Clarky, a "racing certainty"?

Based on what?

"he is financially beholden to interests not exactly aligned with those of the average US voter"

You mean, like Nancy Pelosi?

AK since you will not explain or justify this:
"... and the threat he poses IMHO to democracy and world peace."
Aug 6, 2020 at 4:34 PM AK
Can you explain what he has done?
Aug 6, 2020 at 6:55 PM golf charlie

I will tell you why you are wrong. Feel free to ignore constructive criticism.

Trump was not colluding with the Russians or Chinese. His record has shown him to have confronted the Russians and Chinese (well before Coronavirus) Democrats during the Obama era WERE colluding with the Russians and Chinese and have gone to considerable lengths to conceal that.

Trump has stood up against Iran, after Obama gave them a Green light to carry on with their Nuclear ambitions.

Obama started to pull the plug on the security of Israel and its entire population. Trump reversed that.

Trump confronted North Korea, against the advice of all the experts. Yes it was tense, but Trump "won".

Climate Scientists have wasted the peace dividend on their corrupted anti-social science, pumping billions into China (they are very grateful) and destroying industry throughout North America and the EU. The EU and US Democrats have driven these jobs to China. Trying asking UK Labour where the traditional working class vote went, that enabled BREXIT, BoJo, and now the further EU infighting.

Oil has caused war and powered warfare. It was not too significant in WW1, but Hitler's invasion of Russia to steal theirs, marked the end of his rise, and the beginning of Germany’s fall.

I was not around for the Aden/Suez/Eden crisis, but i do have childhood memories of the rise of OPEC and oil quadrupling in price. Gulf Wars 1 & 2 were linked to oil price and security. Trump has ensured the US is energy independent with reliable supplies. Trump does not need to go to war for oil, dragging the UK into conflict based on dodgy dossiers.

The World is safer with Trump. His enemies are the US Citizens colluding with US enemies. They all seem to benefit from con artist Climate Scientists.

You may not believe in Climate Scientists, but you share their political ambitions. If you won't accept anything that conflicts with your politics, there isn't much separating you from Climate Scientists.

I have no desire to meet Trump, shake his hand, or have anything to do with him personally.

I have no issue with people because of their creed, colour or country of birth. I do have issues with those that incite others, because of their selfish beliefs in their rights because of their creed, colour, country and deranged political hatred.

Aug 7, 2020 at 9:42 PM Phil Clarke
When are Climate Scientists going to get their knees off the necks of the poor?
How many more have to die?

GC. What is your evidence that Climate Scientists (and not others) have personally pumped “billions into China” and have destroyed “industry throughout North America and the EU”? How could they have done this. The science is bust, it’s others pushing the bandwagon.
You appear to be ranting in your hatred of climate scientists, which is so very sad.
Where is Gwen and the younger GolfCharlie with whom I used to joust with humour, only occasionally getting in a hit. Only occasional glimpses now of that much loved persona.

His record has shown him to have confronted the Russians

Delusional

Clarkey, do you really think you get an accurate picture of things in the US from CNN, the NYT, Salon etc.?

Good to see the TDS ratcheting up. The MSM will soon have some 'splainin' to do.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-last-refuge/

Aug 8, 2020 at 9:30 AM AK
Climate Scientists have driven up energy costs. Manufacturing has shifted to areas with low energy costs (and cheaper labour, with zero employee protection.

Politicians still push the Climate Science band wagon, particularly the shampagne socialists in the UK, EU and US. They still haven't realised that people need to be able to work to improve their standards of living.

Aug 8, 2020 at 9:40 AM Phil Clarke
The poor are still being killed by Climate Scientists with their knees on their necks.
How many do you kill pound for pound?

Think GC please. just how have climate scientists themselves driven up energy costs? The climate scientists you berate are data manipulators or modelers. Models have gotten ever more complex but are still rubbish and always will be so long as manipulated data is input. Unless others believe this dross or use it to support political action, they are impotent.
With a couple of exceptions I believe climate scientists believe in what they are doing, that it’s important and so are willing to lend their names to schemes promulgated by others. Is this really a crime? By making them responsible for the actions of others, you are demonising them. In my view there is the tiniest possibility that they could be right, or partially right.

https://www.palmerreport.com/politics/scam-site-media-bias-fact-check-caught-cribbing-its-ratings-from-wikipedia/2342/

https://climatechangedispatch.com/media-bias-fact-check-site-served-cease-and-desist/

Models have gotten ever more complex but are still rubbish and always will be so long as manipulated data is input. 

Observations are well within the 95% uncertainty range of the models, not too shabby, and none of the models take temperature data, adjusted or otherwise, as an input.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GL085378
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015GL064888
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/faq-on-climate-models/

https://kurtnimmo.blog/2019/05/04/media-bias-fact-check-part-of-a-larger-operation-to-destroy-alternative-media/

A former Infowars editor has the truth?

Snort

By making them responsible for the actions of others, you are demonising them. In my view there is the tiniest possibility that they could be right, or partially right.

