Guest essay by Eric Worrall
The Guardian is fretting the the number of times US Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton mentions climate has apparently dropped dramatically since she received an endorsement from Bernie Sanders.
But what is the real Clinton position on Climate Change?
Hillary Clinton ‘dropped climate change from speeches after Bernie Sanders endorsement’
Transcripts show the Democratic presidential nominee referred to climate change directly in less than half as many speeches after her left-wing rival conceded defeat, reports Climate Home.
…
The rhetorical shift undermines hopes that climate change might emerge as a key campaign issue in 2016. Boosted by the disparity between Clinton and her Republican opponent Donald Trump, a self-professed non-believer in climate change.
Indeed, the signs were there. During the last six months of Clinton’s primary campaign against Sanders, the transcript log of her speeches shows she was talking about climate change at one out of every two speeches she gave.
But since Sanders endorsed Clinton on July 12, the full focus of the Clinton campaign has swung to Trump. In 38 speeches since that date, Clinton mentioned climate change specifically eight times. Just once every five public addresses.
…
The Guardian speculates that Hillary might just be downplaying her climate views, as they suggest President Obama did in his first term, to avoid upsetting potential supporters. The Guardian seems to think this might be the right thing to do.
…
Climate coyness was a feature of Obama’s first term (when Axelrod was at the White House). According to analysis of speeches from 2008 to 2011, climate change was hardly mentioned even as Obama began to ramp up funding for climate-related projects.
“He was doing more than he was talking about because he was going incognito to avoid attacks from the Republicans,” said Timmons Roberts, Ittleson professor of environmental studies at Brown University, who conducted the analysis.
…
Read more: Same link as above
Influential climate activist and Bernie supporter Bill McKibben supports Clinton because he believes in her strong climate views;
…
In fact, one of the lowest points in my years of fighting climate change came in late June, when I sat on the commission appointed to draft the Democratic Party platform. (I was a Sanders appointee, alongside Cornel West and other luminaries.) At 11 p.m. on a Friday night, in a mostly deserted hotel ballroom in St. Louis, I was given an hour to offer nine amendments to the platform to address climate change. More bike paths passed by unanimous consent, but all the semi-hard things that might begin to make a real difference—a fracking ban, a carbon tax, a prohibition against drilling or mining fossil fuels on public lands, a climate litmus test for new developments, an end to World Bank financing of fossil fuel plants—were defeated by 7–6 tallies, with the Clinton appointees voting as a bloc. They were quite concerned about climate change, they insisted, but a “phased-down” approach would be best. There was the faintest whiff of Munich about it.
…
To my surprise, things changed a couple weeks later, when the final deliberations over the Democratic platform were held in Orlando. While Clinton’s negotiators still wouldn’t support a ban on fracking or a carbon tax, they did agree we needed to “price” carbon, that wind and sun should be given priority over natural gas, and that any federal policy that worsened global warming should be rejected.
…
Read more: https://newrepublic.com/article/135684/declare-war-climate-change-mobilize-wwii
I support the view that Clinton toning down her climate rhetoric is a political tactic. Given the commitment to carbon pricing at the Democratic Convention, there is no reason to believe Clinton intends to prioritise access to cheap energy ahead of wasteful government subsidies for renewables. And given that climate is widely perceived to be a “poisonous” issue for many voters, it makes tactical sense for Clinton to avoid references to the hardline green policies which McKibben claims were agreed by Democratic delegates in St. Louis.
Plot it against the polling numbers to get an explanation. Otherwise they will tell you what you need to know after the election after they finish the claimed mandate list. And it will only be what you need to know, if that much.
Once Islamics take over Europe in a few decades climate “change” will be a dead issue and the U.S. may be be the only one still interested; oh wait I forgot about our Hispanic takeover so we won’t care either…….
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/09/19/watch-swedes-must-integrate-with-migrants-says-government-backed-multicultural-propaganda/
Mark Steyn:
https://www.amazon.com/AMERICA-ALONE-End-World-Know/dp/1596985275
https://www.amazon.com/After-America-Get-Ready-Armageddon/dp/B0076TKQ8E
BFL: Thanks for the Steyn reference, He begins so many sentences with, “Ten years ago I wrote…” in columns on so many current news topics, it’s scary! As for Hillary, I am reminded how Al Gore ran in 2000 by avoiding CC (GW back then) and environmental issues in general. He was able to do that because the press corp agreed with him; knew where he stood; knew “exposing” some of his whacky green-activist positions would hurt him with most voters; so he never faced any hard questions on CC or environment lunacy. Hillary is able to do this on virtually any subject, the progressive press will not go after any subject that might make her look bad to people who are deplorable (namely, me and maybe you)(press agrees with her on that, too). Thing is, Hillary can be bought, and if Warren Buffet decides to sell his RR oil shipping shares and buy coal (cheap!), and sends the Clinton Foundation a hundred mil or so, Hillary will find a way to “triangulate” a revival of coal (all she would need to do is pull the EPA’s foot off coal cos. necks, and tell her green friends she wasn’t doing that at all). Am I too cynical to think she’d lie to her friends?
GreenBiz, Aug 7, 2015
Interview:
‘Carbon War Room’s Peter Boyd on the ‘entrepreneurial NGO’
“We wanted to get a letter in Christiana Figures’ lap that effectively said ‘ Dear Christiana Figures’, we call on you to call on governments to put a zero emissions by 2050 ambition employed in the text.”
The Carbon War Room and the Rocky Mountain Institute merged in December 2014.
The CGI has partnered with the Carbon War Room and the Rocky Mountain Institute.
Jose Figures, Carbon War Room, is the brother of Christiana.
http://www.greenbiz.com/article/carbon-war-rooms-peter-boyd-entrepreneurial-ngo
Jigar Shah mentioned in this interview article also in Greenpeace USA.
Vermont might also be interested in this article. A Carbon War Room Board member resides in Vermont.
NREL
Solar information.
