Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Activists have delivered a petition with 200,000 signatures to Democratic National Committee Headquarters, demanding they allow Democrat presidential candidates to hold a climate debate.
Activists deliver petition with 200,000 signatures calling for climate debate to DNC
BY CHRIS MILLS RODRIGO – 06/12/19 01:31 PM EDT
A collection of activist groups delivered a petition with more than 200,000 signatures to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) headquarters Wednesday calling for a presidential debate focused on climate change.
Signatures were collected for the petition by an array of progressive groups, including Greenpeace, Sunrise Movement, Women’s March National and CREDO Action.
…
DNC chairman Tom Perez responded to the backlash on Saturday, calling a climate change debate “not practical” after a group of activists confronted him about the issue.
“It’s just not practical,” Perez told the activists after delivering remarks at the Florida Democratic Party’s Leadership Blue gala. “And as someone who worked for Barack Obama, the most remarkable thing about him was his tenacity to multitask, and a president must be able to multitask.”
Read more: https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/448178-activists-deliver-petition-with-200000-signatures-calling-for
Though I understand the DNC’s desire to avoid even more publicity for the green mania of some of their presidential candidates, I actually feel a little sympathy for the climate activists.
In my opinion climate activists have been ruthlessly lied to and abused. The DNC has treated them like trash, useful idiots, giving them hope with grandiose climate emergency declarations, then back peddling, downplaying climate issues, using dirty political tricks like banning a presidential candidate climate debate, to avoid alienating normal people.
The solution is obvious.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
.jpg){kind=link}
But, but….. the science is settled, so there’s nothing to debate. We’re all going to die in 12 years time.
11 years to go, Lohse, you are not up to date on the “science”.
Kev’s probably right. They keep moving that goalpost and are somehow never tarred and feathered for it.
It’s 10 years to go now, REVOLUTION, 11 years was earlier today.
You are not keeping up with climate science — it moves very fast.
I demand a debate, because I want to bet on which Dumbocrat will officially be the first to break (under) the 12 years to go claim.
My money’s on goofy Robert Francis “The Hand Waver” O’Rourke.
It’s too bad my other “favorite” is so old, and not running, because otherwise I’d bet a lot of money on good old Al “The Climate Blimp” Gore — he’d go to 6 years, just to get the attention.
Wait, I thought we were all underwater already.
That was yesterday.
These tides change too fast.
Al Gore invented tides.
The greens should just say “We’re all gonna die tomorrow”.
As we all know tomorrow never comes.
This is a bit of a worry. I’m 70 and I really want to live for another 11 years so that when the world doesn’t disintegrate (Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy style), I can wave at them and taunt them.
The last thing they want to do is debate the science. Nobody running for the Democratic nomination could coherently debate the science anyway. The special interests who want a climate debate want to see who will go furthest to drive energy costs through the roof, destroy free market capitalism with massive government programs and set the US on target to become another Argentina, North Korea, Cuba or whatever your favorite declared Socialist country is.
Yep, for those in the “know” that it’s a scam, but at the same time these activists think they’ll win the debate with a landslide and probably would if DNC make it against someone that’s a pushover. Bring on Monckton et al.
It will be a debate amongst the Democrat presidential candidates. They know better than to allow someone who knows what the are talking about onto that stage.
If it’s a Democrat debate, the only controversy will be over how high to raise the carbon tax and if we can phase out fossil fuels by 2030 or 2050.
Dumbocrats will only debate how much money to spend — everything else is settled, in their minds
CO2 is not evil
What science ?
Since when is wild guess, always wrong, always scary, predictions of the future climate, real science ?
That’s just computer game climate astrology.
I think he meant put their version of ‘science’ to an actual scientific test.
“climate astrology.”
I’d never heard/seen that, Richard, but ty; I love it!
Communist.
Those countries are Communist.
Communist politics and socialist policies go hand in hand where each enables the other which is the real danger of both. North Korea, Cuba and Argentina all declare themselves to be socialist states. Each of their claims of a socialist utopia are political lies to distract their populations away from their oppressive leadership.
Right Co2! They don’t eant a debate on the science. They want to have the candidates one up each other on how much harm they can do to the economy and civilization.
LOL, Right!
Such a debate would quickly break down into candidates racing each other to the most extreme positions. I would actually pay to watch this debate, as there could be no possible outcome other than eliminating the human race and hoping that whatever species evolves sentience next will have also finally figured out how to get Socialism to work. Then the Dem dream could finally be realized.
Notanist
Getting into the debate is free.
Getting out before it is over costs $100 per person.
