The candidates could not be farther apart
Walter Donway writes:
I recently published a personal manifesto on the controversial question—a.k.a. adult pillow fight—of global warming/climate change. The weather used to be a safe topic of conversation, avoiding politics and religion, but now epitomizes the type of divisive political question that scuttles family reunions. Critics of “Big Climate Alarmism,” and I am one, compare it point for point with religious dogma. In reply, advocates of the view that CO2 generated by man’s activities is heating up the Earth’s atmosphere, with potentially calamitous consequences, assert that anyone who fails to see the Big Truth is like those wackos who deny that the WWII Nazi-extermination-camp Holocaust ever occurred. Who would have thought that discussing the weather conditions of not tomorrow but in 2050 could end lifelong friendships?
I am not going to debate global warming/climate change, here. I have another agenda.
In the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign, which at present demands our breathless attention to personal health issues, Clinton’s email servers, Trump’s admiration of Russian dictator Vladimir Putin, Trump’s Obama “birther” obsession, and Clinton’s supposed deceptions, there nevertheless are remarkably—even startlingly—clear differences between the candidates that bear upon the future of the Great Republic and the world.
One example is the candidates’ positions on global warming/climate change. True, through the angry noise of the campaign, amplified in the echo chambers of the media, I barely discern any substantive issue. And yet, five minutes of Googling reveals a stark and (yes!) well-articulated, black-and-white difference between the candidates.
…
Yes, something is at stake when the chattering classes, including our candidates for president in 2016, have a difference of opinion over “Big Climate Alarmism.”
What characterizes Hillary Clinton is pride in what the Obama administration has accomplished in the McKibben “war of the worlds” scenario. Her position is that more must done, building on these policies, and must be done urgently.
Donald Trump is a “global warming denier.” To me, that begins to sound like an honorable designation. He seems to understand in an easy, commonsensical way that the climate changes; he understands that theories of climate change evolve; and he understands that one live scenario—advanced by solar scientists, now in disrepute for contradicting Big Climate alarmism—is that we face a coming ice age. And that to devote all resources on the basis of a national emergency to mothballing fossil fuel energy, and to erecting a worldwide structure of wind and solar power, would leave humanity utterly naked and unprepared for a new ice age Victims of the fatally wrong decision for humankind, promoted by the scientists it had come to trust, who really only wanted to be accepted by their peers and make a good living.
But Trump does not buy either scenario. He says, as quoted, “Let’s see.” But, for now, he says, do not make the American economy and jobs hostage to weather forecasting 50 or 100 years into the future.
Follow the link the read the rest of this article,
So the big question, will they even mention climate at all tonight?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I voted no. Only because Clinton say something like, “I believe in science”, but not actually mention the words “Climate Change” or “Global Warming”.
Anthony, it’s hard to take anyone seriously that posts “Russian dictator Vladimir Putin.” Their elections are monitored far closer than ours, and the Russian people elected him by a considerable margin. Time to take your head out of the sand.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
I suspect your head is in a darker place.
Just because any serious opposition dies unexpectedly, isn’t proof that he isn’t a dictator.
And can’t we say the same about Hilary (and Bill) Clinton?
You might think that, I couldn’t possibly comment.
I think Hillary will – this is part of building a narrative, and casting Trump as a ‘denier’ is part of it (besides .
Either way, I imagine the editorial page of major dailies across the country are about to erupt in a Progressive embolism.
Well, one of the Clintons had it right:
https://reddogreport.wordpress.com/2010/05/16/video-bill-clinton-disagrees-with-al-gore-carbon-dioxide-is-plant-food-not-a-toxin
…just not the right Clinton.
There is no right Clinton
The Option 3 wording, “No mention, they’ll focus on bigger issues” leaves me with no choices. I would say “No mention” but I doubt they will focus on bigger issues. It will be more as you characterize in the article.
“In the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign, which at present demands our breathless attention to personal health issues, Clinton’s email servers, Trump’s admiration of Russian dictator Vladimir Putin, Trump’s Obama “birther” obsession, and Clinton’s supposed deceptions”
That is what the media wants and likely what they’ll get.
I am hoping the Donald goes on an extended rant about the black helicopters, chemtrails, and his organs, while Hillary goes into a coughing fit, faints, and collapses.
I’m hoping he bitchslaps her crosseyed
Can I vote for Gregory Peck?
It is rude to slap little old ladies, even if they are felons.
Is it rude to think about it?
I can’t vote but I like this:
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/297755-top-climate-skeptic-to-lead-trumps-epa-transition
Ditto.
Polls show that people are not focused on Global Warming. I.e., they don’t have their eye on the ball. In addition to its socialist power-grab feature, AGW has a scientific, true-false side, one which the Democrats can expect to lose in a true debate. The Dem candidate won’t bring it up.
Obama, however, is merely waiting for a tornado or hurricane or a nice hot day to impose further restrictions on “carbon” while everybody is focused on other issues. (Look! A Kardashian!) Trump would be missing a bet if he fails to stir the AGW pot in the right direction.
The only way it comes up is if things get heated on stage to remind them to talk about it. Otherwise I expect it will be chilly all night long.
I doubt the climate issue is raised by Trump. He should focus on her health. Remember, most American’s put climate issue towards the bottom. Why bring it up? No, Trump doesn’t bring it up. Hillary doesn’t bring it up. She’s not the Burn!