‘Dynamic Maps, GIS Data, & Analysis Tools’
http://www.nrel.gov/gis/solar.html
————————————————————————————–
Natural Resources Canada, 2016
‘Photovoltaic and solar resource maps’
Municipality database of photovoltiacs (PV) Potential and Insolation
http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/18366
Why not look at the facts when discussing PV potential?
Here, there is comparison information for the U.S and Canada.
Paul C @ 5;35.
Once the Protection Racket wins its shot at the General Election, they don’t have much to worry about in the way of competition for boutique PC issues. Who are they going to vote for?.
Besides, why worry about voters when your cash machine is firmly planted between the government and whatever kickback you want?
She is toast anyway. Her neurological problems were evident in her left eye movements at the Temple speech in Phia. She lost coordination in eye movement. The left eye turned horribly inwards to her nose while the right eye was viewing full forward.
In any event, the fact that she would state anything that is the expedient of the past femto-second is unsurprising.
Its just the camera angle…
I’m sure you can provide a picture from that very camera angle at that very speech, to prove your claim.
Yes, more wishful thinking than anything else IMO.
The number of medical ‘incidents’ is looking worrying, but don’t hold your breath about here falling over before the election. The devil takes care of his own.
I was quite amazed when I found out about the Clinton Defence Fund and how many times she’s been fined. Trump ain’t joking when he calls her crooked Hillary. The problem is he says so many outrageous things that no one takes much notice.
I’m sure that’s what your handlers told you to say.
That is the eye that she wore the prism glasses on for double vision problems after the head injury/blood clot in a venous brain drain circuit and which clot type almost never goes completely away (so still may have brain pressure issues). So could still be having problems with that eye which wouldn’t be a sign that all is okay. Then there is the finger squeeze (supposedly) neurological quicky test at 911 event, the blue Z1 glasses for preventing light flash seizures and also leg weakness, but most assuredly she is is in nearly perfect health except for the required recuperation rest schedule from the “pneumonia”.
Grif u say the most illogical things …. please give some proof of the camera angle causing that eye offset.
However your eye observation skills far exceed your climate science knowledge 😉
..Well, I hope you were trying to make a joke Griff, because that was the dumbest statement of the Century if you actually meant it ?
Never stop trying to sell it, do you, Grift?
And to think, just yesterday he was trying to convince everyone that he’s a conservative.
Griff, she wore Fresnel lens glasses when she testified before Congress regarding Benghazi . . so either that was her just being silly or she was experiencing problems such as we see in this case .. take your pick, I guess ; )
Dearest Griff. Throughout the Philly speech? For her I am afraid. I have a Master of Neuroscience and believe me when I say that the ‘eye oddities are not due to your ”camera angles”!
I am sure that Mr Trump is being briefed by his aides to ask her provocative questions such that they will invoke her neurological problems to maximum effect to the benefit of both Mr Trump and the Republican party! (and the American people).
Its just the way it looks in that one still. Rest of video looks fine to me.
http://www.snopes.com/clinton-bizarre-eye-movements/
“The caption on the video claimed it was taken from a speech Clinton delivered on 19 September 2016 in Philadelphia. Although that video is zoomed in close on Hillary Clinton’s face, the full video of her speech reveals nothing particularly strange or alarming about her eye movements”
Yes, just like the Black Knight’s “its just a flesh wound”.
My estimation, is that Clinton suffers from pettit-mal epilepsy. A condition I have lived alongside for years, and can recognise its symptoms from a mile away.
In petit-mal, the patient does not fall over, they just stand there in a trance, as if switched off. They are completely unresponsive, although may whisper incoherently, and the eyes lose focus and stare into the middle distance. They can also be led by the shoulder and arm to a place of more safety, like a sofa, and they will walk with small steps as if in a dream, but may stumble and fall if led over uneven ground.
And while medication is available for this condition, prescriptions like epiIim can send the patient into a stupour. If Clinton wants to stay sharp for debates and cameras, she cannot take this type of medication. But the wearing of Zeiss blue glasses is known to reduce episodes, if they are triggered by sunlight. And Clinton was indeed wearing Zeiss blue sunglasses, on a day when nobody else was wearing sunglasses.
But if this is a realistic diognosis, it will be difficult to keep secret for long, as patients normally have regular (daily) events. Yet the calm response of the security detail may indicate this is already the case. Nobody seemed surprised that she became a walking, stumbling robot, and then a deadweight sack of potatos – they just took their positions to assist and to shield the event from the cameras. This rather suggests that this is already a regular event, and they have a routine in place to deal with it.
R
My estimation, is that Clinton suffers from pettit-mal epilepsy. A condition I have lived alongside for years, and can recognise its symptoms from a mile away.
In petit-mal, the patient does not fall over, they just stand there in a trance, as if switched off. They are completely unresponsive, although may whisper incoherently, and the eyes lose focus and stare into the middle distance. They can also be led by the shoulder and arm to a place of more safety, like a sofa, and they will walk with small steps as if in a dream, but may stumble and fall if led over uneven ground.
And while medication is available for this condition, prescriptions like epiIim can send the patient into a stupour. If Clinton wants to stay sharp for debates and cameras, she cannot take this type of medication. But the wearing of Zeiss blue glasses is known to reduce episodes, if they are triggered by sunlight. And Clinton was indeed wearing Zeiss blue sunglasses, on a day when nobody else was wearing sunglasses.
But if this is a realistic diognosis, it will be difficult to keep secret for long, as patients normally have regular (daily) events. Yet the calm response of the security detail may indicate this is already the case. Nobody seemed surprised that she became a walking, stumbling robot, and then a deadweight sack of potatos – they just took their positions to assist and to shield the event from the cameras. This rather suggests that this is already a regular event, and they have a routine in place to deal with it.
R
My estimation, is that CIinton suffers from petiit-maI epiIepsy. A condition I have lived alongside for years, and can recognise its symptoms from a mile away.
