Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > The end of the Great Delusion is at hand

Ah, yes. More fake news

http://www.snopes.com/trump-won-3084-of-3141-counties-clinton-won-57/

Dec 3, 2016 at 11:26 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

vvussell, if you are clueless about which bits of climate science are worth saving, do you know somebody who does? With Hansen now dialing back the alarm, and all previous prophecies turning out to be false, do you think ECS is still over 1.5? You are an expert aren't you?

I am of course just a country bumpkin, who notices daffodils coming into flower about the same time every year, and summers not getting any hotter, just little things that, that are far more accurate than climate science thermometers, no matter how many times they are adjusted.

Just because American climate scientists did not know about the history of the Medieval Warm Period, doesn't mean that the rest of the World doesn't.

Dec 3, 2016 at 11:46 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

On climate change, well we know that the Donald stands behind efforts to "ensure meaningful and effective measures to control climate change, an immediate challenge facing the US and the world today." "Please don't postpone the earth", he pleads "If we fail to act now it is scientifically irrefutable that there will be catastrophic and irreversible consequences for humanity and our planet"

So we know that the President-Elect is a believer in CAGW. Or he was when he and his adult children signed an open letter to that effect back in 2009. The letter went on to urge 'Please allow us, the United States of America, to serve in modeling the change necessary to protect humanity and our planet.'

Of course he went on to describe AGW as a Chinese hoax, then, no doubt after reading some of the literature, he said that he was just joking about that and now Trump 2016 apparently believes there may be some human influence on climate, he is just not sure how much. He'll let us know just as soon as he has made his mind up. After all, these scientists, well they don't know everything, right?.

Clearly the next US President is not going to let himself be hemmed in by such old fashioned notions as consistency.

Meanwhile the rest of the world points. And laughs.

Dec 3, 2016 at 11:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

For GC https://moyhu.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/update-check-on-hansens-1988-projections.html

Dec 3, 2016 at 11:57 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Phil Clarke, any news on how the Clintons got so wealthy?

Your ability to choose your statistics very carefully, and ignore all others does explain your talents in climate science, and why you and so many others think the 97% Consensus is the most imporant fabrication of all time.

I expect Myron Ebell is going to bin 100% of the output from those associated with Skeptical Science. As a country bumpkin, I know one bad apple tends to ruin or taint the quality of the whole box.

Dec 4, 2016 at 12:01 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Phil Clarke 11:57, people have given up wasting time and money on climate science. Climate science has ignored history, historians won't ignore the destruction caused by climate science.

Developing countries will now have a chance to develop.

Dec 4, 2016 at 12:16 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Mr Clarke: so, you feel that you have proof that the electoral system of the US, that has worked acceptably for over 200 years, has to be seriously flawed as a democratic system, because this time it has returned someone you do not agree with?

Hmmm... I’m not sure I agree with your idea of democracy. I suspect that, had the situation been exactly reversed, you would have trumpeted what a remarkable victory for democracy it was.

As for Mr Trump’s earlier beliefs – I, too, would have agreed with him, at one point. It takes a brave person to admit that they were wrong, to such a degree.

There may be some, like you, “laughing”, but the impression I am getting from many is that there is a tangible air of relief that things are about to change. Whether or not it is for the better, time will tell, but the evidence is in that there an awful lot of people out there who are pretty fed-up with how it has become, and feel that any change has to be for the better.

Now, please answer Golf Charlie’s question: how did the Clintons get so wealthy?

Dec 4, 2016 at 12:17 AM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

RR Mr Trump won this election with 47% of the votes cast, and you appear to support those who consider that this is not democracy. It is interesting to see that these people had no desire objecting to Mr Clinton's win when he won one of his elections with 43% of the vote. Was that not democracy?

That would be 1992 when the opposing vote was split 37% and 19% between Bush and Perot. In 2004 Al Gore lost despite being ahead in the popular vote. In fact, more people voted Democrat that Republican is 6 out of the 7 last elections. Was that democracy?

To be crystal clear, I accept that Trump has won the election and so the right to be the next president. Whether he can legitimately claim a democratic mandate for his programme seems to me rather less clear. He was an absurd candidate, I hope he will be a less absurd president.

Early signs are not good.

Dec 4, 2016 at 12:29 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

As for Mr Trump’s earlier beliefs – I, too, would have agreed with him, at one point. It takes a brave person to admit that they were wrong, to such a degree.

Hilarious. Name one occasion where Trump has conceded an error. Narcissists never do. Do you really believe his 'conversion' was due to a considered appraisal of the science, rather than transparent expediency, when said science was going emphatically in the other direction?

