And you are citing liar Tim Ball posting on liar Anthony Watts' website. Remember the libel action against Dr. Ball? The one dismissed by B.C. Supreme Court Justice Ronald Skolrood, not because Ball had not committed libel, but because no sensible person would believe a word he wrote?

despite Dr. Ball’s history as an academic and a scientist, the Article is rife with errors and inaccuracies, which suggests a lack of attention to detail on Dr. Ball’s part, if not an indifference to the truth.”

[..]

“the Article is poorly written and does not advance credible arguments in favour of Dr. Ball’s theory about the corruption of climate science. Simply put, a reasonably thoughtful and informed person who reads the Article is unlikely to place any stock in Dr. Ball’s views, including his views of Dr. Weaver as a supporter of conventional climate science.”

Hardly the first time Ball has come off worse in a legal action.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Ball#Controversies_and_lawsuits

I will stick with the professionals, thank you.

Ben Santer puts the record straight here.

It is becoming hard to keep up with the torrent of dishonesty at WUWT, but here is a recent example:

It is important to note that in the above cartoon, Josh focuses on the “near present” part of the hockey stick, and it’s not the entire graph with the long flat blade going back to the Medieval Warm Period and before. It focuses entirely on the fact that the tree ring temperature proxy data in modern times (from about 1980 onward) didn’t cooperate with the viewpoint of the Science paper authors (it went in the wrong direction) so they truncated it and used an entirely different dataset in it’s place – surface thermometer readings.

Either Watts is lying or he doesn't have the first idea of what he is writing about. Either way, repeatedly linking to WUWT as any kind of authority is not exactly going to boost one's credibility ;-)

From <https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/21/mikes-nature-trick-revisited-scottadamssays-edition/>

Latest lie, I mean 'update' …

Epic fail of renewables causes Texas town to have $1200 per year higher power bills

So claims Watts, generously sharing a piece from Fox News (stay with me). Only trouble is, nothing in the article supports the headline, the nearest it comes is

Now, however, they are on the defensive over electricity costs that have their residents paying more than $1,000 per household in higher electricity charges over the last four years.

So the headline is only a 300% exaggeration. Even this seems to be an accounting sleight of hand, a budget forecast was too low, and Fox have assigned this undershoot to electricty costs charged to consumers, there's no evidence this was the case, in the comments people have been logging on to the Texas equivalent of USwitch, giving a Georgetown address and getting quotes lower than elsewhere in the State. Nick Stokes even used the Wayback machine to compare 2013 charges with current and found a negligible increase.

“Residential: $24.80 @ $0.0958 per kWh”
Here is the Wayback of that same site for September 2015. (quoting Sep 2013 rates).
Residential Service $20.00 @ $0.0939

Negligible change in cost per kWH in 3.5 years. So much for those $1200 over 4 years in charges.

Which would mean the 'all-renewables' experiment was a success. Can't have that can we?

Watts' reputation takes another kicking.

Phil Clarke, you are simply confirming that Climate Science lacks evidence to support all of the previous Peer Reviewed lies, supported by 97% of Climate Scientists

California fell for Climate Science lies and propaganda, now they will have to keep paying.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/30/uh-oh-california-solar-and-wind-projects-at-risk-due-to-pge-bankruptcy/

Only trouble is, nothing in the article supports the headline,[..]
Jan 30, 2019 at 1:04 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Several hours ago I read the article and commented that it was confusing/ambiguous. In that respect, I found myself in slight agreement with the perennial Nick Stokes (though it has happened before). But wading through his many trolling posts to see if he actually offered any kind of quick and easy explanation just seemed too taxing for my patience today. of course, Nick Stokes is routinely in the business of offering nit-picking obfuscation not honest clarity to aid clarification for the reader.

Seeing as Phil Clarke has not offered any clarification here, I'll just pop over to WUWT and see if anyone by the name of Phil Clarke has taken the trouble to comment there, whether helpfully or just throwing abuse like he normally does here instead of engaging the author directly when he has the opportunity..

Back in a few minutes...

....Well, there are several other regular commenters who also seem a bit confused like me.
Seeing as it's an article taken from elsewhere, the author of the original article, Chuck DeVore (not Anthony Watts), is not available to offer clarifications.
Unfortunately, neither is anyone by the name of Phil Carke. Same as usual. He gives the impression of understanding everything, but never replies in detail when and where it would be either appreciated or needed, suggesting once again that he may not actually read the things he criticizes, possibly because he is in too much of a hurry to say something derogatory about the owner of the blog.

Phil Clarke, have you got any evidence to justify the $billions wasted on Climate Science lies and propaganda? The fact that you keep posting here simply proves that Climate Science has no evidence, but keeps wasting money.

Phil Clarke, how is Hockey Team Climate Science corruption these days?

Wikipedia climate revisionism by William Connolley continues
Anthony Watts / October 13, 2010
Apparently Wikipedia’s own attempt at self policing problem editors isn’t working. Despite being up for a restriction or a ban, rogue Wiki editor (and Real Climate co-founder) William Connolley is still removing anything he doesn’t like when it comes to climate science. This time it’s wholesale removal of any reference to the American Physical Society resignation letter of physicist Hal Lewis, who resigned over the APS global warming position
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/13/wikipedia-turbo-revisionism-by-william-connolley-continues/

How bizarre. A nine year old article claiming that William Connolley is (or was) responsible for the

wholesale removal of any reference to the American Physical Society resignation letter of physicist Hal Lewis, who resigned over the APS global warming position:

But if you scoot over to the relevant page, Lewis's views and resignation are referenced:

In a letter dated 6 October 2010, Lewis wrote to Curtis Callan, President of the American Physical Society (APS), resigning from the society. Lewis said that he had joined the APS 67 years previously, when it was "as yet uncorrupted by the money flood" which he said had "become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs." In his view, it was "the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist."