In petiit-maI, the patient does not fall over, they just stand there in a trance, as if switched off. They are completely unresponsive, although may whisper incoherently, and the eyes lose focus and stare into the middle distance. They can also be led by the shoulder and arm to a place of more safety, like a sofa, and they will walk with small steps as if in a dream, but may stumble and fall if led over uneven ground.
And while medication is available for this condition, prescriptions like epiIim can send the patient into a stupour. If CIinton wants to stay sharp for debates and cameras, she cannot take this type of medication. But the wearing of Zeiss blue glasses is known to reduce episodes, if they are triggered by sunlight. And CIinton was indeed wearing Zeiss blue sunglasses, on a day when nobody else was wearing sunglasses.
But if this is a realistic diognosis, it will be difficult to keep secret for long, as patients normally have regular (daily) events. Yet the calm response of the security detail may indicate this is already the case. Nobody seemed surprised that she became a walking, stumbling robot, and then a deadweight sack of potatos – they just took their positions to assist and to shield the event from the cameras. This rather suggests that this is already a regular event, and they have a routine in place to deal with it.
R
My estimation, is that CIinton suffers from petit-maI epiIepsy. A condition I have lived alongside for years, and can recognise its symptoms from a mile away.
In petit-maI, the patient does not fall over, they just stand there in a trance, as if switched off. They are completely unresponsive, although may whisper incoherently, and the eyes lose focus and stare into the middle distance. They can also be led by the shoulder and arm to a place of more safety, like a sofa, and they will walk with small steps as if in a dream, but may stumble and fall if led over uneven ground.
And while mediication is available for this condition, prescriptions like epiIim can send the patient into a stupour. If CIinton wants to stay sharp for debates and cameras, she cannot take this type of mediication. But the wearing of Zeiss blue glasses is known to reduce episodes, if they are triggered by sunlight. And CIinton was indeed wearing Zeiss blue sungIasses, on a day when nobody else was wearing sungIasses.
But if this is a realistic diagnosis, it will be difficult to keep secret for long, as patients normally have regular (daily) events. Yet the calm response of the security detail may indicate this is already the case. Nobody seemed surprised that she became a walking, stumbling automaton, and then a deadweight sack of potatos – they just took their positions to assist and to shield the event from the cameras. This rather suggests that this is already a regular event, and they have a routine in place to deal with it.
R
Thanks, ShrNfr, easy to find on Youtube. Anyone watching this can see she is not well in some serious way. While she reads competently from her notes, there is little energy. However, it is her generally comportment that is disturbing. There are the eyes, head bobs, the strange gurning smile, the weird looking upwards faces. The speech barely goes for 30 minutes and starts about a minute after she climbs to the stage. There is a Getty photo showing her being assisted up the stairs. After the speech, there is barely a minute more on stage (with assistants materialising in force to be within arms reach of her) and then she is wisked away.
Obviously, this was a good day.
“Gurning”, what a wonderful word! Thanks…
Like “making a face” in American, but with just a bit of derision in the sound of it…
…she just forgot
This one’s much more interesting. No idea whether it’s faked of course, but if it is it’s well done.
funny but fake
As if the cheap music (Production Score) isn’t a clue to the clip’s artificiality and the 32 second intro of self promotion of the responsible group, the eye motions are quite obviously faked by the producers
Now that’s funny! Obviously a shape shifting alien.
Fly on her nose.
Hmmmmm….. I don’t think she’s funny but she sure is fake!
Another one doing the rounds it that it was body double who came out of Chelsea’s apartment. I suggest anyone wanting to check that compares images of Clinton arriving at 9/11 memorial site and images of here getting into her SUV after the photo op. at the appt.
Look at the ear shape. You could find a good look alike but you are very unlikely to find one with the same ears !
Ears look the same to me. Don’t get excited, she’s not dead yet. !
Wasn’t Marty Feldman her brother ?
My estimation, is that CIinton suffers from petiit-maI epiIepsy. A condition I have lived alongside for years, and can recognise its symptoms from a mile away.
In petiit-maI, the patient does not fall over, they just stand there in a trance, as if switched off. They are completely unresponsive, although may whisper incoherently, and the eyes lose focus and stare into the middle distance. They can also be led by the shoulder and arm to a place of more safety, like a sofa, and they will walk with small steps as if in a dream, but may stumble and fall if led over uneven ground.
And while mediication is available for this condition, prescriptions like epiIim can send the patient into a stupour. If CIinton wants to stay sharp for debates and cameras, she cannot take this type of mediication. But the wearing of Zeiiss blue glasses is known to reduce episodes, if they are triggered by sunlight. And CIinton was indeed wearing Zeiiss blue sungIasses, on a day when nobody else was wearing sungIasses.
But if this is a realistic diagnosis, it will be difficult to keep secret for long, as patients normally have regular (daily) events. Yet the calm response of the security detail may indicate this is already the case. Nobody seemed surprised that she became a walking, stumbling automaton, and then a deadweight sack of potatos – they just took their positions to assist and to shield the event from the cameras. This rather suggests that this is already a regular event, and they have a routine in place to deal with it.
R
Well for Griff’s information, the camera angle is quite obvious, specially to optical engineers.
The Camera is straight out in front of the center of that picture.
Clinton may be looking towards her right, but the camera sure isn’t. How come only her left eye is off kilter WRT everything else in the entire picture.
And by the way; I am NOT endorsing the claim that this picture shows her eyes are out of whack.
They may be, but a person with quite normal vision (not me) could separate their eye pointing this much.
I have a retinal blind spot in my right eye towards the lower left. I can’t see anything that is close to my face and below my left cheek, with my right eye. So If I look at something in that general vicinity, I’m sure my right eye and left eye pick different optical axes to get the best view for each eye.
Cameras don’t have the optical problems my eye has.
G
Perhaps it’s another thing that she has forgotten?
If she can forget to drink water, she can forget anything.
“The Guardian speculates that Hillary might just be downplaying her climate views, as they suggest President Obama did in his first term, to avoid upsetting potential supporters. The Guardian seems to think this might be the right thing to do.”
Another leftist organization which supports lying to the public. Color me surprised.