You must mean she’s not “feelin’ the bern”…
Lol Hilarity will, Trump wont. Has anyone but me noticed Hilarity seems to be suffering from botox poisoning?
I vote that Hillary will not bring up climate change, and Donald Trump will, at least in the form of an attack on Hillary’s position on the coal industry.
The coal industry has lost thousands of jobs because of the Obama/Clinton climate change policies, and Hillary is just about to lose all the coal states. Trump is ahead in all of them, but Pennsylvania, and he is within the margin of error there. If Hillary loses Pennsylvania, she loses the election.
Of course, Trump will bring this part of it up, at least. It is a very strong debate point that Hillary cannot refute, no matter what she does.
If I were Trump, I’d mention the Democrat’s destruction of America’s fuel industry and promise to reverse that crime by ripping up Obama’s executive orders on day one.
And when Hillary tried to counter with lies, I’d school her on how Science isn’t a democracy, the 97% claim is a fraud anyway, climate always changes, more CO2 is beneficial, and how an “optimal” climate is warmer than today’s.
At that point, her right eye would zig while her left eye zagged, as her handlers screamed into that hidden microphone she wears.
Clinton will bring up Climate change.
One hallmark of the liberal is that they will always bring this up as a way of trying to claim the moral high ground, i.e. “they care and you don’t.”
Boom. 18 minutes in.
I love it when I’m right. 😀
As David Justice said to Andruw Jones after he hit a grand slam on his first at bat in the major leagues.
“It’s all downhill from here.”
I don’t think it’ll even be mentioned because this has become a laughing stock issue. No reasonable person wants to lose their rights and live in poverty (while Hillary, Obama and Gore live in obscene opulent privilege) in order to prevent 0.01°C of hypothetical warming — especially when more CO2 and more warming is actually BENEFICIAL.
No reasonable person wants to live in poverty, but Clinton supporters…
article: “Trump’s admiration of Russian dictator Vladimir Putin,
Leftwing propaganda apparently being repeated. We already see how Putin treats a weak Obama and Hillary: He runs all over them. Trump will be different.
article: “Trump’s Obama “birther” obsession,”
As opposed to the Left’s obsession with John McCain’s birth place and eligibility. It’s ok for the Left, it’s not ok for the Right.
Besides, Obama started it by claiming for years he “was born in Kenya” on the website of his publisher, then about a month before he declared his run for the presidency, the wording changed to “born in Hawaii”. Obama is the first birther.
On top of that, Hillary and her minions were the ones who sought to use Obama’s eligibilty and birthplace as an issue. Trump just jumped on the bandwagon (with nothing to gain, I might add) and his involvement eventually resulted in Obama making his “supposed” birth certificate public.
article: “and Clinton’s supposed deceptions,”
Hillary has so many confirmed deceptions they are too numerous to count. “Supposed” is a totality inappropriate. It gives Hillary Clinton the benefit of the doubt, which should never be done. She has proven she doesn’t deserve it.
If a price on carbon is coming soon, it needs to be debated now, front and center.
Climate change, or whatever we call it these days, is a “dog whistle” for the left (and the fashionable). They know what it means. Ms. Clinton will bring the issue to convey her alignment with them.
Simple test .. will either ground Air Force One ? ?
… but his might make it hard not to talk about at all …
Myron Ebell, director of energy and environment policy at the conservative think tank Competitive Enterprise Institute, is heading Trump’s EPA transition preparation, E&E Daily reported Monday.
Ebell is an outspoken, longtime skeptic of the scientific consensus that human activity is dramatically changing the climate. He often refers to warnings about global warming as climate “alarmism” and is a vocal critic of President Obama’s climate change regulations.
Chiefio’s tv guide
The UK Labour party chose not to mention it much in the 2015 election (probably due to polling showing that not many rated it highly), the Lib Dems did of course, as their core vote is built around that kind of thing. The lib Dems got wiped out, but of course correlation is not causation, there were plenty of other reasons not to vote for them.
As more skeptics become emboldened in politics globally the less the establishment want to talk about. The last thing that Hilary wants is to potentially debate on this issue. I suspect that a Trump success will see the biggest ” rats leaving the ship” effect as warmists on the AGW gravy train fear for their future.
The icy roadway caused Campbell to slide into the path of the train when trying to stop. Campbell put the sport utility vehicle in reverse, but was unable to back clear of the track.
sorry pasted this in wrong location
if mod sees this please delete these they are not at all related
clinton will mention it first as a policy she pushes that makes it better for people.
trump will light into her over it
Hillary won the debate.
What, the debate hasn’t happened yet?
Just “projecting” the MSM united front and future headlines…
The MSM said that Jimmy Carter won the 1 (one) debate he had with Ronald Reagan.
Reagan went on to win 44 states…
Wow!
You remember a lot, don’t cha!
i think clinton might bring it up if it is mentioned.
note that i’m not an USA citizen and that how politics work in your country isn’t that clear for us. Except that the way either Trump or Hillary are competing, they wouldn’t make a chance to get elected in our country.
in our country (Belgium) political debates are real debates handling about issues thus climate change is a “fixed topic” here as we got majority based coalitions instead of “one single winner”