"All bollocks.
Name one thing I have posted that is factually inaccurate.
Nov 24, 2018 at 10:35 AM | Phil Clarke"

Climate Science Failures

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/11/23/the-froth-of-the-fourth/The Froth of the Fourth
Willis Eschenbach / 8 hours ago November 23, 2018
Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

"I see that the Fourth US National Climate Assessment has just been published. It’s here, and it should be required reading for those masochists who like overblown claims, flimsy justifications, and ridiculous pretensions."

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/11/24/peter-foster-another-report-reluctantly-admits-that-green-energy-is-a-disastrous-flop/

"Amid hundreds of graphs, charts and tables in the latest World Energy Outlook (WEO) released last week by the International Energy Agency, there is one fundamental piece of information that you have to work out for yourself: the percentage of total global primary energy demand provided by wind and solar. The answer is 1.1 per cent. The policy mountains have laboured and brought forth not just a mouse, but — as the report reluctantly acknowledges — an enormously disruptive mouse.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) has in recent years become an increasingly schizophrenic organization. As both a source of energy information and a shill for the UN’s climate-focused sustainable development agenda, it has to talk up the “transition to a low-carbon future” while simultaneously reporting that it’s not happening. But it will!"

Trump is right. Stop funding Climate Science.

Your reliance on ad hominem is noted, your inability or reluctance to engage with the point ditto.

At least one can discover who funded this work. Darwell's nonsense was published by the GWPF who demand complete transparency from everyone else, at the same time steadfastly refusing to disclose their own paymasters…

Oh come on Phil. If you're going to cite work to back up your opinion, at least make sure it's by someone who isn't being paid to produce work to back up your opinion:

http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/profile/samuela-bassi/

Samuela worked as a policy anlyst wtih the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment from early 2012 until June 2018. From 2016 she managed the Statkraft Policy Research Programme, investigating the transition to a low-carbon economy in Europe. Her work focused in particular on climate and energy policy and on green growth.

Background
Before joining the Grantham Research Institute, Samuela worked as a senior policy analyst at the Institute for European Environmental Policy in London and in Brussels, focusing on environmental economics. She previously worked for an environmental consulting company in Venice and for the Italian Permanent Mission to the United Nations in New York.

Samuela holds MSc’s in Economics from University of Trieste (Italy) and from Birkbeck College, London.

Research interests
Design and implementation of climate change policy at EU and international level;
Policy and economics of energy technologies;
Green growth;
Provision of policy relevant analysis and communication.

http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/profile/chris-duffy/

Chris joined the Grantham Research Institute in May 2011 and headed up the Institute’s policy communications programme up until March 2017. Chris went on to work for the Department of Transport.

Background
Chris’s background is in public relations and corporate communication. Prior to joining the Grantham Institute Chris held roles at the Carbon Trust, the Environment Agency, and in Boris Johnson’s climate change team at the Greater London Authority. He has also worked as a PR consultant for clients including major supermarket chains, construction firms and local authorities.

He has managed a number of award winning PR and communication campaigns and has a degree in History.

Mark,

Again, just argument ad hominem rather than engaging with the substance (not to mention my points). If you are arguing that who funded a report can invalidate the conclusions then logically you must discount anything from the GWPF, including this report, as despite several FOI requests they refuse to tell us where the loot comes from.

Fair comment, Phil. I have, however, read the report, and it's bollocks, IMO, regardless of who wrote and funded it. I'll post a critique later, probably next week, when I have more time.

By the way, Phil, the internet can be a wonderful resource, and humble people like you and me can read all sorts of stuff that just a few years ago would have had to be searched for in a dusty archive or University library - and now it's accessible at the click of a mouse or after pressing a few laptop keys.

One problem with it, however, is that it can make us lazy. I think I'm right in saying that I've seen you on here criticise a lot of things by providing a link to some report or other which you assume demolishes the point at issue. But if you don't mind me saying so, that is intellectually lazy. Where is your detailed personal critique of Darwall's piece? Or your detailed personal critique of anything, come to that? You and I have had our differences on here over the years, and I enjoy sparring with you, but I have regularly tried to show you the courtesy of following your links, reading the pieces you link to, then criticising them in my own words. I recommend you try it some time - it's a useful intellectual exercise.