That’s the most likely explanation.
Over here in the UK I noticed Obama stopped mentioning through Climate while campaigning for a second term. Then, after he was elected, the subject was back and centre stage. It worked for him so Hillary hopes it will work for her. She’s a politician – what do you expect? And politicians wonder why their rating is so low.
@Margaret
Your are right. Obama didn’t bring up Climate Change. The Media didn’t bring it up.
And Romney was too much of an empty suit to bring it up.
Its a hot potato, but Donald might be just the man to run with it. He will need some help with the science..
HRC really got burned with her comment that mines will close and miners will loose their jobs in her administration. I think her advisors told her not to get near the subject again.
Also, she knows her opponent can hammer her with actual increases in electricity prices because of “renewals” ; a part of the Obama legacy from which she needs some distance.
Don’t forget, she is also going to raise taxes on the middle class.
And then there is this coming down the pipe,: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/09/21/court-date-costly-power-plan/
Breitbart news just today.
“HRC really got burned with her comment that mines will close and miners will loose their jobs in her administration. I think her advisors told her not to get near the subject again.”
Yes, I think that is the reason. Hillary is already losing West Virginia, Ohio, Michigan, and maybe Pennsylvania to Trump because of her stance on coal. So she is staying away from that topic as much as possible.
And Michigan facing a power shortfall. Not good for Michigan manufacturing.
“Another leftist organization which supports lying to the public.“. Green taqqiyyah.
Speaking of ‘Climate Refugees’…
Nancy Pelosi’s Congressional District Has Taken In Zero Syrian Refugees
http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/21/nancy-pelosis-congressional-district-h…
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has been a vocal backer of President Obama’s (ultimately successful) plan to import a minimum of 10,000 Syrian refugees by the end of the fiscal year, at one point accusing Republicans of “slamming the door on mothers and children.” But with just days remaining in the 2016 Fiscal Year, Pelosi’s own district has yet to resettle a single Syrian refugee.
Her district is already heavily Democrat.
MarkW, as with wind turbines in my area, it is probably a case of NIMVY- Never In My Voter’s (back)Yards.
It’s that touch of tension that squeezes the blood out of a turnip. That’s part of the reason for the short renewal periods for tax credits on renewables. All of the decisions makers rake in millions in the process.
Wattsupwithalltheguardianlinkstoday?
The Guardian is so relevant that it now postscripts articles with a begging note. Perhaps
some of regular BTL contributors should pony up instead of constant sealioning/circle jerking.
Nearly everything that comes out of her mouth is designed to appeal to some pre-defined voting bloc – aka “special interest group”. Once she feels she has a group in her pocket/purse, she starts taking them for granted and focuses on appealing to the next group. She must feel that with Sanders’ endorsement she has the far left greens in her pocket/purse.
Her only true cause and loyalty is to her six and seven-figure patrons, who can expect to get government appointments after the election.
It is all very Machiavellian.
+10 Spot on.
Panic is probably putting it mildly. Man who is offering money for dirt on Trump has a REALLY BIG PROBLEM (and so doesn’t Hillary)…
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-20/money-laundering-scheme-exposed-14-pro-clinton-super-pacs-non-profits-implicated
Here is the list:
http://www.thecitizensaudit.com/2016/09/12/pro-clinton-organizations-share-office-space/
Like ALL politicians, she will do/not do, say/not say, anything that maximizes votes; after that they keep their pals happy & sod every one else till next elections
Hillary the snake?
We know what she is… fundamentally… so what she will do if president is no mystery. Her words at this point are those of the vulnerable frozen snake.
What’s important is what she would do if president. And we know what that is; she has every intention of continuing and/or ramping up what Obama started. You can take that to the bank.
ditto
Only to the extent that it is profitable to her … wrt money, power, or acclaim.
“Alarmism Not Working: World Citizens Rank Climate Change Dead Last As Concern ”
http://notrickszone.com/2016/09/15/alarmism-not-working-world-citizens-rank-climate-change-dead-last-as-concern/#sthash.1EZunXTc.dpbs
And then there is Theresa May of course. Poor old Guardian is going through a rough patch.
It might also have something to do with her claim to install 5 million solar panels in her first term. Who is going to pay for this? What will the effect be to the power grid? Simple math show that that would be 3426 panels installed per day, which I think is quite a lot.
500,000,000 was the claim
http://www.strangepolitics.com/images/content/128437.jpg
That would be 500 million solar panels she wants to have installed.
How many solar panels for this project? Blythe Mesa Solar Power Project 484 megawatts.
Where is this project at after 6 years down from 1000 megawatts ? google: Blythe Mesa Solar Power Project
3426 Panels per day would equate to about 2 houses per day per state at 5M
At 500M it would be 200 houses per day per state
Which still won’t do anything at night or during Storm Times with strong cloud cover
Shoot, Even Tesla’s magical $50,000 80kWH battery would be terribly cost ineffective, unless you were recharging your Tesla, but paying $3,500 for a 10kWH battery every 3 years would be like adding $100 per month to your “Free” electricity.
Well, so much for the Tesla 10kWH battery. It has been discontinued…Why???
Perhaps so they could sell you 3 of the less expensive 6.4kWH models that will deliver 3.3KW each
right – but during the day is when demand is highest, a lot of places…
Demand is highest around 5pm as people get home, fire up the AC, start cooking, etc.
That’s well after the peak solar.
This has been explained to you before Griff. Why do you keep trying to push these tired lies?
This seems to show some US places where demand on hot days peaks from 3pm to 6pm – a time when there is still plenty of solar to go round.
https://blog.opower.com/2012/09/hot-and-heavy-energy-usage-how-the-demand-and-price-for-electricity-skyrocketed-on-a-100-day/
It particularly mentions the need to fire up peaker plants at extra cost during those times.
I’ll check further as I believe in some southern/south western areas the peak demand is much nearer noon.