I do agree, though, that admitting an error takes courage. Are you brave enough to concede that your assertion that 'Trump won 3,084 counties' has no basis in reality?

Dec 4, 2016 at 12:52 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Early signs are not good.
Mr Clarke: I have heard it said that the first 100 days are the signs of how the presidency will go (or something like that). Yet you are ready to judge the man before he has taken office; curious, considering how you will so readily dismiss meteorological observations that contradict your beliefs as “too short a time”, yet seem so willing to judge other fields considerably more quickly.

Dec 4, 2016 at 12:59 AM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

That's a 'No' then.

The die is cast, we're stuck with him. I was referring to calibre and nature of Trump's appointees so far. But who knows? Maybe the 'anti-elitist' on the gold throne will come good.

I admire your optimism.

Dec 4, 2016 at 1:05 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Early signs are not good.

Dec 4, 2016 at 12:29 AM | Phil Clarke

Climate science funding is to be cut drastically, AND Hansen is downgrading his dire forecasts, AND the planet is not warming anyway. The signs are BRILLIANT, and he is not even President yet. Panic over.

Anyway, about the Clinton's wealth. Where did it come from?

Dec 4, 2016 at 1:07 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

https://www.facebook.com/TheEconomist/videos/10154831222964060/

Dec 4, 2016 at 1:15 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

AND Hansen is downgrading his dire forecasts,

No, he is not. I say that it just Watts/Worrell getting it wrong as usual.

Go on, back up your statements with evidence for once. Or are we truly in a post-truth world?

Dec 4, 2016 at 1:18 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

http://joannenova.com.au/2016/12/wikileaks-climate-researcher-roger-pielke/

Interesting evidence of professional smear campaigns run by Podesta, on behalf of those evil and corrupt climate scientists and their multimillionaire backers.

Didn't Podesta have a major part in Clinton's catastrophe?

Seems big liars need loads of other people's money when climate science and politics gets blurred. Blurred vision has been a bit of a problem for both of the Clintons, and other people who just can't see anything wrong with how the Clintons get SO wealthy. A lot of people from all over the world were betting on a Clinton in the White House. Having lost a lot of money, they may give up on Progressive causes everywhere. They are not going to gamble any further on climate science scams.

Dec 4, 2016 at 1:48 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Phil Clarke, as you back up your claims with lies supplied to you by professional liars, I will stick to WUWT, he seems to have a far better track record than 97% of Climate Scientists.

Why should anyone trust Climate Science any more? What has Climate Science ever achieved for anybody else?

Dec 4, 2016 at 2:03 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

How were German Taxpayers supposed to view this as a great use of their money?

http://notrickszone.com/2016/12/02/meddling-german-environment-ministry-donated-up-to-5-million-to-the-clintons-in-3rd-quarter-of-2016/#sthash.1xnSDPAv.dpbs

Dec 4, 2016 at 4:09 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

" I will stick to WUWT, he seems to have a far better track record than 97% of Climate Scientists."

No surprise there. Each to their own, the magnificent Sou has already exposed that piece of quote-mining-and-splicing for the chicanery it is.

In October Dr Hansen was pointing out that atmospheric GHGs are still increasing at a very fast pace and we haven't yet turned the corner.

In December, Dr Hansen was saying that we will need to not only reduce emissions, but in the near future we will have to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. (This is a much bigger task than just getting the growth in emissions to start declining.)

Those two thoughts are not contradictory.

Dec 4, 2016 at 11:32 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Phil Clarke
If you're a UK resident/voter surely the electoral system you should be complaining about is the one we have. The last time a party got in on over 50% of the vote was in 1931. Leave the Americans to sort out their system as there is nothing anyone who doesn't have the right to vote in their elections can do about it.

Dec 4, 2016 at 12:16 PM | Unregistered CommenterSandyS

Phil Clarke, you are just demonstrating that decent science does not support climate science. Your beloved "Sou" is actually Miriam O Brien, and when it comes to your tactic of smear by association, you are exposing climate science to more ridicule.

It will certainly be of assistance to Myron Ebell and others reviewing value for money, to look at Miriam O Brien's co-authorship credits.

I was asking for suggestions about which bits of climate science are worth keeping rather than a list of names associated with the 97% failure rate in climate science. You do seem to have a high level of confidence in those who may be credited with discrediting Climate Science.

Dec 4, 2016 at 1:03 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Mr Clarke: har har – you’ve referred me to Monbiot as a font of wisdom. How droll.

Automation will destroy jobs on an unprecedented scale” Not too long ago, it would take tens of men to harvest one acre; now it takes one man to harvest tens of acres. Not too long ago, the working week was six and a half days of gruelling, back-breaking labour for at least ten hours per day; now we haggle over whether the working week should be 35 hours or 40. This, not to put too fine a point on it, is progress. The evolution of society does take time; you do not need to surrender all hope.