Hmnnn…the Dimocrats seem to be up to about 8,000 candidates now, all of whom would want to flee that stage with all possible haste…right there’s a great idea for a Dimo fundraiser.
Oh, I think they should have this debate. The more outrageous the statements become, the more people who vote and who want sanity will slip through their fingers.
It would be nice if someone could point out the cultlike fanaticism evidenced by followers of the CAGWer/ecohippie/Greenbean/Gorebian business. The louder they are, the sillier they seem to reasoning people, who can find things out for themselves.
Which of course is why they don’t want a “climate debate”. Can’t let people in flyover country know the dims true idiocy.
It won’t be a debate about climate, it will be a mutual admiration session on how to waste trillions of dollars for the sake of alarmism.
the science is settled since bird intercepts inspection and introduction of astrological prediction methods.
Yeah, that’s silly. But when the acidification of the ocean and/or the radiation from the Fukushima reactors, or the trash forming a field as big as Texas, and the rest of the trash being dumped in the oceans kill the Phytoplankton, how long to you think we’ll last? Phytoplankton made up to 85 percent of the planet’s oxygen, you know…
This is hypocrisy at its finest. The DNC always encourages anyone who wants to paint their opponents as the enemies of the earth but they shun an open debate that would show how shrill their own positions are. Or that they are the biggest liars because they pander to those climate activist groups in order to get their support but refuse to do anything for them. If I was an activist, I would want them to pay for this.
I’ve been encouraging all the enviro-nuts that I know to vote Green this time. To show the Democrats that they can’t be taken for granted anymore.
What is there to debate? The politics are settled.
Congratulations for that comment, Citizen Smith. You are right to the point, in a sarc sort of way.
this would appear to agree todays aussie papers online
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/trump-official-consults-climate-deniers/news-story/defe29122a4c4fac8ba345a60a727a13
funny thing is?
im sure i remember reading about it here and it wasnt secret
the FOI claims? hmm grandstanding?
About time somebody put it that way, Citizen Smith.
It is not about the science–that’s six feet under. It is about politics–and politicians always lie.
Never ask a question for which you do not already know the answer. Perhaps the DNC leadership recognizes the falsehoods and the impossibly of coming to any affordable, coherent conclusion. Such a debate would expose them and their crazy plans as the ravings of lunatics.
Which is why the DNC refused to allow FoxNews to host/participate in one of the debates.
With the other networks they probably will be allowed to control the questions, and this allowing “contestants” to prepare in advance.
‘Which is why the DNC refused to allow FoxNews to host/participate in one of the debates.’
In favor of Rachel Maddow?
Not to nitpick Joel, but I think you made a typo. It’s Rachel Madcow.
Quit insulting cows.
Actually it is Radical Madcow.
I’m sticking with Rachel Manboy.
She hates white men deeply and passionately, and yet spends great deals of money to look like one. Very curious.
like CNN and Candy Crowley….just happened to have the transcript handy…for that one particular question
Please tell me the donkey is a joke.
The Donkey is both real and a joke.
As a non-American I didn’t have a clue either, but it is a good question.
https://www.history.com/news/how-did-the-republican-and-democratic-parties-get-their-animal-symbols
The Democratic Party’s donkey and the Republican Party’s elephant have been on the political scene since the 19th century. The origins of the Democratic donkey can be traced to the 1828 presidential campaign of Andrew Jackson. During that race, opponents of Jackson called him a jackass. However, rather than rejecting the label, Jackson, a hero of the War of 1812 who later served in the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate, was amused by it and included an image of the animal in his campaign posters. Jackson went on to defeat incumbent John Quincy Adams and serve as America’s first Democratic president. In the 1870s, influential political cartoonist Thomas Nast helped popularize the donkey as a symbol for the entire Democratic Party.
As an American, I didn’t know that and thank you for that. Growing up here, the two symbols have always been associated with the two parties and I never considered why. Always good to learn something now, even if it’s old.
That party is nothing like it was during his days.
The Democrats are the Party of Andrew Jackson, an avowed racist (in the extreme) and proud slave owner.
The Republicans are the Party of Abraham Lincoln and ending slavery, Jim Crow laws.
No amount of Democratic Party PR whitewashing can erase their sad brutal legacy of oppression of the little guy without political power. And it continues to this day.
The sooner America wakes up to reality of the scourge of the Democratic Party, the sooner it will be relegated back to 3rd Party status.
Unfortunately, they control the message. And their base responds to pretty lights.
Not that shocking when one considers the mockery the GND got, both in the press and on the Senate floor when Mitch McConnel forced the Democrats to vote “present,” it’s no wonder. The Green Blob was absolutely furious with how all that GND mockery went down, and how most of the declared candidates endorsed it, now they can’t be seen as walking it back at a debate.
