CNN plain make it up and stage shit like they were caught doing in London not that long ago.

This?

;-)

Tomo,

CNN staged nothing and Obama never claimed to be born in Kenya.

HTH.

Fake News and Climate Science have had a symbiotic relationship since Mann's Hockey Stick, with both benefiting so much from each other, at vast cost around the world.

Climate Science is pumping out more toxic fake news in the run up to COP 24, to maintain the world wide web of con artists. Trump's decision to stop funding Climate Science's parasitic relationship, sucking life and development from the population of the world, despite the barrage of Fake News is so refreshing, and sets him above the corrupted politicians of the UK, EU and USA. Other countries are following his brave stance and Leadership.

James Hansen Feb 2009. He knew about Faked Up Climate Scientists.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/feb/15/james-hansen-power-plants-coal

You’re undoubtedly aware of the brouhaha stirred up by Breitbart about the erroneous statement in a client list Acton & Dystel published in 1991 (for circulation within the publishing industry only) that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. This was nothing more than a fact checking error by me — an agency assistant at the time,” Goderich wrote. “There was never any information given to us by Obama in any of his correspondence or other communications suggesting in any way that he was born in Kenya and not Hawaii. I hope you can communicate to your readers that this was a simple mistake and nothing more.”

Nov 23, 2018 at 9:10 AM | Phil Clarke

Do you think Obama was aware that he was made into an idiot by the Faked Up 97% Consensus, so cherished by Climate Scientists, The Guardian, Skeptical Science and other con artists?

Thankfully, Trump did not fall for it.

Trump exaggerates a bit, but who cares!? A wonderful celebration of failed Peak Oil theory in the run up to Katowice.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/07/trump-on-falling-oil-prices-thats-because-of-me.html

Trump is now addressing the damage done to the US economy by selfish lying Climate Scientists. The UK needs to follow his great example by repealing the Climate Change Act.

http://www.thegwpf.org/ten-years-on-uk-climate-change-act-is-harming-the-poor/

"The Climate Change Act at Ten: History’s Most Expensive Virtue Signal, written by Rupert Darwall, a leading climate and energy policy analyst, describes the economic and social burden the Act has had on the poorest in society:

“Fuel poverty was to have been a thing of the past. Both the Labour and Coalition governments had targets to abolish it. Thanks to the CCA and other anti-fossil-fuel policies, it lives on and is worsening,” Darwall explains.

In 2008, a huge majority of MPs voted to write climate change targets into UK law. Only 5 MPs voted against the Bill in the face of Parliamentary group-think.

Reflecting on ten years of the Climate Change Act, Peter Lilley, now Lord Lilley, said:

“I decided to vote against the Climate Change Act when I read the Impact Assessment which showed that the potential cost was twice the prospective benefit. Ten years later the costs are coming home to roost and the benefits remain illusory.”

Ten years on, the Climate Change Act has burdened consumers with extraordinary costs."

Here's the impact assessment.

So you can assess Lilley's honesty for yourself.

Nov 23, 2018 at 2:40 PM | Phil Clarke

So Lilley was right. Climate Science can not be trusted by politicians of any Party in any country.

Until Climate Science can find its own mistakes AND correct them, 97% of it should be presumed wrong.

Trump is correct. Defund it.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton has realised the EU's folly in calling economic migrants "refugees" from Climate Science. Does this mean she is thinking of running again?

Lilley said the IA showed costs of the CC Act were twice the benefits. The actual annual numbers in the document are

Costs £14.7 to 18.3 billion
Benefits £20.7 to 46.2 billion

The two ranges do not overlap. As with all economic forecasts you can disagree with the methodology and assumptions - but that is not what Lilley did, he simply made a demonstrably false claim about what the IA stated.

Some might say he demolished his already minor credibility on this subject, and by extension that of the GWPF. I could not possibly comment.

got a provenance / date on that quote from the publishers Phil?

Sure, its in the Snopes piece. They got it from here.

So you asserted that as far as Obamah's concerned he'll say anything he reckons he can get away with ..... like ummm CO2 pollution is racist or I was born in Kenya

This was untrue. The statement was from a pamphlet issued by an assistant to his literary agency, circulated within the publishing industry. Odds are, Obama never saw it.

