Hillary Presents Global Warming Plan

[mamooth]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/28/us/politics/hillary-clinton-lays-out-climate-change-plan.html?_r=1
---
She set a goal to produce 33 percent of the nation’s electricity from renewable sources by 2027, up from 7 percent today — a higher goal than the 20 percent that President Obama has called for by 2030.

Mrs. Clinton’s strategists see climate change as a winning issue for 2016. They believe it is a cause she can advance to win over deep-pocketed donors and liberal activists in the nominating campaign, where she is facing Democratic challengers to her left on the issue. It is also one that can be a weapon against Republicans in a general election. Polls show that a majority of voters support candidates who pledge policy action on the warming climate.
...
Her campaign put the cost of her clean electricity initiatives at about $60 billion over 10 years, which it said would be offset by ending tax breaks for oil and gas producers.
---

Sanders and O'Malley have even stronger proposals, and Hillary is taking fire from the left for not going far enough. In any case, it's a winning issue for Democrats.

 

[defcon4]

Fuck!! We did not learn from Solyndra?

 

[B. Kidd]

Fuck!! We did not learn from Solyndra?

No we did not.......and besides, most solar panels are made in China where Trumps' ties came from.....(Note the words ..... came from...........).

 

[defcon4]

…. he could peddle them on the street corner. Two flies with one swat. Building voter relations with the tramps too. "Trump for tramps!"

 

[Stephanie]

lol, just look at Hitler's plan on that and you'll find Hillary's

 

[Obiwan]

Global warming data FAKED by government to fit climate change fictions - NaturalNews.com


Now, in what might be the largest scientific fraud ever uncovered, NASA and the NOAA have been caught red-handed altering historical temperature data to produce a "climate change narrative" that defies reality. This finding, originally documented on theReal Science website, is detailed here.

We now know that historical temperature data for the continental United States were deliberately altered by NASA and NOAA scientists in a politically-motivated attempt to rewrite history and claim global warming is causing U.S. temperatures to trend upward. The data actually show that we are in a cooling trend, not a warming trend (see charts below).

This story is starting to break worldwide right now across the media, with The Telegraph now reporting (1), "NOAA's US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been 'adjusting' its record by replacing real temperatures with data 'fabricated' by computer models."

Because the actual historical temperature record doesn't fit the frenzied, doomsday narrative of global warming being fronted today on the political stage, the data were simply altered using "computer models" and then published as fact.

Here's the proof of the climate change fraud
Here's the chart of U.S. temperatures published by NASA in 1999. It shows the highest temperatures actually occurred in the 1930's, followed by a cooling trend ramping downward to the year 2000:

The authenticity of this chart is not in question. It is published by James Hansen on NASA's website. (2) On that page, Hansen even wrote, "Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought."

After the Obama administration took office, however, and started pushing the global warming narrative for political purposes, NASA was directed to alter its historical data in order to reverse the cooling trend and show a warming trend instead. This was accomplished using climate-modeling computers that simply fabricated the data the researchers wished to see instead of what was actually happening in the real world.

Using the exact same data found in the chart shown above (with a few years of additional data after 2000), NASA managed to misleadingly distort the chart to depict the appearance of global warming:

The authenticity of this chart is also not in question. It can be found right now on NASA's servers. (4)

This new, altered chart shows that historical data -- especially the severe heat and droughts experienced in the 1930's -- are now systematically suppressed to make them appear cooler than they really were. At the same time, temperature data from the 1970's to 2010 are strongly exaggerated to make them appear warmer than they really were.

This is a clear case of scientific fraud being carried out on a grand scale in order to deceive the entire world about global warming.

EPA data also confirm the global warming hoax
What's even more interesting is that even the EPA's "Heat Wave Index" data further support the notion that the U.S. was far hotter in the 1930's than it is today.

The following chart, published on theEPA.gov website (4), clearly shows modern-day heat waves are far smaller and less severe than those of the 1930's. In fact, the seemingly "extreme" heat waves of the last few years were no worse than those of the early 1900's or 1950's.

Learn more: Global warming data FAKED by government to fit climate change fictions - NaturalNews.com

 

[mamooth]

Hitler was for solar power?

Stephanie just keeps getting nuttier.

 

[Votto]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/28/us/politics/hillary-clinton-lays-out-climate-change-plan.html?_r=1
---
She set a goal to produce 33 percent of the nation’s electricity from renewable sources by 2027, up from 7 percent today — a higher goal than the 20 percent that President Obama has called for by 2030.

Mrs. Clinton’s strategists see climate change as a winning issue for 2016. They believe it is a cause she can advance to win over deep-pocketed donors and liberal activists in the nominating campaign, where she is facing Democratic challengers to her left on the issue. It is also one that can be a weapon against Republicans in a general election. Polls show that a majority of voters support candidates who pledge policy action on the warming climate.
...
Her campaign put the cost of her clean electricity initiatives at about $60 billion over 10 years, which it said would be offset by ending tax breaks for oil and gas producers.
---

Sanders and O'Malley have even stronger proposals, and Hillary is taking fire from the left for not going far enough. In any case, it's a winning issue for Democrats.

Sure, that should save the planet.

Nice work Hellary

 

[mamooth]

Global warming data FAKED

Stop spamming the thread. This thread is not about how you got brainwashed by your kook cult. Everyone already understands that. This is about policies. Nobody cares about your conspiracy cult stupidity.

 

[Stephanie]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/28/us/politics/hillary-clinton-lays-out-climate-change-plan.html?_r=1
---
She set a goal to produce 33 percent of the nation’s electricity from renewable sources by 2027, up from 7 percent today — a higher goal than the 20 percent that President Obama has called for by 2030.

Mrs. Clinton’s strategists see climate change as a winning issue for 2016. They believe it is a cause she can advance to win over deep-pocketed donors and liberal activists in the nominating campaign, where she is facing Democratic challengers to her left on the issue. It is also one that can be a weapon against Republicans in a general election. Polls show that a majority of voters support candidates who pledge policy action on the warming climate.
...
Her campaign put the cost of her clean electricity initiatives at about $60 billion over 10 years, which it said would be offset by ending tax breaks for oil and gas producers.
---

Sanders and O'Malley have even stronger proposals, and Hillary is taking fire from the left for not going far enough. In any case, it's a winning issue for Democrats.

Sure, that should save the planet.

Nice work Hellary

 

[mamooth]

Fuck!! We did not learn from Solyndra?

You mean the loan program that earned billions for the government?

It was a raging success, so naturally conservatives hate it. They seem to hate every successful program. It's as if they worship failure, and hate anyone who doesn't fail.

However, I do give you credit for at least trying to address the issue. All the other righties instantly went off into sputtering conspiracy theories, which tends to happen any time a serious discussion is attempted.

 

[Stephanie]

Fuck!! We did not learn from Solyndra?

No, Hilllery's CRONIES are all in the solar panel business. so that's what we shall have shoved down our throats.

 

[Votto]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/28/us/politics/hillary-clinton-lays-out-climate-change-plan.html?_r=1
---
She set a goal to produce 33 percent of the nation’s electricity from renewable sources by 2027, up from 7 percent today — a higher goal than the 20 percent that President Obama has called for by 2030.

Mrs. Clinton’s strategists see climate change as a winning issue for 2016. They believe it is a cause she can advance to win over deep-pocketed donors and liberal activists in the nominating campaign, where she is facing Democratic challengers to her left on the issue. It is also one that can be a weapon against Republicans in a general election. Polls show that a majority of voters support candidates who pledge policy action on the warming climate.
...
Her campaign put the cost of her clean electricity initiatives at about $60 billion over 10 years, which it said would be offset by ending tax breaks for oil and gas producers.
---

Sanders and O'Malley have even stronger proposals, and Hillary is taking fire from the left for not going far enough. In any case, it's a winning issue for Democrats.

Sure, that should save the planet.

Nice work Hellary

Laugh if you will, but Hillary will produce 33% of the nations electricity through renewable resource, even though there is only a 10% chance of that.

 

[Votto]

I still fail to see the carot to be dangled in front of voters.

Where is the free Obamaphone?

Hildabeast should really think this through.

Now if I were Trump, I would given everyone a free carbon producing HUMV.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/28/us/politics/hillary-clinton-lays-out-climate-change-plan.html?_r=1
---
She set a goal to produce 33 percent of the nation’s electricity from renewable sources by 2027, up from 7 percent today — a higher goal than the 20 percent that President Obama has called for by 2030.

Mrs. Clinton’s strategists see climate change as a winning issue for 2016. They believe it is a cause she can advance to win over deep-pocketed donors and liberal activists in the nominating campaign, where she is facing Democratic challengers to her left on the issue. It is also one that can be a weapon against Republicans in a general election. Polls show that a majority of voters support candidates who pledge policy action on the warming climate.
...
Her campaign put the cost of her clean electricity initiatives at about $60 billion over 10 years, which it said would be offset by ending tax breaks for oil and gas producers.
---

Sanders and O'Malley have even stronger proposals, and Hillary is taking fire from the left for not going far enough. In any case, it's a winning issue for Democrats.

She set a goal to produce 33 percent of the nation’s electricity from renewable sources by 2027, up from 7 percent today

Unless they decide to call nuclear, "renewable", never gonna happen.

Mrs. Clinton’s strategists see climate change as a winning issue for 2016.

Only with idiots who think spending more money for less reliable energy is a good idea.

Polls show that a majority of voters support candidates who pledge policy action on the warming climate.

Until the truth about the higher cost comes out.

 

[mamooth]

I still fail to see the carot to be dangled in front of voters.

Where is the free Obamaphone?

Hildabeast should really think this through.

Now if I were Trump, I would given everyone a free carbon producing HUMV.

Your problem is you're thinking like a Republican. You want free stuff, so you assume everyone thinks like you. Not correct. The majority of the people in the USA are willing to spend a buck in order to not trash the planet. You, obviously, don't agree.

 

[Obiwan]

Mind-Blowing Temperature Fraud At NOAA Real Science
The measured US temperature data from USHCN shows that the US is on a long-term cooling trend. But the reported temperatures from NOAA show a strong warming trend.



Measured : ushcn.tavg.latest.raw.tar.gz
Reported : ushcn.tavg.latest.FLs.52j.tar.gz

They accomplish this through a spectacular hockey stick of data tampering, which corrupts the US temperature trend by almost two degrees.



The biggest component of this fraud is making up data. Almost half of all reported US temperature data is now fake. They fill in missing rural data with urban data to create the appearance of non-existent US warming.



The depths of this fraud is breathtaking, but completely consistent with the fraudulent profession which has become known as “climate science”

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hillary and global warming... Lol

Perfect pairing

 

[Two Thumbs]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/28/us/politics/hillary-clinton-lays-out-climate-change-plan.html?_r=1
---
She set a goal to produce 33 percent of the nation’s electricity from renewable sources by 2027, up from 7 percent today — a higher goal than the 20 percent that President Obama has called for by 2030.

Mrs. Clinton’s strategists see climate change as a winning issue for 2016. They believe it is a cause she can advance to win over deep-pocketed donors and liberal activists in the nominating campaign, where she is facing Democratic challengers to her left on the issue. It is also one that can be a weapon against Republicans in a general election. Polls show that a majority of voters support candidates who pledge policy action on the warming climate.
...
Her campaign put the cost of her clean electricity initiatives at about $60 billion over 10 years, which it said would be offset by ending tax breaks for oil and gas producers.
---

Sanders and O'Malley have even stronger proposals, and Hillary is taking fire from the left for not going far enough. In any case, it's a winning issue for Democrats.

she gave a speech then got on her private jet and polluted like the lying hypocrite she is.

and she really wants to fuck the country over by forcing us to live the way she tells us to live, so of course the moronic left supports her, she hates the country and you lover her for that.

you people, never think.

 

[mamooth]

she gave a speech then got on her private jet and polluted like the lying hypocrite she is.

If you want to live a cave, just do so. Nobody's stopping you. Just go.

However, understand that you're the only one demanding people give up technology. Hence, you are the only one who is a stinking hypocrite for not living in a cave. Also understand we will not allow socialist thug ratfuks like you to force us to live in caves.