The job killing Climate Change policy prescriptions from Democrats though will be put front and center in the General election. So whoever does get the honor of losing to Trump in 2020 won’t be able to run from the GreenSlime’s demands for much higher energy prices and soaking the middle class to put money in Green investor pockets.
Yep, the climate caterwaulers really get the sooks up when their obsession is ignored or downplayed.
Example – an article by David Suzuki in our local paper sooking about the fact that climate change coverage in major US tv networks dropped from 260 minutes in 2017 to just 142 minutes in 2018.
My advice to Dave would be – “stop and think about that for a minute. Could it be because there is really nothing new to report on this subject? Same old, same old. same old?”
The problem is not that there isn’t new material to report – but that it doesn’t fit the climate hysteria of that doomsday cult.
Why don’t they just hire Al Gore to give a few words 😉
Cheers
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
Given that two papers have been published (Ed Berry and Hermann Harde) disproving the IPCC hypothesis, the ball is now in the court of the alarmists.
The DNBC and the Deep State will avoid this information like the plague.
Any sort of debate would bring this to the fore.
Oh dear, oh dear!
You are still under the mistaken illusion that members of the climate cult will some how magically change their brainwashing when shown the scientific facts.
They are untouched by scientific reasoning.
M. Haseler
Dumbocrats are “untouched by reasoning” on EVERY subject.
Here’s a link to that paper:
https://ams.confex.com/ams/2019Annual/mediafile/Manuscript/Paper349565/Contradictions%20to%20IPCC%27s%20Climate%20Change%20Theory.pdf
Makes you wonder why they could get 50 million votes in 2020 no matter who the candidate is after all the predictions about a stock market crash (and blatant attempts to instigate one), depression, war with Russia, impeachment for colluding with Russia and starting conflict with N Korea/ Iran while trying to be tough rather than appease.
[???? .mod]
If you really think ‘Climate Change’ is an existential threat to the planet, you should be able to talk about it and defend your outrageous claims.
“The solution is obvious.” Vote for President Trump.
I would love to see a real debate between somebody like Michael Mann… and any one of a number of real climate scientists. I couldn’t care less about watching a bunch of libs argue between themselves about who is the greenest, and who is willing to shove the most authortarian laws down the American people’s throats.
Me Too!
There is tons of stuff where Mann gets his a$$ kicked. He tends to argue opponents credentials and call names like “denier”. Judith Curry doesn’t put up with his crap. Pielke talks over his head. Christy wears him down with evidence. As with most clowns, sometimes its a little embarrassing.
https://youtu.be/_3_sHu34imQ
Where do I sign on to the petition. Would love to see that.
Activists need to read more
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/18233023?searchTerm=arctic%20sea%20ice%20disappear&searchLimits=
You could call it, “The mass debate.” None of them understand the first thing about it, I would love to moderate the “debate”…I would destroy them. My aim would be to make them cry with humiliation.
Politicians are able to win arguments even when they have no clue what they’re talking about. They’re professionals. Give them some credit.
You might start with Rachel Manboy; she seems to be in tears half the time anyway.
We had a WUWT story three days ago about the party bosses being accused of preventing a climate debate in order to protect Joe Biden. link
We previously had accusations that the party bosses had stiffed Bernie Sanders in order that Hillary Clinton could get the nomination.
It is also said that President Trump won the nomination in spite of the Republican party bosses.
Somehow it doesn’t seem like the kind of democracy envisioned by the founding fathers … or maybe it is. A quick google shows that there is plenty of controversy about what the founding fathers were actually thinking. Anyway, I can’t recall anything I’ve read in which any of the founding fathers predicted the malign influence of party bosses.
Maybe it’d be better for civilisation to revert back to cro magnon cave-dwelling or even climb back up into the trees. The vast majority of it is blatantly corrupt and the rest unbelievably stupid. However I recall a story about a French dude who went back to cave-dwelling to get away from it all, and the one thing they could get him with to drag him back into this sick society was a tax evasion charge.
I also recall a 1969 comic where Donald Duck says “I wish a flying saucer would kidnap me and take me to Mars”.
“You’re screwed no matter what you do.” You’re going to suffer a lot and then you’re going to die. The best you can do is make your life meaningful by aiming at the highest good and that will make the suffering worthwhile. Jordan Peterson
Faced with all of society’s stupidities, you can at least clean up your own life. If enough people quit doing things they know are stupid, society as a whole will be less stupid … or something like that.
Jordan Peterson, that mentallity died with Hitler.
Please explain. I have observed that those who hate him the most have very little clue about what he’s actually saying.