Solar is a good match to summer A/C demand in places like Arizona and California (south). Unfortunately, there are 3 other seasons, night lighting, and anything north of Las Vegas or east of Dallas to deal with…
Yes. It’s a nice nitch player for June to August in L.A. So what.
Doesn’t do a darned thing for the Central Valley under tule fog for Oct to Dec ( I grew up with it… sometimes you don’t see the sun for a month…it is cold and dank, you need heat and lights.)
The new pricing formula is out for Clinton words. It will cost you $100,000 per word in the new pricing structure. There are no discounts for student campus activity fees or Greens. Pay up or get left out in the ……cold. All sovereign wealth funds are welcome, including petrodollar funds.
The only reassuring thing about Hillary Rodham Clinton on the environmental policy is that she is so dishonest that she will probably not deliver on many of the promises she has made to the greens, either.
There’s climate change going on alright but like our ‘so little runoff the dams won’t fill’ ex Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery they’re not talking much about it-
http://www.eldersweather.com.au/dam-level/sa/
Pssst, you wanna buy some cheap Gummint desal water? Just supply the reliable power and you can fire up the shiny new idle plant.
No need to worry about McKibben’s claims. Go straight to the platform they produced: https://www.demconvention.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Democratic-Party-Platform-7.21.16-no-lines.pdf
A couple of highlights:
“We are committed to getting 50 percent of our electricity from clean energy sources within a decade…”
“Democrats are committed to closing the Halliburton loophole…”
“…reducing greenhouse gas emissions more than 80 percent below 2005 levels by 2050…”
“We believe America must be running entirely on clean energy by mid-century.”
…and of course this gem:
“No need to worry about McKibben’s claims.”
People do, unfortunately, despite the fact that he thinks (or says) that 350 ppm is wonderful, but 400 ppm is responsible for hurricanes. How can people believe this douche?
I think its funny, whenever that rag uses a picture of Hilarity it’s about 10 years old. I guess they don’t realize the hit in credibility they take daily eh? Around here we just call her ol corrupt because she is what is wrong with DC. As for her not mentioning the “pave paradise and put up a solar plant” crowd, make no mistake her and the Gore poodle are still in league with each other. There is money to be made and they will both be in on the ground floor of this world wide Enron type scam.
Again… this is the Progressives’ PRIMARY issue – this is the one that is the lynch-pin for all others – even Healthcare – and if they’re NOT talking about it, that’s the time to worry, because they are busy little bees behind the scenes – coordination of city governments, particularly in port cities, executive action on the local and state level – and never forget the marching brooms that are big produced in our schools.
And it all goes on behind the scenes because pretty much every stupid, intrusive new ‘regulation’ is tossed off as ‘it’s for the environment – what harm could it do?’ and therefore gets implemented under the radar of those that would otherwise oppose it.
“…any federal policy that worsened global warming should be rejected…”
But not any Clinton Foundation policy. Or personal travel policy. Or convention/assembly travel policy. Keep spewing GHGs yourself and regulate others.
In my estimation, CIinton suffers from petit-maI epiIepsy. A condition I have lived alongside for years, and can recognise its symptoms from a mile away.
In petit-maI, the patient does not fall over, they just stand there in a trance, as if switched off. They are completely unresponsive, although may whisper incoherently, and the eyes lose focus and stare into the middle distance. They can also be led by the shoulder to a place of safety, like a sofa; and they will walk with small steps as if in a dream, but may stumble and fall if led over uneven ground.
And while mediication is available for this condition, prescriptions like epiIim can send the patient into a daze. If CIinton wants to stay sharp for debates and cameras, she cannot take this type of mediication. But the wearing of Zeiss blue glasses is known to reduce episodes, if they are triggered by sunlight. And CIinton was indeed wearing Zeiss blue sungIasses, on a day when nobody else was wearing sungIasses.
But if this is a realistic diagnosis it will be difficult to keep secret for long, as patients normally have regular (daily) events. Yet the calm response of the security detail may indicate this is already the case. Nobody seemed surprised that she became a walking, stumbling automaton, and then a deadweight sack of potatos – they just took their positions to assist and to shield the event from the cameras. This rather suggests that this is already a regular event, and they have a routine in place to deal with it.
R
Mods
this was the 6th time this was posted…
[Nothing pending now. .mod]
http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-seizure-video/
“Yet the calm response of the security detail may indicate this is already the case. Nobody seemed surprised that she became a walking, stumbling automaton, and then a deadweight sack of potatos – they just took their positions to assist and to shield the event from the cameras. This rather suggests that this is already a regular event, and they have a routine in place to deal with it.”
Good point. I thought so, too. And Bill Clinton said “frequently”, during an interview last week, when discussing Hillary’s condition.
No Hillary won’t be talking about global warming she hired Al Gore to do that . Besides she can read the Green party has about 3% support .
She would wait till after she gets in to spring a carbon tax and pay back her biggest campaign sugar daddies . She won’t be repeating she intends to fire coal workers and shut down fossil fuels either .
Those declarations have cost enough maybe the election .
Looking at it from here in Britain, I’m curious to know: Do any of you actually trust this woman? She often sounds a bit strange, to say the least.
I don’t know that many people on THIS board do.
But we’re all pretty deplorable – what with killing the planet, and being racist, sexist, etc…
(Insert evil laughter accompanied by the Darth Vader ‘Imperial March’ theme).
Bazzer, if British coverage of US elections is as bad as US coverage of British elections, I can see your confusion. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s opponent, Donald Trump, hung the nickname “crooked Hillary” on her and it stuck like “tricky Dick” for Nixon. About two thirds of those polled consider HRC as dishonest (which weirdly means some of her supporters regard her badly).
Most Democrats don’t care how crooked their politicians are, so long as the politician protects the flow of goodies.
The president of NOW (National Organization of Women) invented the one free grope rule in order to protect Bill Clinton from impeachment.
(When asked about allegations that Clinton had groped a woman, she declared that she didn’t have a problem with it since he stopped when asked. How many men would endorse that standard. IE, they can grope any woman they want, provided they stop when asked.)
But don’t forget how outraged they are at the slightest hint of impropriety in their opponents – usually hints which their operatives in the press originated.
The faux-outrage would be comical if wasn’t the sort of thing Holocausts are made of.
“Looking at it from here in Britain, I’m curious to know: Do any of you actually trust this woman? She often sounds a bit strange, to say the least.”
Former Florida governor, Charlie Crist, is running for Florida state representative this year as a Democrat and was giving a speech yesterday in front of a Democrat-friendly crowd, and was asked why he supported Hillary Clinton for president, and Crist reeled off a few reasons and then he got to, “and I think she is honest”, at which point the whole crowd spontaneously burst out laughing!
Hillary’s credibilty is not that high here in the good ole USA. Even the Left knows it.
Here’s a followup to a crowd laughing out loud at Hillary being described as “honest”.
http://www.hannity.com/articles/hanpr-election-493995/watch-crowd-busts-into-laughter-when-15124695/
WATCH: Crowd Bursts Into Laughter When Charlie Crist Calls Hillary Clinton ‘Honest’
posted the other day, worth re-posting, but consider the source –
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-do-the-presidential-candidates-know-about-science/#
I don’t use that source anymore. Name another one.
just the candidates’ responses to 20 questions – I was surprised, but, hold your nose, and have a read
BC, as you probably know Scientific American is no longer either scientific or American. Most articles are written now by journalists rather than the scientists doing the research. It was sold to a German company.
ristvan, I do know that, thanks
The difference in the manner of responses to standard questions was telling in addition to the responses themselves – Hillary delivers a lecture (certainly nothing scripted there /s), Donald gets right to the answer and wangs on them re: agriculture, Stein answers everything is about climate change, Johnson a no show.
Of course I can’t trust the source.
It is still a world respected science journal.
As is UK’s New Scientist.
They are well respected in your world, not the whole world. You really need to learn the difference.
‘You really need to learn the difference.’
Oh he knows. Progressives love to cite institutions once they’ve been corrupted, and then bank on name-recognition. That’s why they spend so much effort staking the faculties of said-institutions with like-minded disciples.
Donald Trump should take a look at what’s happening in Ontario (Canada) and trumpet (pun … what pun?) the news all over America. The electricity rates have skyrocketed because of their renewable energy policy. Folks are suffering and businesses are leaving.
link
link
Clinton and Obama have talked about a price on carbon. When people see the actual effect, even the liberal media will be appalled.
Skyrocketed they have. Average cost of power: 3 cents per kWh. Average “green” tax: 8 cents. Final price, varying by time of day: 8 to 18 cents. (Plus delivery fees etc.)
It is especially ironic that Ontario’s power has been subjected to such ruinous “clean power” taxes, because we started out with a majority of our power already generated by hydro dams and nuclear plants. With 0 emissions! Even for people who erroneously think that CO2 emissions are a problem, Ontario’s electrical system is not the biggest contributor, or even on the typical radar screen for these matters.
But that 8 cent per kWh green tax is awfully tempting for politicians and the subsidy-farm operators who benefit from it. Awfully tempting… other people’s money… yum!
Apparently the Liberal government lost a seat that they had held forever (“since before the Earth’s mantle solidified”) over this issue. That made them sit up and take notice. And they promised to do something about it. But not enough to repeal the green power tax act. Not yet… no, for now they are offering a pittance of a refund, equivalent to the sales tax (about 8%). Never mind the 300% tax they are charging to begin with, and hoping we won’t notice, because it is hidden inside the electricity rate.
Meantime they are also planning to add a new carbon tax to our natural gas fees. That will easily eat up the measly electricity rebate, and then some. Give with one hand, and take with the other, and hope we don’t notice any of it… but my fellow Ontarians are noticing! I think this story hasn’t seen its ending yet…
Per one of commie bob links … Quebec at 6 cents per KWhr (compared to Ontario at about 3 times that given all the fees) is fantastic.
Seems in Canada that hydro power is considered renewable. In the U.S. it is not.
If Quebec had to go by U.S. definition of renewable, and had to have a certain percentage (say 25 or 50%) of renewable by 2020 (or whatever the Mckibben types are pushing for) then Ontario could get access to lot of cheap energy that Quebec would have to unload (on paper anyway).
In the U.S. a lot of eastern politicians had been jealous of the relative low NW hydro power costs (given that the whole country paid for the infrastructure) … this “renewable” crap is another way to level out the cost differences across the country.
Quebec has about 97% hydro-power that New England states would like to buy some of it to cover there expected coming power shortfalls. Projects already underway for Quebec power to New England and New York City. Quebec can’t supply both New England and Ontario.
Amazon’s Jeff Bezos Doubles Down on Wind Energy
http://www.triplepundit.com/2016/09/amazons-jeff-bezos-doubles-wind-energy-blows-off-donald-trump/
The U.S. Energy Department released a new report predicting a huge drop in the cost of wind energy by 2030, but Amazon is not waiting around for that to happen. The company is already heavily invested in wind energy and just signed on to buy 90 percent of the output from a new 235-megawatt wind farm in Scurry County, Texas.
The news comes with an interesting political twist. Amazon founder Jeff Bezos is a huge fan of renewable energy. He also recently purchased the Washington Post, and was largely credited with galvanizing the languishing publication into reporting aggressively on the 2016 presidential election cycle.
That approach prompted GOP presidential hopeful Donald Trump to attack Jeff Bezos and his ownership of the Post during the heat of the primary season. To complete the circle of twists, Donald Trump is no fan of renewable energy in general, and wind energy in particular.
Amazon hearts wind energy
Amazon’s wind energy ventures first crossed the TriplePundit radar last year, when the company announced an agreement with Ibderdrola Renewables for a 208-megawatt wind farm in North Carolina.
Amazon also has an interest in wind farms in three other states: Indiana, Ohio and Virginia.
It makes you wonder why all these billionaires are investing in those projects. Are they gambling that no matter who gets in the wind power industry will get legislated in no matter what why and who? The stuff going on behind closed doors would be an amazing thing ( and more than likely appalling ) thing to witness.
