Donald Trump vs. Al Gore

The Donald wants Gore's Nobel Prize revoked because of the snowy winter in New York and D.C. Is he just blowing hot air?

Donald Trump vs. Al Gore
(Image credit: (Justin Lane/EPA/Corbis))

Donald Trump isn't the only one who wants to know why, if the earth is supposed to be getting hotter, parts of the East Coast and South are getting record snowfalls. But he may be the first to state, publicly, that "the Nobel committee should take the Nobel Prize back from Al Gore" because of it. With Gore — who won his Nobel in 2007 for raising awareness of global warming — and other climate-change experts being hit with new reports of shoddy science and dodgy data, will the billionaire's taunts further harm their cause? (Watch a Fox report about Donald Trump's suggestion or Al Gore)

Trump thinks the world revolves around New York: Trump is wrong in so many ways, says Brad Johnson in Think Progress. But let's just stick to the East Coast winter: Far from disproving climate change, the massive snowstorms are actually "the product of a record-hot planet" with higher atmospheric humidity and more precipitation. It may be snowy in New York, but globally it's been "the hottest winter in the satellite record."

"Donald Trump: Take Al Gore’s Nobel Prize away because of ‘coldest winter ever recorded.’"

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.


Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up

The snow's just the tip of the iceberg: Trump's point is that our "record snowfall illustrates the obvious," says The Washington Times in an editorial: Global warming is a "fraud without equal in modern science." It turns out the "purported facts" of climate change are based on made-up or missing data, "dubious" media coverage and non-peer-reviewed reports, and other "snake oil."

"Global warming snow job"

I'll trust the scientists over the pundits, thank you: The "fairly inconsequential errors" in the landmark 2007 report by Gore's co-Nobel awardees don't disprove human-caused climate change, says Alex Pareene in Gawker. But they're enough for conservatives to "trump up" to clueless journalists, who then report that "climate change is 'in doubt.'" Journalists don't understand science, but "they are experts in scandal."

"Typos don't make climate change a myth"

Trump isn't the only one "exploiting" the weather: Fine, I don't "fully understand the underlying science" of climate change, "despite my best efforts," says David Harsanyi in Real Clear Politics. But I do understand paying more for energy, and if the global warming "believers" want us to adopt "intrusive" cap-and-trade laws, the burden's on them to give us more than just "shoddy evidence" and "bogus fears."

"Who doesn't trust science now?"



The war over 'Snowmageddon'

Sarah Palin, climate expert?

Did Russian spies engineer Climategate?

To continue reading this article...
Continue reading this article and get limited website access each month.
Get unlimited website access, exclusive newsletters plus much more.
Cancel or pause at any time.
Already a subscriber to The Week?
Not sure which email you used for your subscription? Contact us