When challenged you countered with Phil - he collaborated with the author.

This was untrue. The assistant made it clear that the foulup was hers and hers alone.

There was never any information given to us by Obama in any of his correspondence or other communications suggesting in any way that he was born in Kenya and not Hawaii.

Done with you.

oops (sorry) - I see it now on a PC - I didn't scroll down far enough on a slow loading ad-jammed phone page.... not TL:DR

Hmm... 9 years to issue an blooper amendment - quite good going that and after he's elected POTUS.

If you listen to the podcasts and they are from the fan club you will hear that BHO made considerable play of his relatively exotic background to counter the silver spoon Harvard boy thing - and a mistake like that would easily slip through. I heard about it in early 2010 - and as I said up thread discounted it - thing is that I recall another statement from a man at the literary agency who talked about his relationship with Obamah - and he awkwardly fudged his reply - I cannot prove that .. any more than you can prove Obamah never saw it.... not that it actually matters much.

I've followed Obamah quite closely , reading / watching his speechesand other output since coming across him on BBC World Service in Africa in 2006 and his surprising and excellent speech addressing corruption in Nairobi - his anti Iraq rhetoric was well informed - for a while I really thought like many others that he might just be different . Once he was POTUS it all changed quite a bit I feel.

Obamah didn't conflate climate change with racism ? c'mon - I got to hear this. Quite amusing to see HRC lecture EU on immigration and old clips of Pres. Obamah going on about securing the borders....

Groucho Marx : "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others."

Phil

Thanks for the link to the Climate Change Act impact assessment. I think you're very brave to rely on something signed of by Ed Miliband and which relies on the numbers provided by the Stern Report. It's all guesswork, of course. Very properly, it says no more than that " I am satisfied that, given the available evidence, it represents a reasonable view of the likely costs, benefits and impact of the leading options." So it's not exactly hard fact, and in fact is little better than soothsaying.

Soothsaying as a description might be a bit kind given this:

"Figures presented are indicative estimates of the impact of achieving the statutory 2050 target, not of achieving specific carbon budgets. The precise costs will depend on: fossil fuel prices; the cost and availability of low5carbon technologies; degree of multi5 lateral action; choice of policies; and, when abatement occurs. There are significant uncertainties over
the avoided damage costs associated with reduced greenhouse gas emissions."

And finally this:

"The monetised benefits include avoided damages from reduced GHG emissions (£404 to 964 billion) and improved
air quality benefits (£32 billion)." That's a heck of a monetised benefit to attribute to a hypothetical unknown!

It's dated March 2009, so now that we're almost 10 years on, has anyone bothered to see how far the projections of costs have diverged from reality?

Some might say he demolished his already minor credibility on this subject, and by extension that of the GWPF. I could not possibly comment.

Nov 23, 2018 at 5:20 PM | Phil Clarke

As usual, Climate Science has been wrong. Which is why Trump is right to cut taxpayer funding. Climate Scientists will need to seek voluntary contributions from the public, which is Trump's message to COP 24.

All UK Political Parties must share the stupidity of the Climate Change Act

http://euanmearns.com/the-origins-of-the-2008-uk-climate-change-act/

Miliband's expertise?
"In 1989, Miliband gained four A Levels—in Mathematics (A), English (A), Further Mathematics (B) and Physics (B)—and then read Philosophy, Politics and Economics at Corpus Christi College, Oxford. In his first year, he was elected JCR President, leading a student campaign against a rise in rent charges. In his second year he dropped philosophy, and was awarded an upper second class Bachelor of Arts degree. He went on to graduate from the London School of Economics with a Master of Science in Economics.[12]"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryony_Worthington,_Baroness_Worthington
"Bryony Worthington was born and grew up in Wales,[4] and graduated in English literature at Queens' College, Cambridge,[5] before joining Operation Raleigh as a fundraiser. In the mid 1990s, she worked for an environmental charity, and by 2000 had moved to work for Friends of the Earth as a climate change campaigner. She then worked for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, implementing public awareness campaigns and helping draft the Climate Change Bill, before becoming head of government relations for the energy company, Scottish and Southern Energy. She left to form Sandbag in 2008.[6]

She was created a life peer on 31 January 2011 with the title Baroness Worthington, of Cambridge in the County of Cambridgeshire,[7] and sat on the Labour benches, until redesignating as a non-affiliated member in April 2017.[8]

Climate Change Act
Lady Worthington was the lead author in the team which drafted the UK's 2008 Climate Change Act.[9] This landmark piece of legislation requires the UK to reduce its carbon emissions to a level 80% lower than its emissions in 1990. At the time Worthington was working with Friends of the Earth working on their Big Ask campaign, but was seconded to government to help design the legislation."