"Your reliance on ad hominem is noted, your inability or reluctance to engage with the point ditto.
At least one can discover who funded this work. Darwell's nonsense was published by the GWPF who demand complete transparency from everyone else, at the same time steadfastly refusing to disclose their own paymasters…
Nov 24, 2018 at 6:53 PM | Phil Clarke"

Phil Clarke, is it ok with you, if when you quote somebody, that person can be denounced as a liar, producing bollocks, and it is not an ad hominem attack? That seems to be the extent of your ability.

The vitirol you reserve for Climate Audit and Steve McIntyre owes more to that deceitful Scroat William M Connolley than Bob Ward and Grantham, but in the Green Swamp of professional propaganda artists, that is paid not to admit Climate Science's mistakes, boundaries are compromised, and nothing is reliable or worthy of trust anyway.

That is why Trump is right to stop funding it.

If wealthy philanthropists want to pay people to make sure the poor of the world stay poor, with the highest infant mortality rates, and subsequent deaths from treatable conditions, then the United Nations ought to cancel the IPCC, and set up a Climate Science War Crimes Commission. I expect Trump would be happy to contribute towards that. Large parts of US Real Estate would become available for social housing.

The Chinese will be very sad that the Climate Science Gift Horse has stopped laying Golden Eggs, for over a billion people, before they can pump oil from beneath the "Chinese" sea bed.

Something from The Guardian that is not lies and bollocks:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/24/paris-fuel-tax-protest-macron-france-poverty

Now The Guardian has reached Peak Climate Science lies and bollocks, their content may improve. Somebody decided it was time for The Guardian to divest from Climate Science lies and bollocks, before they ran out of other people's money.

Nov 25, 2018 at 8:39 PM tomo

UK Fishermen never forgave Edward Heath for giving away their jobs to gain entry to the Common Market. French Fishermen will expect French Government support in any future fish slapping conflict.

This lot have their jobs and pensions to think about, which they are doing without Alan Rusbridger
https://www.theguardian.com/the-scott-trust/2015/jul/26/the-scott-trust-board

Climate Alarmists plus their blogs are feeling the financial pinch before Trump turns off Taxpayer funding for Climate Science. Others have realised that the Green Blob does not represent a good financial investment, despite the Stern report.

Where will the BBC get its expertise from for COP 24?

Trump is correct to stop wasting money on Climate Science.

IF Hillary Clinton is going to try to stand, as an upright Democrat Presidential Candidate, the Democrat's new star does not come from the traditional swamp.

"In the 2016 primary, Ocasio-Cortez worked as an organizer for Bernie Sanders's 2016 presidential campaign."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez

AO-C will have to support one candidate against another.

Trump will enjoy any Green Swampy mudflinging. Allegedly.

Nov 26, 2018 at 9:09 AM | tomo

A O-C is certainly claiming the Greenest end of the Democrat Swamp.

With Democrats still not singing in harmony following the Sanders/Clinton conflict, and uncivil war still simmering following Clinton's subsequent unexpected self destruction, and ready to break out again, Republicans (including Trump) will be delighted to know that some Democrats are still intent on destroying the US Economy.

tomo, that is precisely the sort of unretractable comment the Democrats were frightened she would make.

Oh dear, oh dear, yet another US President interfering in EU-UK affairs. Wot no critique here?

Supertroll, the UK remains very grateful for the support of Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt in previous European conflicts that escalated. I am not sure that Trump is particularly impressed with the EU's expansionist plans and attempts at world domination this time around.

GolfCharlie. Apparently you did not appreciate the implied comparison I was alluding to between Obama and Trump comments regarding Brexit. One elicited a storm of protest here, whereas the other, which incorporates a downright threat regarding US-UK trade, has yet to be mentioned here. Strange yet explicable.

Oh so some forms of "interference" are OK, whereas others, that you approve of, are not. Aren't both "interference?