been agnostic since I was 13. Not go fuck off and die, parasite.

          • Eric in Oakland
  • bkmn

    He really is the king of the morans.

  • The Aqua-net that protects that hair do travesty from gravity (and meteor strikes) more than likely has caused an ozone hole over Manhattan 3 times as large as Trump’s ego.

  • Jeffg166

    Add five more points to his lead.

    • CanuckDon

      The leader of fools strikes again!

  • Steverino

    Jeeze, I would think conservatives would be conservationists (like Theodore Roosevelt), silly me.

  • real conversation i had with some extremely wealthy man in san diego county, circa 1989 (canvassing with greenpeace) …he asked why he should care about forests or whales, and when i briefly outlined the importance of both to the continued production of oxygen, and that we couldn’t live without oxygen- he said with a straight face that he would be fine because they would come up with an alternative to that.

    • BearEyes

      breath-takingly ignorant

    • Sk3ptic

      Ha! There are LOTS of alternatives. Problem is, not a damn one of them work with our biology on this particular planet.

  • Matt

    I cannot fathom living with, working for, or being physically near this man. He embodies everything that I was taught was the opposite of what a decent human being should strive to be.

    • leastyebejudged

      Money changes EVERYTHING.

  • Rex

    Trump releases more toxic gas everytime he opens his mouth.
    I don’t know about Obama, but when The Donald speaks I think “did he really say that?”

  • AtticusP

    The president is wrong: the biggest threat to the planet today is Donald Trump.

  • tomfromthenews

    Wow. So proudly ignorant and anti-science.

  • tcinsf

    And that thing on his head is a weather vane?

  • TexPlant

    I have to admit I am enjoying Trumps run and rants. He makes me laugh with his brash stupidity and the clown hair. Never ever want to see this fool in the oval office, but he adds so much comedy to the GOP. Love it!!

  • Joseph Miceli

    Unfit to be President. He’s comparing murder and terrorism (both heinous and disturbing crimes that should not be taken lightly!) with the possible destruction of the entire human race.

  • JustDucky

    The Donald went down to Laredo, TX to inspect our border with Mexico and said “They say it’s a great danger, but I have to do it.”

    Since he doesn’t yet appreciate what greenhouse gases will do to our planet, maybe we could convince him to take another fact finding trip. “It’s a great danger, Mr. Trump, but you have to go to Venus.”

    • Joseph Miceli

      Where’s the Go Fund Me page?

    • David Gervais

      Don’t you mean Uranus?

  • Elsewhere1010

    On the other hand, climate change is capable of stopping beheadings altogether. Also driving, snowboarding, sex (all varieties) , musical comedy, nuclear standoffs, Unicef, golfing… in fact, any and all human activity unless you live in a tropical paradise such as Alaska, Calgary, Iceland, Greenland, Ushuaia, etc.

  • Putin

    What’s Trumps take on Russia best way to attack USA?

    A Russian geopolitical analyst says the best way to attack the United States is to detonate nuclear weapons to trigger a supervolcano at Yellowstone National Park or along the San Andreas fault line on California’s

    • ColdDesert

      The Yellowstone one is kinda shooting your own self in the foot, a volcanic eruption that big would impact much of northern hemisphere agriculture

      • clay

        The Yellowstone caldera is also becoming less active through time.

        • ColdDesert

          The conspiracy theories are going the opposite direction, however. I worked in Yellowstone on a research project last winter and the rangers shared some of the crazy they had heard from visitors. Funny stuff.

          • Toasterlad

            Ever since I first heard of the Yellowstone caldera by reading Bill Bryson’s “A Short History of Nearly Everything”, I’ve been a Yellowstone truther, convinced the thing’s gonna blow any second and destroy us all. So far, no one has been able to talk me off the ledge.

          • ColdDesert

            Well, there’s little doubt the thing will erupt. The truthers and conspiracy nuts are the ones who claim the Park Service and the government are covering something up. All of the seismological data is available on the U of Utah’s website and every time there’s a blip in the data they think the end of the world is coming. Usually it’s just that wind or snow has gotten into the instruments.

          • clay

            geology porn– meant to titillate rather than teach or inspire.

    • LonelyLiberal

      The San Andreas releasing totally would be devastating, but still only a regional event with very few long-range or long-distance consequences.

      Blowing the Yellowstone Caldera would be a recipe for disaster for the entire planet and the Russians should know better. We’d just nuke the Siberian Traps with an anvil chorus until they did the same thing. Double your pleasure, double your fun.

      And I have my doubts as to whether that would even work, but would have to consult with an expert. Geological processes are enormous and slow, and not generally very susceptible to surface applications of force.

    • Todd Allis

      “It’s just weather.”

  • ColdDesert

    Yes Donald, you’ve given some lovely examples of weather but exactly zero examples of climate. Learn the difference.

  • To whom is he actually pandering?!

    • LonelyLiberal

      I’m still half-convinced he’s a Democratic spoiler in the enemy camp.

      Then I realize that no, he’s just got an enormous ego and no monitor on his mouth. He’s actually the final stage of metamorphosis for the Republican party.

  • Galvestonian

    Delusional, puffed up, egocentric, vain and bald white trash moron.

