Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

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

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > The end of the Great Delusion is at hand

PC should have stuck with trolling on climate. His trolling on American politics only makes him completely uninteresting - a sort of less factual, less entertaining and much less authentic version of the Dork of Cork. That is quite an achievement in trolldom.

Dec 4, 2016 at 8:43 PM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

Martin A, I have on more than one occasion suggested to some of the "climate experts" who frequent this blog, that they try and work out which bits of climate science are worth saving. This would of course necessitate an acknowledgement that some of climate science is not worth saving.

Phil Clarke's response linked to Miriam O Brien.

It is amazing how people who have lived off making false prophecies, can not see their own downfall coming. Gavin Schmidt destroyed his chances of renegotiating his job description. Michael Mann is not directly employed by the US Taxpayer, but I have no idea how much his University Faculty depends on Government work.

George Mason University is at the centre of the RICO 20 circular firing squad fiasco, and I have no idea how far the stray bullets will fly. Skeptical Science is a treasure trove of information about links to those they support and those they seek to destroy.

Wikileaks have confirmed Podesta's involvement in smearing Roger Pielke Snr. Whether funding for smears extends further remains to be seen.

Trump has rattled cages. Clinton has left a lot of people exposed, and she will not be able to intervene. A lot of wealthy people invested in a Clinton win, at home and abroad. Just like the FBI investigating FIFA, if only one of the Clinton/Global Warming Progressives feels sufficiently aggrieved to speak out, Trump will have arranged the first self draining and cleansing Swamp.

The more Trump is despised, the more I like his style.

Dec 4, 2016 at 9:58 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Dec 4, 2016 at 9:58 PM | golf charlie, correction! I meant Roger Pielke jnr

Read here about the evil progressives, and the vile tactics they use. Bunch of scumbags with a lot of financial backing.

These con artists have never cared about Poley Bears at all, just their bank accounts.

Dec 4, 2016 at 10:29 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

The link to WUWT is well worth reading. It explains that Podesta and the Center for American Progress targetted Anthony Watts for some slimate smearology aswell.

Funny how Phil Clarke reacts to WUWT and Climate Audit with such vitriol, yet by some weird coincidence provides links to HotWhopper and Skeptical Science who attack Steve McIntyre and Anthony Watts, with such professional dedication.

97% Corruption?

Dec 4, 2016 at 11:21 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Podesta's brother profited from the sale of American enriched uranium after Bill Clinton received a 7 figure speaking fee followed by Hillary's approval of the sale. And uninformed people like PC wonder why so many Americans despise the Clinton remake of Tammany hall. And then we see Obama turning over the freedom of the internet to an international group with no obligation to maintain freedom of speech. How despicable.

Dec 4, 2016 at 11:47 PM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

hunter, the web of professional deceit, lies, propaganda, smears etc that infests politics, has been extended into climate science. It has cost a lot of money, but a few have done very nicely out of it. No wonder taxpayers all over the EU, US and UK are realising that they have been conned. Jo Nova can confirm that the Aussies have lost faith.

Somehow the Progressives seem to have forgotten that if they rip off most of the electorate, most of the time, the electorate has a habit of registering its disatisfaction. Rather than think about why they have antagonised the electorate, they blame them. Which simply demonstrates arrogance, and complete denial of their own part, in their own downfall.

The UK Labour Party remains in full self-destruct mode, with no obvious end in sight, the US Democrats remain in shock, with no obvious Plan A, but lots of alternative Plans being plotted (behind closed doors)

Dec 5, 2016 at 12:56 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

golf charlie
I would think that there are very few bits of Climate Science, in its current form, worth saving. Being able to accurately forecast weather a week in advance would be good, as would being able to accurately forecast the paths of storms.Climate Science could also take a leaf from Paul Homewood's book and tell us that no weather event is unprecedented even in our very limited records. That would probably save billions of pounds/euros/dollars in taking the right sort of precautions, for example rather than building desalination plants it might be better preparing for the floods that follow long (years long in some cases) droughts, that a particular region is having a wet spell but will return to drier conditions sooner or later, some indications of the later would also be helpful. At the current state of knowledge these are going to be no more than guesses.
Perhaps cutting the budgets to non-week out forecasting research should be cut by about 90% and some of the cash invested in Climate Archaeology, about 10%.