Dec 4, 2016 at 1:10 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Radical Rodent, climate science is falling over it's own tipping point, but still can't consider the possibility of having made a mistake.

ECS remains a strong contender for major errors. Lewis and Curry have written papers on it, attracting favourable comment from Climate Audit, WUWT and Bishop Hill.

As Phil Clarke, the Hockey Teamsters, Skeptical Science etc reserve particular bile for critics of ECS presumptions, I think this is a particularly good endorsement.

Of course as a non-Climate Scientist, it will be interesting to see if country bumpkin logic proves superior to the logic of highly paid professional slimate scientists.

Dec 4, 2016 at 2:58 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

"Climate Change is Real, and Important

By Josh Halpern, Greg Laden, Collin Maessen, Miriam O’Brien, Ken Rice and Michael Tobis

Human caused climate change is real, and it is important. It has such monumental implications that governments around the world have been coming together since the 1980s to work out how best to address it. Yet the scientific consensus that we are changing the climate is constantly being challenged by those who have financial or other interests in the continued use of fossil fuels."

I think Climate Science is constantly being promoted by those who have a financial interest, in the continued finance of promoting climate science.

Dec 4, 2016 at 4:45 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Radical Rodent
I must confess to one bit of Luddism. I avoid self service tills at supermarkets. I've gone a bit native and like the French take my time and talk to the cashier at a manned checkout, irritating British queues no end.

History suggests that automation creates wealth and leisure for the majority. Andrew Carnegie was the son of a hand loom weaver, not renown for being wealthy, at one point his mother was the main earner. These days no self respecting British school leaver with 5 GCSE at A would consider hand loom weaving as a career unless they could sell it at £5000 a metre to a Kardasian or rich entrepreneur, like Carnegie. Whilst the rest of us can afford to buy a nice tweed jacket perfectly woven on a machine.

But what is really interesting is that Carnegie's father worked in his front room, the industrial revolution took workers off the fields and out of their front rooms and into factories. After 100 or so years of development automation as led to a movement of workers out of offices and into spare bedrooms (a luxury unknown to the Carnegies when they were in Dunfermline), and small workshops with flexible working hours and decent working conditions unless they choose otherwise

Dec 4, 2016 at 4:54 PM | Unregistered CommenterSandyS

To get back to the principal topic of the thread...

Donald Trump is clearly a master persuader/negotiator, as pointed out by Scott Adams.

As a negotiator, he knows to prepare the ground before the first meeting. Hence the call to Taiwan, putting China on the backfoot in any future negotiation.

..if you look at this situation through the filter of a Master Persuader, it makes perfect sense. Trump is “setting the table” for future negotiations with China. He just subtracted something from China’s brand that they value, and later he will negotiate with them to maybe give it back in some fashion. Probably in return for some trade concessions.

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/153990140846/trump-and-the-taiwan-call

How will he put an end to the climate change nonsense? The following tweets, that somebody took the trouble to collate, make it seem unlikely that he will simply forget about it. I anticipate some kind of advance softening-up strike, even before his inauguration.

It's not climate change,it's global warming.Don't let the dollar sucking wiseguys change names midstream because the first name didn't work
1:38 AM - 18 Feb 2014


Obama's speech on climate change was scary. It will lower our standard of living and raise costs of fuel & food for everyone.
9:31 PM - 26 Jun 2013

China loved Obama's climate change speech yesterday. They laughed! It hastens their takeover of us as the leading world economy.
9:34 PM - 26 Jun 2013


It is really too bad that the scientists studying GLOBAL WARMING in Antarctica got stuck on their icebreaker because of massive ice and cold
1:02 PM - 27 Dec 2013

We should be focused on magnificently clean and healthy air and not distracted by the expensive hoax that is global warming!
4:38 PM - 6 Dec 2013

We should be focusing on beautiful, clean air & not on wasteful & very expensive GLOBAL WARMING bullshit! China & others are hurting our air
11:07 AM - 15 Dec 2013

Any and all weather events are used by the GLOBAL WARMING HOAXSTERS to justify higher taxes to save our planet! They don't believe it $$$$!
10:40 PM - 26 Jan 2014

What the hell is going on with GLOBAL WARMING. The planet is freezing, the ice is building and the G.W. scientists are stuck-a total con job
1:34 AM - 31 Dec 2013

Obama said in his SOTU that "global warming" is a fact. Sure, about as factual as "if you like your healthcare, you can keep it"
7:14 PM - 30 Jan 2014

Dec 4, 2016 at 8:14 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A