Ah, yes. More fake news

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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

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?

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.

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?

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

" 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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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