I don't think smearing of those adhering to a different theory is new to science or exclusive to Climate Science. These arguments were once carried out by letter and debate in scientific meetings and journals; now it is by Tweet and Facebook. Reaching a larger audience more quickly. Harrabin can pick up a Tweet and within half-an-hour it's all over the BBC News. When Bohr and Einstein were discussing Quantum Mechanics it's doubtful that politicians were involved. Were the general public interested in Newton and Leibnitz's dislike of each other. One area which is still debated is evolution perhaps the first debate the public were involved in by taking sides, you could also argue Galileo v Pope had public involvement but not as instantly as 21st century debate.

Dec 5, 2016 at 8:17 AM | Unregistered CommenterSandyS

SandyS, as a yottie, I am grateful for the improved weather forecasting. As a country bumpkin, gardener and former seasonal farm labourer, the advantages of accurate weather forecasting are massive.

A better understanding of the jet stream etc now enables weather forecasters to extend early warnings of likely significant weather out to 5-7 days.

The best development has been in monitoring Nino/Nina conditions. It does not help with next weeks weather forecast, but does seem to indicate the "climate" 6-12 (?) months ahead.

I did learn sufficient about the weather at school in the early 1980s to appreciate that the British Isles are one of the most difficult places in the world to produce weather forecasts for. Our weather systems tend to come from the west, but the track of a low pressure can cause winds to change from the cold north, warm south, or wet south west within hours, with all sorts of variations.

In the days of Hubert Lamb, climate forecasting was more about hindcasting, and not well paid or glamorous, playing second fiddle to weather forecasts. Times have changed, and in the UK, courtesy of the BBC and Met Office, too much emphasis has been put on climate forecasting, and not enough on weather, and the climate forecasts have been wrong.

If the last few globally warmer years are now to end, and be replaced by slightly cooler, this is nothing to do with CO2, and everything to do with Nino/Nina. Climate scientists don't want to admit that, and weather forecasters have only been allowed to say that everything is due to CO2.

The UK used to get weather forecasts 2-4 (?) months ahead, but they were so disastrous, they have been discontinued. Barbecue Summers?

Having worked and sailed in the Mediterranean, the weather is far more consistent and predictable, but when it goes "wrong", it does so dramatically! But it is also predictable when powerful storm conditions are going to happen 3-6 (?) days ahead.

Dec 5, 2016 at 9:39 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

And uninformed people like PC wonder why so many Americans despise the Clinton remake of Tammany hall.

Once again, you're putting words in my mouth. Please stop.

Dec 5, 2016 at 11:02 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

PC, you are the weasel that didn't bark. I put no words in your mouth. I commented on how so many anti-Trump people seem so surprised at how much so many dislike Hillary. Never claimed you said anything
But perhaps you still have the vestige of a conscience left?

Dec 5, 2016 at 11:35 AM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

hunter, double standards and hypocrisy are two of climate science's founding principles. Some people have found it financially rewarding for many years.

Dec 5, 2016 at 11:58 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

hunter - do you know of any info on how many democrats voted for Hillary, compared with how many voted for Obama in 2012? It's clear that democrats stayed at home in droves on Nov 8 but it would be interesting to have it quantified.

"Just like so many times during the campaign, some of us are playing checkers while Trump is playing chess."

Let's look forward to seeing how Trump deals with the climate change nonsense.

Dec 5, 2016 at 12:40 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

Martin A, great question and thanks for the link. While I don't see WND as a strong news source, the point of the article makes sense. Oligarch thinking is nearly always reactionary and dismissive of agents of change. Lefties have the cultural habit of dismissing those who disagree as stupid, as they have done with Trump. I like that metaphor comparing checkers vs. chess very much. We see PC, on his own way demonstrating this on the small stage of BH. The EU has been dismissive in the Euro stage perhaps in an even more dramatic way. As to Hillary, not only did her supporters stay home, not only did her transparent sleaze motivate people to vote Trump, Mr. Trump asked for and got positive results asking for votes from traditional democrat constituents.