  • Ragnar Lothbrok

    I look out my window and see no bees flying around because of rain.
    That is weather.

    I look out my window and see no bees flying around because they no longer exist.
    That is climate change
    ( among other things )

    • LonelyLiberal

      Way side topic, but the number of European honeybees in my area has recovered again this year. There’s tons of the things flying around.

      The last few years, most of the pollination duties were being carried out by the (larger, slower, but even more docile) bumblebee and the (small, fast, but still very docile) sweat bee.

      • Ragnar Lothbrok

        Yes, I do see a couple of other species of bee as well, but even they are minute in number, this year.

        The monarchs are arriving now to lay eggs on my milkweeds.
        Unfortunately, crop dusting occurs at the same time. Somehow, they managed to survive a flight over mile after mile of endless monoculture to get here, only to be showered in a good dose of pesticide upon arrival.

        • LonelyLiberal

          We have seven native species of bee, three of which visit my garden (the other four probably don’t have a nest close enough). Plus numberless butterflies and moths and bee flies.

          Since I heirloom a lot of my plants, that’s a good thing. No pollinators means no crop for me next year, and if I have to buy and crossbreed Salvia splendens again, I’ll be very annoyed. It’s taken me nine years and nine crosses to get these to the characteristics I like.

          I also have a stand of milkweed for the poor Monarchs, who have arrived here (I’ve seen a grand total of one). Hopefully they’ll be able to reproduce on them, they have in the past…

  • Lakeview Bob

    I feel better now that the dumb fuck has explained it to me.

  • Igby

    I understand that when our little Sun becomes a Giant Star, life on Pluto will be just lovely. Perhaps Donald should leave Earth now for Pluto. I am sure he will find some fantastic real estate deals available there in nine years. Golf anyone?

    • LonelyLiberal

      Well, Titan anyway. Which is good, it already has an atmosphere. Perhaps he can learn to breathe methane.

  • bambinoitaliano

    Stupid people are dangerous. You can’t let them have guns, bibles, money, power, computers, heavy machines like cars and children. I think we need to swap out some of those people in the jail.

  • oikos

    Flagged, skag.

  • Mister Don

    Tell me, Donald, was it the tornadoes of the 1890s, or the hurricanes of the 1860s and 1870s, that were responsible for your hair?

  • Brian G

    This. Neil deGrasse Tyson explained the difference between Climate and Weather a while ago.

    • Trying to explain things to people like Donald Trump is like trying to use an unsharpened pencil to write a note: pointless and frustrating.

      Ego barriers can not be penetrated by science or common sense. Sharp sticks sometimes help.

    • SFBruce

      I thought of this same segment in response to Trump’s latest nonsense. It’s not that difficult a concept, but I thought Tyson’s demo was perfect.

  • sword

    I bet he couldn’t tell what the weather is from looking out of his office window!

  • Blobby

    Trump: you’re a fucking moron

  • LonelyLiberal

    But you didn’t tell me the hourly rate for dropping trou! How am I going to know if pleasuring the client will be worth it?

    (Yeah, flagged).

  • Hank Drake

    The hair and the stupidity are blinding.

  • Clive Johnson

    Proud and belligerent conservative ignorance unvarnished and combed-over.

  • Hue-Man

    CONSERVATIVES are supposed to be that – if the scientists are telling you that climate change IS man-made, isn’t the conservative approach to believe them and reduce CO2 emissions, just in case? At least until the next Ice Age starts.

    NOT conservative is to keep dumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, crossing your fingers and hoping science is wrong.

  • It’s incredibly discouraging to look at Trump’s poll numbers and realize how many people haven’t noticed that he’s simply too stupid to ever be president. Smart people: Start having more kids. Now.

  • Suddenly, the standard “I am not a scientist” answer seems downright intellectual.

  • JustSayin’

    To paraphrase…some many right wing Christians, so few angry poisonous snakes for them to handle.

    • JustSayin’

      Err wrong thread but oddly it still applies.

  • 2karmanot

    “And such as, like, you know the weather and such as in this USA of America and the heads and such as, and of course the children and such as. Thank you.”

  • j.martindale
  • goofy_joe

    When he uses that phrase, “a lot of people” which he does often, are those people inside our outside his head?

  • Xuuths

    Wow, he clearly wasn’t paying attention in grammar school, not to know the difference between “weather” and “climate”.

  • DesertSun59

    The STENCH of election season is all over this man. The Right has been using the non-existent threat of nuclear war for as long as I’ve been alive. The real threat of nuclear disaster is with terrorists detonating a dirty bomb in the heart of an American city. It has nothing to do with Persians.

  • Queequeg

    Of course you can’t tell the difference between climate and weather. That is because you are dumb.

  • James

    It never ceases to amaze me how freely people are willing to give their useless opinions about subjects they’re entirely unqualified to comment on.

  • JCF

    He’s like a douchebag, rammed into an @sshole.

  • A Big Sarcastic Fairy!

    I hope that a black hole opens and sucks him, Sarah Palin and the rest of the rethugs into it.

  • You’re slipping, Sadie. If you want that ring, you gotta try harder than that.

  • NMNative

    A single celled bacteria has more intelligence.