Commie B
Again I agree with you. Haters of J Peterson I note are not those who read or listed to his talks. That is why when they interview him they all look like chumps. TV “personalities” and “influencers” rarely interview subjects who really are experts in their fields.
Most interviews about climate change are with people who are commenting in the work of experts. When it is misrepresented no one is there to correct them. Happens all the time on the CBC. Consider all the interviews with “climate activists” like Sweden”s Nonqawuse. Expertise is not the “thing” for activists
We had a WUWT story three days ago about the party bosses being accused of preventing a climate debate in order to protect Joe Biden
More likely the party bosses are preventing a climate “debate” in order to protect the party/party bosses.
1) the “debate” would be no such thing. all the candidates agree on climate change. that’s not a debate, it’s an opportunity to virtue signal.
2) the “debate” would just end up being a contest of which candidate can go the furthest left and say the most lefty loony things about climate. The party bosses know that won’t play well in the general.
Given 1 why would the party bosses want to risk 2? They wouldn’t (at least if they have any sense) hence why Perez calls it “not practical”.
There’s some wisdom there.
In Canada, the Liberals were winning all the elections for a while because the conservatives were split between the Reform Party and the Progressive Conservative Party. The Reform party was full of people who said things that turned off middle of the road voters. The genius of Steven Harper was to muzzle the more vocal Reform Party members and to eventually merge the two parties.
“We had a WUWT story three days ago about the party bosses being accused of preventing a climate debate in order to protect Joe Biden. ”
They know that Sleepy Joe can’t be questioned about the fate of the planet, because he doesn’t even know what planet he’s on.
A debate requires two sides in opposition over the question. A DNC “debate” would be a can-you-top-this exercise at the liar’s club.
Imagine how stupid they would look trying to debate climate without prepared talking points and having their incompetent remarks on the record for all to read.
I think what the 200,000 want is an echo chamber, not a real debate; nonetheless, it would be illuminating to the rest of us to see what might come of such a debate.
Incidentally, near the end of the article, the word is not “backpeddling” (selling back) but “backpedaling” as on a bicycle, to stop or reverse forward motion.
It’s “backpedalling”. English John.. English.. 🙂
“We had a WUWT story three days ago about the party bosses being accused of preventing a climate debate in order to protect Joe Biden. ”
They know that Sleepy Joe can’t be questioned about the fate of the planet, because he doesn’t even know what planet he’s on.
And here’s M-W’s spelling and def, in American English:
backpedal verb
back·ped·al | \ ˈbak-ˌpe-dᵊl \
backpedaled; backpedaling; backpedals
Definition of backpedal
intransitive verb
: to retreat or move backward
Here’s M-W’s spelling and def, in American English:
backpedal verb
back·ped·al | \ ˈbak-ˌpe-dᵊl \
backpedaled; backpedaling; backpedals
Definition of backpedal
intransitive verb
: to retreat or move backward
Collins dictionary
backpedal in American
(ˈbækˌpɛdəl )
verb intransitive
Word forms: ˈbackˌpedaled or ˈbackˌpedalled, ˈbackˌpedaling or ˈbackˌpedalling
“Two nations divided by a common language” attrib. var. Shaw/Wilde/Churchill
Perez knows it would be a disaster, with some candidates trying to out promise/out compete with the most outrageous proposals. (Like GND costing trillions when most people don’t see very big problems.)
This would certainly turn off average voters in the general election.
But it may satisfy the primary voter activists.
I would love to see a debate if this question were asked:
Climate models show that no effort by the US to reduce carbon dioxide emissions would significantly reduce the impact of future climate change unless both China and India reduced theirs significantly as well. To prevevent the oncoming ‘extinction level event’, as some currently predict, would you be willing to go to war against China and India to stop their carbin dioxide emissions? Please give us a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer to this question in your response.
I am sure they would weasel around the question, but maybe it would hit home the futility of unilateral action with some liberals. (and, no, I don’t believe any action is needed at all. If it gets warmer – for whatever reason – good. Cold and low CO2 levels are my concern).
How about a debate with Will Happer and Ian Plimer on one side.
With Michael Mann and David Suzuki on the other.
I second that and look forward to it with enthusiastic anticipation!
I’ll bring my gun just to make sure Mann and Suzuki are truthful.. 🙂
I am not sure how it would. None of them would dare drift of the narrative, so I guess they would just try and outdo each other with increasingly insane schemes and mandates , AOC style.
We should support this effort because it would become clear that all of them intend to make the US a smoking hole in the ground.
Each time I see “grassroots” and “DNC” anywhere I immediately know it is astroturf. More of George Soros and the Kochsucker Bros money undermining the human race.