2017 is forecast to set Unprecedented Records in cuts to Climate Science Funding within the USA, and possibly from the USA to the UN.

Hopefully, the UK Chancellor will announce "Austerity Measures" along similar lines in the Spring Budget. Further EU Nations are facing General Elections, and EUExit will be a factor, along with Climate Science.

Meanwhile, weather forecasters are predicting another cold snap in the UK, as Climate Science anticipates a deep and developing depression, with a doomy gloomy outlook.

Things are looking positive.

http://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2016/12/31/skeptical_climate_scientists_coming_in_from_the_cold.html

The return of Traditional Standards and Methodology in Science will be enhanced with Trump in the White House. He might just ban Climate Science from being mentioned.

Like some on here I'm deeply worried about the election of Donald Trump (though relieved that HRC wasn't elected - doesn't say much for the state of US politics, but then ours in the UK isn't much better. Happy New Year!).

Nevertheless, I have hope that he will at least do one positive thing - change the culture around climate alarmism and deny the alarmists access to public funds for their propaganda. Fingers crossed he achieves that, and also that where the US leads the UK (and others) will follow.

Radical Rodent.

I don't disagree much with your analysis, though I don't think that electing people like Trump is the answer. What angers me is that the liberal left (of which I certainly used to consider myself part) have behaved so stupidly and so arrogantly (and now, in trying to subvert Brexit, so anti-democratically) that they are driving the people into the arms of right-wingers, and they seem congenitally incapable of understanding what they are doing, and what are the consequences of their actions. For them, it's always someone else's fault.

Mark Hodgson, "arrogance" is the correct word for describing the attitude of the EU. Many of the banks saw themselves as "too big to fail", and some have got away with it.

I have no idea what concessions were actually offered to Cameron by the EU 9(?) months ago, but I don't remember him returning with a piece of paper that promised a better deal for the UK. The EU and UK Remainers still can't understand why they lost, and continue to blame everybody else. They Remain too arrogant to understand how they have managed to upset so many people.

Ravishing Rattie. I was having similar discussions/arguments with Amoco's chief geologist back in the early 1980s. He was of the opinion that everyone should look after themselves and the buyer should beware. Anything else was a departure from democracy. I demurred. I recall that this was followed by a report in the press of a young child blinded by a toy bear imported from China whose head was attached solely by a metal spike.

I desire my government to protect me from the unscrupulous, from those who place profit before my safety or those I love. I need protection from those that would charge me extortionate prices for essential items, from those wishing to hide their inefficiencies or downright malfeasance, and from those who gain unfair advantages. That's why I am left of centre and don't recognize your definition of "liberal". Sorry about that.

What a thoroughly interesting discussion. Maybe I am myself a contradiction in terms, but I find points I can agree with in the comments of Martin A, Ravishing Rattie and Supertroll.

I have opined on in here in the past at my bemusement at people who are traditionally left-wing behaving in a thoroughly illiberal way, and traditional right-wingers being the standard-bearers for freedom of thought and liberal values. I am inclined to agree thoroughly with Martin A when he says:

"So far as I can see, the new dichotomy is "Political Correctness/Political Classes (and the politicos get very rich)" vs. "Populist".

We have (as RR implies) seen the rise of the Political Class, where the difference between parties is small compared with the difference between the political class and the general population, to the extent that the general population had become essentially disenfranchised. Democracy has been largely suppressed (eg the nondemocratic EU) with efforts continuing to maintain the de-democratisation (eg Blair et al mobilising against "populism" ).

The concerns of the political classes (enforcement of political correctness, in favour of immigration, the climate change religion and its infrastructure,...) are detached from the concerns of the general population."

The political class, however, THINK of themselves as liberal and in many cases mildly left-wing, whilst regarding those who disagree with them as right-wing. In this they are probably wrong, though my own view is that Trump will probably show himself to be pretty right-wing before he's done. However, time will tell, and it is of course possible that my hunch will be shown to be wrong.

The bizarre thing is that the political class and many of those in the electorate who share their group-think, whilst believing themselves to be liberal democrats (both lower case) are anything but. In their contempt for those who disagree with them and their desire to see a democratic vote they disagree with subverted, they are behaving like fascists. Whether that term should be combined with the description "liberal" is a moot point, but increasingly I am seeing a phrase I favour to describe them - liberal fascists - being used on comment pages on the internet.

All of which probably does mean that the old left/right distinction is increasingly meaningless. It is now a fight between those with an elite mindset and groupthink on the one hand, who don't believe the views of those who disagree with them should be allowed airtime; and on the other hand the mass of ordinary people whose lives are being dragged down by the decisions of that elite.

A relatively small point, but nevertheless I think an important one relates to one of Mark's summary statements -

"We have (as RR implies) seen the rise of the Political Class, where the difference between parties is small compared with the difference between the political class and the general population, to the extent that the general population had become essentially disenfranchised".

I don't believe this is anything new. This is a REsurgence of a political class, a return to the pre second world war situation. The difference is that the earlier political class had more than a century of tradition to fall back upon and this was slowly whittled away between the wars. The defeat of Churchill after the war set the scene for which most of us aspire - a government doing the will of the majority of the voting population. Somehow this "ideal" has deteriorated and to many there has been a resurgence of a new political elite.

I remain to be fully convinced, it seems to me that the change has affected the British electorate (that expects more and more, for less and less) more than politicians who haven't adapted fast enough. But that's just my own personal prejudice.

Supertroll (I prefer ACK, I must say!).

I accept your first additional point in principle, though I would suggest the era you refer to is pre-WW1 rather than pre-WW2. The rise of the working class voter and of the Labour Party did away with the old certainties of the political class after 1918, I think.