Dec 5, 2016 at 1:21 PM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

h - Yes.

A problem with propaganda is that you finish believing it yourself and then your false picture of reality misleads you.

Clearly the democrat election programme thought that it was sufficient to label Trump "racist" to swing many voters. And that they could count on black voters and blue collar voters to vote democrat, as they have done traditionally.

But there was no shortage of TV interviews with black voters, notwithstanding the media bias suppressing such things, saying "I voted for Obama. What has he done for us?". That should have alerted the dems that the black vote could not be taken for granted. And the huge Trump rallies in the mid-West was a clear indication that there was going to be a huge blue collar turnout for Trump. Hillary, in labelling them "deplorables" must have helped make up many minds.

I even think Trump probably benefited from the "Never Trump" Republican movement, so that former democrat voters could reason, "If those guys are against Trump, then I'm for him".

Dec 5, 2016 at 3:45 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

hunter, it is amazing how sleaze and scandal have followed Mr and Mrs Clinton, yet some people can't understand how Mr and Mrs Clinton can also be at the centre of so much sleaze and scandal. Their contribution to sleaze and scandal as a "couple" is more than double their individual contributions.

In contrast to Mr and Mrs Clinton, Trump, complete with his own flaws, is a paragon of virtue.

Dec 5, 2016 at 3:50 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Martin A 3:45, agreed!

Assuming people will be loyal to a particular party because of their age, sex, race, religion, skin colour, professional status etc is just another form of discrimination. It tipped "loyal Labour" voters towards Brexit, and "loyal Democrats" towards Trump.

Clinton played the "race card", and annoyed the people she was taking for granted. The EU is only NOW realising how many people within the EU are sick of their broken promises to address the concerns, that have been raised for years. Brandishing UK Brexiteers as racist was not a great success either.

Dec 5, 2016 at 4:08 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie


So 'people like PC' does not include PC?

Thanks for clearing that up.


Dec 5, 2016 at 4:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Phil Clarke, have you found out where Mr and Mrs Clinton got their wealth from yet? Lots of people would love to know, and you are so good at digging up dirt on Trump, so what is stopping you?

Dec 5, 2016 at 10:09 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

So far as I know, the Clintons do not lie about being 'self-made'

Dec 6, 2016 at 10:34 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Dilbert, duh.

Dec 6, 2016 at 1:25 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Phil Clarke, they don't teach honesty in climate science, because no climate scientist understands the concept. The US electorate made the right choice, about their next President, and climate science, based on honesty.

Dec 6, 2016 at 1:33 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

The mainstream media and the public now accept the idea that Trump ignored facts, science, and even common decency… and still got elected. I have been telling readers of this blog for a year that facts don’t matter. Policies don’t matter. The only thing that matters is persuasion. And Trump has plenty of persuasion.

From <>

This is the problem with the media. You guys took everything that Donald Trump said so literally,” Lewandowski said. “The American people didn’t. They understood it. They understood that sometimes — when you have a conversation with people, whether it’s around the dinner table or at a bar — you’re going to say things, and sometimes you don’t have all the facts to back it up.

From <>

Welcome to fact-lite policymaking. We'll know not to take the TrumpTweets so literally in future. Heh.

Dec 6, 2016 at 2:28 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Phil Clarke, Clinton and climate science have been voted the most dishonest of the options available, despite having free publicity from the media.

Climate scientists should have stuck with honest science, and not dragged corrupt politicians down.

Dec 6, 2016 at 3:14 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Honesty is now decided by a show of hands. We tried facts and evidence, they did not furnish the desired outcome.

Dec 6, 2016 at 3:26 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

No Phil Clarke, you have not supplied facts or evidence. Just well funded lies and distortions, supported by well funded liars and distorters.

Without Taxpayer funding, your wealthy backers are going to have to pay for it all, or abandon it all.

Dec 6, 2016 at 4:08 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie