Phil, you appear to persist with the belief that rich and successful people are necessarily evil by default, and not just talented (or very lucky).

Wrong, I just enjoy the jarring disconnect between Trump's 'anti-elite' rhetoric and what he actually does. I suspect a lot of the blue collar workers who supported him faute de mieux are going to get rather less than they hoped for.

http://www.npr.org/2016/11/13/501739277/who-benefits-from-donald-trumps-tax-plan

Phil, you appear to persist with the belief that rich and successful people are necessarily evil by default, and not just talented (or very lucky).

Or they had a rich Daddy.

An analysis suggests that Trump would've been a billionaire even if he'd never had a career in real estate, and had instead thrown his father's inheritance into a index fund that tracked the market. His wealth, in other words, isn't because of his brains. It's because he's a Trump.

In an outstanding piece for National Journal, reporter S.V. Dáte notes that in 1974, the real estate empire of Trump's father, Fred, was worth about $200 million. Trump is one of five siblings, making his stake at that time worth about $40 million. If someone were to invest $40 million in a S&P 500 index in August 1974, reinvest all dividends, not cash out and have to pay capital gains, and pay nothing in investment fees, he'd wind up with about $3.4 billion come August 2015, according to Don't Quit Your Day Job's handy S&P calculator. If one factors in dividend taxes and a fee of 0.15 percent — which is triple Vanguard's actual fee for an exchange-traded S&P 500 fund — the total only falls to $2.3 billion.

It's hard to nail down Trump's precise net worth, but Bloomberg currently puts it at $2.9 billion, while Forbes puts it at $4 billion. So he's worth about as much as he would've been if he had taken $40 million from his dad and thrown it into an index fund

Phil Clarke, the electorate in the USA thought Clinton was worse than Trump, despite everything the media threw at Trump.

Have your sources revealed how the Clintons became so rich? Or do you always ignore evidence that does not support your narrow minded view?

Has it occurred to you, to ask why Americans decided Clinton was less trustworthy and reliable than Trump?

I am no fan of Trump, but the idea of Clinton in the White House was really scary.

Michael Mann, and all of Climate Science missed this little gem

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/01/cold-kills-the-coldest-decade-of-the-millennium/

Golfcharlie asks if :

" anyone know what atmospheric CO2 concentration was, before Life on Earth began? It has always struck me as a dumb move for basic life to evolve relying on a trace gas, rather than a more abundant and reactive gas like oxygen. "

Yes, golfcharlie, they are called scientists,and by looking for, finding ,and analyzing fossils, those called palaeobologists have demonstrated that free oxygen appeaered in the atmosphere in conserquence of the evolution of photosynthetic organisms, which is to say plants.

Doesn't it strike you as dazzlingly dumb that you've been blathering about atmospheric chemistry for thousands of comments without knowing the first thing about the last three billion years of life on Earth ?

PC is demonstrating that he understands US politics even less than he understands climate. But he does share a derivative echo chamber patter, devoid of critical thinking on both topics that is notable.

vvussell, it does occur to everyone that 97% of climate scientists have conned their way into conning everybody else about their skills and abilities. European history does begin before the sinking of the Lusitania, which may be news to you, and other US based Climatologists, it certainly was to Michael Mann.

There is no need for you to register your displeasure here, when you can address your comments to Myron Ebell and Donald Trump. They are not as gullible as President Obama and John Holdren. I think Gavin Schmidt has already expressed himself quite publicly on the matter, and I am sure his views can't have done climate science any more harm.

Whilst you are here, perhaps you could try and work out which bits of climate science are worth saving, because otherwise it is all going to end up in dumpsters, and not even recycled.

Doesn't it strike you as dazzlingly dumb that you've been blathering about atmospheric chemistry for thousands of comments without knowing the first thing about the last three billion years of life on Earth ?

Dec 3, 2016 at 4:05 AM | Russell

Good to see your ability to do simple mathematical skills, like counting, are at the upper end of climate science's technical abilities. I think you have demonstrated why climate science has earned its reputation for institutionalised dishonesty, and over exaggeration. If only climate science fiction had some factual evidence, instead it has had to rely on John Cook and Skeptical Science, with fabricated opinion polls to con the outgoing President of the USA.

Of course if you have some evidence of me going on about atmospheric chemistry for thousands of posts, it might be different.

Fortunately, Trump has listened to the warnings about 97% Cli Sci-Fi Lies, and US Taxpayers are not going to be punished anymore. What happens next to the 97% Cli Sci-Fi Liars is not my problem, but hopefully the UK and EU will make sure that such a lethal mindset of politicised ideology is never allowed to become sponsored by taxpayers again.

vvussell, with all of climate science's "experts" in climate science, how come it is incapable of finding its own mistakes?

DR JOELLE GERGIS PositionsAcademic, Earth Sciences Palaeoclimatology, climate variability and change, historical climatology

Of course her work was celebrated for proving Mann's Hockey Stick, and was Peer Reviewed by fellow climate scientists.

Mann still has some legal issues to resolve, will he call Gergis as an expert witness, because of what her paper has "proved" about the Hockey Stick?

I think Gergis has established her credentials in Paleo, by proving Climate Science has gone well beyond its "Sell By" Date, and it now really stinks.

Phil Clarke, the electorate in the USA thought Clinton was worse than Trump, despite everything the media threw at Trump.

More than 2,500,000 more Americans voted for Clinton than supported Trump.

2,500,000 blah blah blah. We have a federal election system oriented on each of the federal states. Candidates must prevail to win Electors from each state
It prevents the oligarchy from simply manipulating the masses. She lost, fair and square. Period. But never let it be said that a climate kook ever tired of repeating their loser points. Apparently in climate extremist land, repeating points creates a consensus. And we all know how climate change kooks confuse consensus with reality.

You're confusing what I wrote with what I did not.

Phil Clarke, your responses appear to indicate you want to change the subject. I am quite happy to discuss your post hoc assessment of Donald Trump's investment strategies on another thread, should you wish.

The question we were debating was why you think wealthy individuals are any less suited to fill roles in a Trump administration than poorer people.

Fred Trump can claim the accolade 'self-made'; son Donald well, not so much. Fred Trump was one of the wealthiest individuals in the US when Donald began his real estate career. Having endowed Donald with an allowance during his childhood greater than the average family wage, Fred went on to ensure that his son could never fail in business:-

Fred Trump's political credibility was also essential to Donald's first big success. In his book "The Art of the Deal," Donald wrote that "the only way to get financing was if the city gave me a tax abatement." Part corporate welfare and part urban renewal scheme, the tax abatements allowed property owners to pay lower taxes than they would normally pay. Donald's application got lots of attention from city officials, who eventually gave him a $40 million reduction. Without this gift from his father's friends, Donald's first project would never have been started.

By 1990, a few bailouts later, Fred was suffering from early onset Alhzeimers and Donald was in real trouble, The Trump Organization was $5 billion in the red with $1 billion guaranteed by Donald personally. He only survived by  tapping his siblings  for loans against the money they knew they would soon inherit.

Four corporate bankruptcies later, Trump is feted as the model for the American Dream, the champion of the little guy and an example of the self-made businessman, proof that with hard work (and the odd inherited $million and bailout from the Bank of Dad when you screw up) anyone can achieve the highest office. 

This despite the fact that for the last 30 years, Trump's net worth has increased at a rate  lower than the US stock market average.

But you gotta hand it to the guy, he just pulled off perhaps the greatest political con trick of the century. 

The question we were debating was why you think wealthy individuals are any less suited to fill roles in a Trump administration than poorer people.

I don't think that.

Phil Clarke, have you found out how Mr and Mrs Clinton made their fortune yet?

The question we were debating was why you think wealthy individuals are any less suited to fill roles in a Trump administration than poorer people.

"I don't think that."

Dec 3, 2016 at 8:59 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Then why do you focus on classical Grauniad-type articles that obsess about the wealth of Trump's personnel choices, and not their competence?

C'mon Phil, tell us how low a net worth an individual has to have before you would consider him/her as being eligible for public office?

No rush, Phil, because I'm not holding my breath.

But you gotta hand it to the guy, he just pulled off perhaps the greatest political con trick of the century. 

Dec 3, 2016 at 8:57 PM | Phil Clarke

Why do disciples of Mann keep whingeing about con artistry, when they have no evidence?

Martin A titled this thread "The end of the Great Delusion is at hand". Perhaps Mann will find some missing evidence in the nick of time, but only the deluded would think that likely. Everyone else will be thinking "Con Artistry" whenever climate science is mentioned.

As no climate scientist wants to list the bits worth keeping, is it 97% or 100% that should be binned?

Radical Rodent, As more than 50% don't believe in manmade global warming, the science is voted out of public offices. That is what happens when you mix politics with "science", and forget that science has to be based on evidence.

michael hart, Phil Clarke gets his science from The Guardian AND Skeptical Science without realising that the sources are the same.

Shock news! With climate science funding about to be "significantly reduced", the panic and urgency to take immediate action, is not quite so important. Hansen is getting nervous.

Interestingly Anthony Watts wonders whether ECS might be a bit over done, or over Cooked

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/03/shock-the-father-of-global-warming-james-hansen-dials-back-alarm/

God's greatest gift to agnotologyGolfcharlie asks:
'Whilst you are here, perhaps you could try and work out which bits of climate science are worth saving,"

Were we to save only the bits you do not understand, next to nothing would be lost.

vussell,

You were offered the opportunity to suggest which bits of climate science were worth saving, but have demonstrated that you are clueless about what you write. No wonder Climate Science is going into meltdown, as the planet cools.

Perhaps you can find the missing bits of evidence that justified the UN in creating the IPCC? Otherwise, your cause is lost.

RR Clinton is now 2.5 million votes ahead, one suspects your other figures are similarly accurate.