Not much climate revisionism there. You need to do your research GC; anyone who believes that any one wiki editor can singlehandedly censor a topic simply does not understand how wikipedia works.

https://wmconnolley.wordpress.com/2010/01/04/a-childs-garden-of-wikipedia-p/

MH: I'll just pop over to WUWT and see if anyone by the name of Phil Clarke has taken the trouble to comment there

I used to comment over there, until one day in 2016, my posts abruptly stopped appearing, not 'in moderation', just disappeared into the ether. I think this is my last, attempting to get a straight answer out of Christopher Monckton ...

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/10/the-profiteers-of-climate-doom/#comment-1711738

He probably did me a favour, in hindsight. Watts is of course perfectly entitled to control what appears on his blog, but shadow-banning me (and far more erudite people such as temperature data expert Victor Venema, and NASA climate scientist Jan Perlowitz amongst others) exposes his claim to be a champion of open discussion to be, well, just another lie.

Phil Clarke, you are the one maintaning the lies, fraud, corruption and propaganda of Science, Law, Economics, Democracy etc known collectively as Climate Science.

Golf Charlie

Watts is the loudest voice amongst the denier community, and his blog a virtual meeting place for the crazies and conspiracists still clinging on to the delusion that AGW is not a dangerous reality.

Happily, he has now posted so many lies and false headlines that nobody with a basic grounding in reality takes him seriously.

My work here is done.

"My work here is done.
Jan 31, 2019 at 11:48 PM | Phil Clarke"

The lies , deceipt, fraud and corruption by Climate Scientists is nearly done now, as without political support, it is falling rapidly out of favour with gullible politicians. Paris has sunk, leaving a trail of rancid flotsam to contaminate the waters for genuine environmentalists to cope with.

The Guardian ran out of other peoples money to promote Skeptical Science et al, and presumably you have too.

William M Connolley can be proud of his contribution to Trump's victory in the USA, BREXIT in the UK, and mounting dissatisfaction with the EU elsewhere. That is some achievement by the Green Party's chielf of propaganda.

Phil flounces off to hang with stoat and Ford Prefect and plan some more pot tossing.

Feb 3, 2019 at 2:03 PM | Radical Rodent

I think he is still celebrating with William M Connolley on the success of his lies and propaganda that corrupted Wikipedia on Climate Science. Without William M Connolley's persistent efforts, there might be another Democrat in the White House, BREXIT Referendum would not have succeeded, Macron would not be in a mess along with the EU's entire energy policy and future. All achieved by one Green Party failed candidate. I expect Caroline Lucas is very proud of him.

Here is a simple challenge.

All changes to wikipedia pages are audited and logged.

Find me a single example of William Connelley inappropriately deleting or editing a wiki page on climate change.

Alternatively, stop bleating on about something you patently know zero about.

Feb 3, 2019 at 9:16 PM | Phil Clarke

So you are lying again? Did William M Connolley not tell you why he was banned by Wikipedia, or has he edited your memory to coverup the output of lies and propaganda by the Hockey Teamsters?

Is that an honest reflection of the Green Party's level of honesty?

Excellent publicity concerning professional Green Blob Party propaganda techniques

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/02/02/climate-change-committe-head-lorddeben-facing-calls-to-resign-over-what-appear-to-be-colossal-and-scandalous-conflicts-of-interest/

Phil trying to defend the honest and blameless William Connolley?

No Phil - your simple challenge is a complete inversion - it is for you to show that Connolley's sanctioning was unjust and that every one of the 5000 ++ adjustments to climate related content were valid - each case individually please.

The dog returning to repeatedly and obsessively sniff its own shit

fred, if one assumes that Phil Clarke believes 100% of William Connolley's Green Party propaganda, and 97% of Climate Scientists do aswell, courtesy of Real Climate, Skeptical Science, The Guardian etc, the case is made for withdrawing US, UK and EU Taxpayer Funding.

This does not prove that all Climate Science is based on dishonesty, but how can anyone tell? WUWT, Climate Audit and Bishop Hill (amongst many other denounced by Phil Clarke and the disastrous faked up Harvey et al character assassination drivel) have been so much more reliable than Hockey Teamster tragicomedy productions.

Climate Science is a faith based religion, so a witch hunt to trace those that fail to denounce the false idol's Holy Hockey Stick would be a good start.

Epic fail. I am making no claim, other than Dr. Connolley made a large number of edits, which can be anything from rewriting an article, to correcting a typo.

Connolley did not make 5,000 edits on global warming articles, as evidenced by the fact that apparently nobody can provide a single example. Not one.

You also seem unaware of the dispute that lead to Dr. Connolley's long-expired temporary topic ban, but then you clearly have no clue how wikipedia arbitration actually works.

Phil. "Connolley did not make 5,000 edits on global warming articles, as evidenced by the fact that apparently nobody can provide a single example. Not one."
You have the strangest idea about what constitutes "evidence".
I judge you've made some good points in recent months, but with this you're back in the mire again.