But I don't think I entirely agree with this: "it seems to me that the change has affected the British electorate (that expects more and more, for less and less) more than politicians who haven't adapted fast enough. " I think your point has some limited merit (sorry if that sounds patronising, it isn't meant to), but that the main aspect of the British electorate now is that they are justifiably fed-up of being fed a line (indeed, fed a lie) by the political elite, and are becoming ever angrier at that elite's attempts to label them as stupid, racist, selfish etc and to subvert democracy along the way. It took a long time to establish democracy (not that it works well, but at least the idea of one person one vote has been with us since the post-war Labour government abolished the Oxford & Cambridge university seats that graduates could vote for in addition to their own seats) and we need to protect it from the assault on it by the liberal fascists, who don't accept the results it produces.

Mark. I actually think you are agreeing with me. Politicians have not changed so much, it is the electorate that has become more dissatisfied and angrier.

There has always been a political elite - consider the number of public school and Oxbridge graduates (many with PPE degrees and little other experience) who have become MPs? They have always dominated parliament.

I thought about the change occurring between the wars, but rejected it. Labour was essentially ineffectual then and it was only after the success of Labour post WWII that the Tory Party was also forced to change in order to successfully compete.

But these are small points.

re: the education system, see Robin Eubanks' excellent blog invisibleserfscollar.com

The Early Bird has found the Worm.
==========

Ravishing Rattie. I'm sure you realize we are really on the same side. We may differ in where we place boundaries - how much regulation is too much or too little? I, having worked for big business and having a son who works for HMC&E and tells me about the machinations of companies to avoid regulations, have little faith in industry to self regulate. It's not the punters who purchase cheaply and unwisely that need protection, it's the rest of us who need protection from cost-cutting and tax-avoiding business. I am left of centre because I favour a greater degree of regulation, you dear Rattie I surmise favour less. Vive la difference!

Ravishing Rattie. When I wrote "the British electorate (that expects more and more, for less and less)…" I meant that the electorate have increasing expectations of their governments. I don't believe the electorate wants less regulation, it's demanding more to achieve what it thinks is important (but associated with less taxation).

Ravishing Rattie

I believe it was Ted Heath, a Conservative Prime Minister, who referred to the "unacceptable face of Capitalism." He was right. Watch one of the excellent BBC history programmes (yes, the BBC still does some things well) about life in 19th century Britain, especially in the slums, and the need for Government interference to protect the poor in particular, and the public in general, from the worst excesses of rampant capitalism is obvious. Look at what the bankers (biggest capitalists of them all) got up to when Thatcher decided to start to de-regulate them and Blairite Labour gleefully followed.

As Gunner says, the question is where you draw the line. I would draw it further in favour of interference than you would, I suspect. But I do agree that suitably controlled capitalism is the driver of progress, and that Governments, when interfering too much, simply waste money and cause problems. In that, by the way, the Tories are far from exempt from criticism. Where to draw the line and achieve the best balance is a very difficult question indeed

Martin A - again I agree. I have mentioned on these discussion threads before that my stepson's mother-in-law is a primary school teacher. Her tales of the "green" assembly brainwashing that goes on in primary schools (a new 21st century form of religious assemblies to replace the ones we were forced to endure) are quite alarming. MSM (especially the BBC) are largely pursuing the same agenda as the political elite. Yet despite that, when discussing Brexit with a friend of mine who thinks we should have a 2nd referendum because we voted wrong, he firmly expressed the view that the Murdoch conspiracy is alive and well and that the media are uniformly right-wing and anti-Brexit and we need the BBC to redress the balance (or some such). I think he has spent too long working in academia, where group think on these subjects has taken over (no offence, Supertroll!).

No offence taken Mark - I have experienced the academic groupthink firsthand. The problem is that those actively promoting a groupthink are actually a minority. The majority go along with it for a quiet life or because by doing so they obtain benefits. It is for these reasons that I am pessimistic that Trump can achieve the miracles that people here (and on other similar sites) believe he can achieve. The Green machine/blob/environmental-academic complex is now so all encompassing. It has brainwashed our young, infected our economies and is oh so virtuous. Can one man, with rather limited presidential powers, withstand the inevitable green backlash?

Mark Hodgson & Supertroll

Part of capitalism has always been about allowing companies and individuals the opportunity to make money, but to take the consequences of failure.

Green Capitalism has been about guaranteed success, and the Taxpayers take all the risk of failure.

People from Left and Right have done very well out of it, and have preached about their selfrighteousness, as a means of making more money. Encouraging people to see a profit in "Going Green" was part of the Climate Change Act, and it has proved very successful for the minority in the UK, and the entrepreneurs in the Far East.

Politically, it has been a kick in the teeth for lower paid and manual workers in the UK, and we now have the farce of candidates for Leadership of the Unite Union arguing about political dogma that may send supporters towards voting for UKIP as opposed to Corbyn.

Corbyn might aswell "go for broke", and lead an attack on the Climate Change Act!

Martin A

"Alan (scuse me not tracking your frequent change of BH ID; not sure what game you are playing there)"
If I am accused of being a troll here, I will post as one.

With regard to Trump, I wish him well regarding any attempt he makes to thwart the green blob, but knowing the checks and balances in the American federal political system I am aware of how limited presidential powers are. Against concerted opposition I doubt he could be successful. I have also noticed how already he has steered away from potentially difficult matters where he promised action (Mexican wall, expulsion of ALL illegals, prosecution of Clinton). If opposition to action on climate change activists becomes intense, will Trump duck the issue? I don't know, but then nobody does. Trump seems to me to be a pragmatist, so it could go either way.