They’ve got Sowels and Griffs advising them and they have more money than they can spend.
You can fix a significant part of your energy costs with renewables. Makes economic sense for a large company. 7 UK car plants have solar panels supplying up to 12% of their electricity, for example.
This large insurance company is going renewable:
http://www.swissre.com/Swiss_Re_to_build_solar_power_plant_for_Americas_headquarters.html
Interesting. You can make electricity cheaper by using expensive and intermittent power sources.
Windmills have been around for hundreds of years. Electric generators have been around for over 100 years. Where are the big breakthroughs that are supposed to cut costs going to come from?
Check out Greenpeace pressure on Amazon.
C | Net, April 2, 2014
An article on this topic:
‘Apple praised, Amazon shamed in Greenpeace report on clean energy’
At:
http://www.cnet.com/news/apple-praised-amazon-shamed-on-clean-energy
Correction:
http://www.cnet.com/news/apple-praised-amazon-shamed-in-greenpeace-report-on-clean-energy
In my view, all major governments have backed off the climate change issue except as a rhetorical exercise. I think there was probably a period where there was genuine concern that manmade climate change was a real and pressing problem, but does anyone seriously think that those who actually responsible for policy decisions aren’t aware of the uncertainties and inconsistencies in the CAGW meme?
It’s a nice self-congratulatory culture we like to indulge in – all politicians are self -serving slime-balls who manipulate agendas for their own ends. But I am not so cynical. I think there is a subset that simply play the game but quietly try to make sure that the national interest of their countries is served.
In the actions and subscript of a lot of energy policy these days (at least in europe) is the tacit admission that manmade climate change is not a pressing problem. I know people will say “but Paris!” Etc etc etc but in reality energy policy has pulled back from renewables and toward more realistic forms of energy production. There was a lot of criticism of an interview with a junior government minister from the UK here, in an interview with Andrew Neil about emissions reductions, but it was clear from the policy that was outlined that the strategy said more about real energy security than it did about concern for CAGW.
It would therefore not surprise me that Clinton was more sanguine about it than rhetoric would suggest. I believe the case could be said for Obama as well – fossil fuel production has expanded more under his presidency than like no other, despite his breathless and passionate protestations that CAGW was a pressing issue.
That’s my view FWIW. These guys know it’s not a big problem, and they know the arguments that have convinced many of us. But this is politics and what you know, and what you believe and do, is not the same as what you say.
“I believe the case could be said for Obama as well – fossil fuel production has expanded more under his presidency than like no other, despite his breathless and passionate protestations that CAGW was a pressing issue.”
Oil production increased despite Obama, not because of him.
He could have stopped it. There were two competing concerns; climate change and energy security. One is more real pressing and urgent than the other now matter how it might be twisted.
The changes occurred on private land. He has no power to stop it. If he were concerned about energy independance, he wouldn’t have shut down exploration and development of energy sources on federal land.
Obama wanted to replace fossil fuels….. Domestic oill production nearly doubled during his term in office
Obama wanted to improve relations with Russia….We got CWII (cold war two)
Obama wanted to reduce the racial income gap relations….. The African American community has become relatively poorer
Obama wanted much stricter gun control……Gun sales exploded during his administration
This list could go on and on.
.
A new word is needed to describe his performance . I suggest “countereffective”
agnostic2015,
” I think there was probably a period where there was genuine concern that manmade climate change was a real and pressing problem, but does anyone seriously think that those who actually responsible for policy decisions aren’t aware of the uncertainties and inconsistencies in the CAGW meme?”
If you believe the “powers that be” (in general) now lie about it, why do you believe they were not lying all along? I appreciate the “probably” in there, but feel “possibly” is more apt.
“… all politicians are self -serving slime-balls who manipulate agendas for their own ends.”
Not a wise generalization, it seems to me, but surely the PTB just love to hear us repeat that cliche . . since it makes any resistance to the shutting down of “rule by consent of the governed” seem pointless. It’s what they want us to believe, I’m sure. It’s essentially saying representative democracy/self governance is a stupid way to run a society, which makes rule by a few elites seem inevitable, even desirable.
“If you believe the “powers that be” (in general) now lie about it, why do you believe they were not lying all along? I appreciate the “probably” in there, but feel “possibly” is more apt.”
Because once GW entered the politically correct consciousness, it has to be negotiated. What government is going to come out and suddenly say “you know what? Those scientists you believe all agree it’s a big problem, turns out they’re all wrong.” Not going to happen. It’s too complicated an issue mixed up with pressure groups, vested interests and committed money.
So read between the lines. Subsidies being dropped, nuclear, coal and especially gas power stations being built. Nothing actually concrete really being done. It’s all a big charade.
But before that, I believe there was a genuine concern. CAGW was a plausible theory, and had we seen temps increasing along the lines of IPCC predictions, the story would have been very different.
agnostic2015,
“What government is going to come out and suddenly say “you know what? Those scientists you believe all agree it’s a big problem, turns out they’re all wrong.”
They’re still calling it settled science . . and “those scientists” who actually said that it was a big problem were a few climate modelers in the “attribution” section of the IPCC, not all of the scientists involved with all the other aspects. There was no “consensus” among all the scientists about it being a big problem, just among the modelers (the Climate-gate E-mail crew) . . which was then treated by the big shots running the show as though thousands of scientists involved in the IPCC had agreed.
And that in turn was transformed (through the magic a mass media twisting and hype) into zillions of scientists agree . . but it was really just a couple dozen computer modelers, in terms of scientists that would have to be called wrong now . . the rest could just be called misled, by the specialists who got it wrong.
“But before that, I believe there was a genuine concern. CAGW was a plausible theory, and had we seen temps increasing along the lines of IPCC predictions, the story would have been very different.”
Yep, very different, but those “predictions” came from just a few experts. The rest was sophisticated BS, all along, I highly suspect.
The Clintoons have never been big on the eco stuff. I think they have friends in “big ohl.”
Ohl is BIG in Texico and Okansaw and Arklahoma
…don’t forget Nor’dakota.
BBC Radio4-PM is one of the BBC News progs which is part of “BBC for Hillary” campaign
This week they are on a train across America interviewing people
Their normal trick is edit so Hillary suporters sound nice and Trump supporters seem monsters
(Hmm sorry it didn’t turn the long image url into an image, but the listen link works)
What do you folks in the US think about about the BBC running its “Love Hillary, hate Trump” message here in the UK ? (can be found almost hourly somewhere on one of its 20 radio/TV channels)
..It’s not like there are many US voters here in the UK.
I think you’re mass media (and ours) is run by hyper-wealthy psychopathic elites who love “rule by consent of the governed” just as much as Saudi Royals . .
(That “you’re” made sense in an early version . . I swear ; )
“What do you folks in the US think about about the BBC running its “Love Hillary, hate Trump” message here in the UK ? (can be found almost hourly somewhere on one of its 20 radio/TV channels)
..It’s not like there are many US voters here in the UK.”
I think the American Left is desperate. Hillary Clinton has spent more than 50 times as much on advertising as has Trump, yet Trump is pulling ahead. Plus, I think the European Left sees the same danger to their political agenda as the American Left sees from Trump. The Left thinks Trump is the Devil, no matter what continent they live on. And he *is* the Devil to the Leftist political agenda. That’s one reason I’m voting for him.
Here is a pertinent article:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/stop-trump-campaigners-rally-us-expats-london-bus-155337021.html
‘Stop Trump’ campaigners rally US expats from London bus
BTW the clip is titled
#BBCElectionTrain Day 3: Oil v Climate Change
Williston, North Dakota and Glacier National Park, Montana
Oh there is a video webpage as well ..no (licence payers) expence spared
BBC for Hillary 2016 Homepage
Thursday update : 2 interesting thing today Thursday
We know that 50% of Trump supporters are racists and the other 50% are white supremacists
Our BBC journos Franz Strasser and Aleem Maqbool tweeted
#1 Today’s radio seg featured about 15 people, saying “Trump is a racist”, “Trump is a racist”..allowing the and an interview with every white supremacist the BBC guy could find allowing the BBC commentator to say “with all this racism Trump is bringing”
#2 Maybe cos yesterday I pointed out their page looks like “BBC for Hillary 2016 Homepage”, they have not added those clips to the page today
http://rlv.zcache.com/shout_racist_poster-rcef917ccee54432689588b3ba49a9411_wad_8byvr_512.jpg
alongside Cornel West and other luminaries.
****************************************************
proof of insanity statement…
Hillary is all done, who cares what she thinks.
Ontario has created fuel poverty in a green wash campaign to stem the bleeding from it’s out of control
$$ debt that puts it on par with the worst third world dictatorships . How could a succession of governments
turn a province blessed with so much into a fiscal train wreck ?
The incredibly stupid “green ” policies are the icing on the cake . But hey they elected the left wing socialist , so good luck . More and more politicians that can’t actually solve problems love to play the high brow role of planet saver because they are never accountable for it either as a distraction strategy .
Look at Brown in California now regulating cow farts and claiming he , like Noah of Noah and the Arch, had people laugh at him too .
This is getting more bizarre . Can a bean burrito tax be far off ? Come on Ontario this is right up your wheelhouse .
Why was Al Gore brought in ? Couldn’t be to get the going nowhere Green voters to back Hillary instead of throwing away votes makes sense . She is going to need every green vote she can get and you won’t hear about a Democrat carbon tax till after guaranteed . Just like in Australia , BC and a host of other places with gutless politicians .
HRC states that ‘the science of climate change is crystal clear’. Surely the next journo question should then be “Would you please give us a succinct summary of this science to which you refer”
“But since Sanders endorsed Clinton on July 12, the full focus of the Clinton campaign has swung to Trump.”
That can’t be right. Why just this past week Hillary said this: “We need ideas, not insults; real plans to help struggling Americans…” The only reason to focus on Trump is to insult him. Doing that is not an “idea” or a “real plan” to help Americans. So surely she hasn’t been turning her full focus on Trump. That would make her a hypocrite.
As some erudite person here has pondered. How did two penguins walk all the way from the South Pole to the Middle East to clamber aboard Noahs Ark??
[He drove south to pick them up, obviously. .mod]
Logic dictates that Beings who Create living creatures, not to mention flood the world and generate galaxies, etc, etc; can move living creatures. (I swear, atheists can be the thickest bricks in the wall ; )
Yeah, you would figure an All-Powerful God could do just about anything.
The dinosaurs gave them a lift?
http://www.christiananswers.net/dinosaurs/j-ark1b.html
It never ceases to amaze me how gullible the Griff is. Especially when it’s something he wants to believe.
I don’t think you understand my odd sense of humour…
It’s not humor, its sarcasm. And you are not hard to understand at all.
Like everything with deplorable Hillary Clinton, she has NO real position. Her position is whatever her marketing shills tell her is the latest thing to say to benefit her the most politically. She belongs in prison.
She has no public opinions. In private she’s hard core leftist. That’s her go to position for everything, unless it’s likely to cost her money or power.
Lesftist political hacks like Hillary, say (but don’t actually believe) that the world wasting $76 trillion (2008 UN estimate) on the disconfirmed CAGW scam will “stimulate” the world economy and create “millions of new jobs.”
There will be more public sector jobs created, but the meaningless CAGW policies will further destroy the private sector and greatly inhibit economic growth, technological development and productivity because of the malinvestments and misallocation of limited capital, labor, land, and natural resources.
Centrally planned economies are, and have always been, a complete disaster (look at Venezuela)…
Trump is another Progressive, but at least his views on CAGW, border security, illegal immigration, and 3rd-world refugees, are correct.
TRUMP 2016!
The country is doomed, we are currently debating which candidate can advance the destruction the most efficiently.
“climate coyness”: has it turned into “climate conceit”?