Aug 8, 2020 at 10:31 AM AK

Those brave enough to speak out are demonised by the corrupt 97% as Peer Reviewed and endorsed by Obama, The Guardian/BBC and other propaganda outlets.

I have frequently sought honesty from Climate Science Activists. They have nothing to offer.

"Google “media bias,” and you’ll find Media Bias/Fact Check, run by armchair media analyst Dave Van Zandt. The site’s methodology is simple: Van Zandt and his team rate each outlet from 0 to 10 on the categories of biased wording and headlines, factuality and sourcing, story choices (“does the source report news from both sides”), and political affiliation."

"Both efforts suffer from the very problem they’re trying to address: Their subjective assessments leave room for human biases, or even simple inconsistencies, to creep in. Compared to Gentzkow and Shapiro, the five to 20 stories typically judged on these sites represent but a drop of mainstream news outlets’ production."

GC Surprised you still rant on about the corrupt 97%, whereas previously you used to vigorously challenge this false estimate. How many practising climate scientists (not hangers on) have you actually met to question them?

The Last Refuge is a conservative news and opinion blog that encourages comments on their posts. According to their about page: “Fear is at the core of liberalism, and love/trust is at the core of conservatism. Liberalism is about control. Conservatism is about self-empowerment.” This biased statement is reflected in the content of the website.

The website completely lacks transparency as they do not cite authors, disclose authors, ownership, or location.

Funded by / Ownership

The Last Refuge does not indicate who owns the website and it appears to be funded through online advertising and donations.

Analysis / Bias

In review, The Last Refuge (Conservative Treehouse) reports news with a strong conservative bias with all stories favoring the right and denigrating the left. There is considerable use of loaded language in headlines such as this: Sketchy Business: Grassley Releases Original Ford Letter to Feinstein… Although this particular article is written well and utilizes sourcing, it ends in big bold letters LIES!, conveying strong support for Judge Kavanaugh without evidence. On the website, they also list a blogroll of favorite/similar media sources that come straight from our right bias and questionable sources list. Here are a few examples: Gateway Pundit (questionable), Geller Report (questionable), Jihad Watch (questionable), and Truth Revolt (questionable). In general, the Conservative TreeHouse promotes strongly right biased propaganda and is often not factual.

Failed Fact Checks

“San Juan Teamsters didn’t show up for work to distribute relief supplies” because they went on strike. – PANTS ON FIRE
Philando Castile was wanted for armed robbery when he was killed by police officers. – MOSTLY FALSE
Image shows a photograph of Umpqua shooter Chris Harper-Mercer altered by CNN to make him appear white. – FALSE
A photograph depicts the arrival of 10,000 Syrian refugees in New Orleans in November 2015. – FALSE
Freddie Gray was injured in a car accident and underwent spinal surgery prior to his arrest and death. – FALSE
Are Muslim nurses excused from washing their hands before medical procedures in Britain? – FALSE
Trump pushes conspiracy theory about Buffalo protester – No Evidence (6/9/2020)

Overall, we rate The Last Refuge (Conservative Treehouse) far-right biased and questionable based on the use of poor sources, promotion of propaganda and conspiracy theories, a complete lack of transparency, and numerous failed fact checks. (D. Van Zandt 8/1/2017) Updated (6/9/2020)

GC I miss read your last sentence. You are now complaining about Climate change ACTIVISTS and not necessarily Scientists. Not all scientists are activists. Many of those I have known just want to get on with their job of understanding theIr bit of the climate. They don’t all agree - look at the disagreements that occurred between Mann and Kieth Briffa.

GC Surprised you still rant on about the corrupt 97%, whereas previously you used to vigorously challenge this false estimate. How many practising climate scientists (not hangers on) have you actually met to question them?

Aug 8, 2020 at 11:43 AM AK

Where is the honesty in Climate Science? The BBC/Guardian collective still rely on dishonesty.

GC I miss read your last sentence. You are now complaining about Climate change ACTIVISTS and not necessarily Scientists.
Aug 8, 2020 at 11:58 AM AK
They rely on professional liars like the International Phil Clarke Collective to promote and garnish their propaganda.

I have always tried to avoid tarnishing UEA with CRU, but UEA will always be tainted having conducted a corrupted cover up post ClimateGate. I think the late and respected Briffa put up some resistance to the pressure applied to him.

Can you justify you allegations about Trump?

Aug 8, 2020 at 11:45 AM Phil Clarke
You don't know anything about Facts or Evidence. Why pretend to be a reliable source now?

GC “Can you justify you allegations about Trump?
Yes I can but I don’t care to waste my time at this venue. Estimate for me the chances of my convincing you to change your mind, or even to answer my questions.?

AK, Mann concealed his corrupted data. Briffa shared his data.
Now you are adopting Mann's stance of accusing without evidence to back it up, and ignoring the evidence that proves you wrong.

GC. Look back over this entire “discussion” where you will find ample evidence I have given against Trump which has been ignored or dismissed. It gets boring and repetitive. Just accept that I have always considered Trump a lightweight and potentially dangerous. I have no wish to waste effort trying to convince you or others here to my point of view. Phil can waste his time if he likes.