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.
Related
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.