I am sure the Climate Change Act is beautifully worded, but where was the scientific evidence then, and what has been confirmed since?

Trump knows how destructive Climate Science stupidity is:

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2018/11/23/ten-years-on-britains-1-trillion-climate-change-disaster/

"Darwall concludes:

The burden of climate leadership is not borne by those who flatter themselves as planetary saviours, but in higher energy costs that hit business competitiveness, squeeze household budgets and fall most heavily on the poorest in society. Fiddling the measure of fuel poverty reveals the underlying morality of the CCA; to sacrifice the poor for the sake of climate theology. Perhaps there is only one positive thing that can be said for the Act. Ten years on, the CCA has achieved its purpose in making the UK an example to the rest of the world – no other serious country will do anything quite so stupid in the name of saving the climate."

Stuff and nonsense. For one thing, the impact of measures contained in the CCA are dwarfed by fluctuations in wholesale energy costs. For example in the 12 months to February 2006, the wholesale price of natural gas in the United Kingdom rose by 75%. In the three years to that date, it rose from under 20p a therm to 70p – an increase of 350%. This is approximately 160 times larger than the increases brought about by measures mandated by the Act. There was no outcry. The world did not end.

The Act received Royal Assent at the end of 2008, the FTSE 100 stood at 4434, today it is 6952, a growth rate smack on the historical average. Economic suicide? Not so much.

A couple of years ago Samuela Bassi and Chris Duffy of the LSE performed a review of the evidence and concluded…

Current policies to tackle climate change have not damaged the competitiveness of businesses. A review of empirical studies suggests that the policies currently in place to meet the UK carbon budgets have had little or no negative impact on business competitiveness and carbon leakage. Similar results emerge from studies at the European level. In particular, there is no compelling evidence that investments in the EU have been cancelled, or production moved, because of the EU Emissions Trading System or, in the UK, because of the Climate Change Levy. Carbon prices are likely to rise in the future, but evidence from other countries with higher carbon prices than the UK’s shows that countries can have a high carbon price and remain competitive. The OECD has also shown that countries that implement stringent environmental policies do not lose export competitiveness when compared against countries with weaker regulations.

Evidence shows that climate change policies can increase the competitiveness of the UK in the long term by encouraging greater innovation and efficiency. Well-designed climate change policies could offer business opportunities in fast-growing global markets, as countries, such as the United States, China and the Member States of the EU, implement ever more stringent carbon reduction and energy efficiency policies in the wake of the Paris Agreement. The UK is well-positioned to benefit from a global transition to a more resource-efficient and renewable economy, provided flexible structural policies allow it to utilise its comparative advantages. Furthermore, evidence shows that climate change policies generate low-carbon innovation and that low-carbon innovation has significant economic benefits – greater benefits than innovation in high-carbon sectors

Ten years on, the CCA has achieved its purpose in making the UK an example to the rest of the world – no other serious country will do anything quite so stupid in the name of saving the climate

See Table 2 for a list of our competitor countries who have enacted equivalent legislation. Does BH have some kind of quota for the number of falsehoods posted per day?

UK climate change policy: how does it affect competitiveness?

"Does BH have some kind of quota for the number of falsehoods posted per day?

Nov 24, 2018 at 9:54 AM | Phil Clarke"

If it did, you would have overloaded it years ago.

You are a handy reference source of unreliable science, law and economics, and keep proving why UK and EU Politicians should follow Trump's lead, and allow Climate Scientists to privatise themselves.

Another evidence-free assertion.

In the last few days ... Obama claimed to be born in Kenya, The Climate Change Act IA stated costs were twice benefits and no other country has enacted Climate Change legislation. All bollocks.

Name one thing I have posted that is factually inaccurate.

Nov 24, 2018 at 10:35 AM | Phil Clarke

You just did.