brenthutch

No shit. Not a word of that is true. From the NYT "For the moment, hiring appears muted: Most of the job postings on the foundation’s website are for food service and catering jobs at the Clinton Presidential Center in Little Rock, Ark." I guess the foundation is going to keep people who visit the Clinton Presidential Center from starving, not exactly what I would call a life saving charity.

I don't get it. The CGI is a critical, lifesaving charity, providing assistance and aid to millions around the globe. Clinton aid James Carville stated: "if the CGI is forced to close...PEOPLE WILL DIE!" Why then would they CHOOSE to close? Why does the Clinton Global Initiative want to let people die?

Source?

Scott Pruitt doesn't have a "renewables suck" poster in his office, the same cannot be said about his predecessor, with regard to coal. . http://www.weaselzippers.us/324242-former-epa-chief-denies-war-on-coal-while-sitting-in-front-of-a-coal-sucks-poster/

And that has never happened before.

Don't be constrained by the tyranny of the "or", embrace the freedom of the "and." If renewables are as great as you say, we save 130 automotive jobs AND keep and grow the 800,000 solar jobs. (Although MSNBC reported today the total jobs for all renewables (solar, wind and bio-fuels) was closer to 700K.)

Good for them! If renewables can compete in the free market, I am all for them.

Wow! Trump's environmental executive order is only a few minutes old and look what happened to my afternoon drive*. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=or7tWjWI0ZA * In the imagination of snowflakes everywhere

Re moralizing "Oftentimes, those on the political left assume the mantle of moral superiority, and superiority in their knowledge of scientific advances as well. Both are self-serving and usually fraudulent claims, but that doesn't stop liberals from pretending they are our intellectual and philosophical betters. No matter how much factual evidence they're shown that disproves an argument, they continue to spout the same nonsense and then accuse those who don't agree with them of being behind the times or anti-science. Their alleged scientific proof is often filled with holes or is nonexistent altogether, even as the liberal news media promote their unsubstantiated theories. Disagreement is met with angry and sometimes violent rebukes from those who specialize in outrage instead of honest debate. For the past decade or so, we've been inundated with dire predictions of earthly catastrophes that have yet to materialize, while we're shamed into reducing our imagined "carbon footprint" in order to save the Earth. We're told the science is settled and that no further debate is necessary, despite no significant change in the worldwide climate or temperature." Remind you of anyone?

And just as we learned CO2, although a greenhouse gas, is only a minor player in the global climate and is overwhelmed by other influences.

It is a very weak analogy but obviously the only one you have. You cannot deal with the facts that I lay out, so you redirect and create a straw man. Oh BTW, how is your AGW induced state of permanent drought going?

There you go again, confusing cigarette smoke with CO2. I know it can be challenging to get your brain around, but CO2, even though it is a component of cigarette smoke, does not cause cancer or even catastrophic global warming for that matter.

Well, scientists learn why and how - engineers turn that into cool gadgets. But overall I agree. Scientists tell us that the planet is warming, and it is due mostly to our emissions of greenhouse gases. And other scientists say that it is not. http://www.popularsocialscience.com/2012/11/15/the-moral-issue-of-man-made-global-warming/ "There seems to be wide agreement that global warming is taking place; what has been up to the debate is whether it is caused by human activity or not. We live in an age where science and reason is considered among societies highest values. Yet, within this issue there is no room for debate or discussion. Criticism of the theory of man made global warming is not tolerated, even if it is based on research of the highest scientific standards. The critics have become scientific dissidents and are considered dangerous and even morally irresponsible. How is it possible that this may take place in an age where we often consider rationality to be at its historical peak? In the public debate the theory is often presented as a scientific truth, even when researchers claim that there are considerable doubts. Many scientists, especially within the natural science community, claim that there is no direct evidence that links human activities and global warming. Some of the claims are that the earths´ climate has always been changing and that the temperatures are not mainly driven by carbon dioxide, whether it is man made or not. Further, they claim that there is nothing unusual about the temperatures today, and it has for example been pointed out that lions existed in northern Germany during the Middle Ages. Some of the sceptics include MIT professors, University of Virginia professors, in addition to experts that are in the forefront when it comes to science of climatology. Even if these people deserve the highest ranking credits and credibility their views are not only silenced or denigrated as irrelevant by politicians, media and other scientists, but they are also subjected to shameful labelling and name calling."

Well, scientists learn why and how - engineers turn that into cool gadgets. But overall I agree. Scientists tell us that the planet is warming, and it is due mostly to our emissions of greenhouse gases. No moralizing. Engineers give us catalytic converters, and hybrids, and carbon sequestration equipment, and solar power systems. Again, no moralizing. The moralizing comes in when people try to justify their use of fossil fuels I really hope you are joking and or drinking because..... http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cnsnewscom-staff/us-senator-global-warming-isthe-moral-challenge-our-generation https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-the-moral-issue-of-climate-change/2014/11/18/e660e61c-6f74-11e4-ad12-3734c461eab6_story.html?utm_term=.077fda3b0d59 http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2015/03/is-global-warming-a-moral-issue/

Not only have you mis-quoted America's greatest songwriter, but you also clearly can't tell the wind direction. Obviously YOU need a weatherman. Not a misquote my friend. I was riffing (to borrow and elaborate) on America's top troubadour. No weatherman needed.

Really? Confusing "science" with "physics". Engineering is applying science, but physics is science. AGW theory is NOT science because it is not falsifiable. California drought? AGW. End of California drought? AGW. No snow? AGW. Lots of snow? AGW. Warmth? AGW. Cold? AGW. On and on, ad nauseam. It's not science, it's dogma. So what kind of professional scientist are you anyway, since you're giving science lessons now. "You don't need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"

Really? Confusing "science" with "physics". Engineering is applying science, but physics is science. AGW theory is NOT science because it is not falsifiable. California drought? AGW. End of California drought? AGW. No snow? AGW. Lots of snow? AGW. Warmth? AGW. Cold? AGW. On and on, ad nauseam. It's not science, it's dogma.

It's whole notion that "the science is settled" is inherently anti-science. It is a trope designed to shut down debate, avoid scrutiny and is illustrative of the weakness of CAGW theory.

Definitely agreed there. Fortunately, the vast majority of scientists stick to the facts when it comes to climate change. All scientist need to do is say, "hey, we have some pretty new kick ass technology - look at this this cool shit!" (no pun intended) Like this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamborghini_Aventador

I'm not sure if you knew this or not but....if 45% think global warming is very important, math says that 55% think it's not. And 55>45.

Brent, you know everyone here loves you and tries to help you. But news coverage by major TV networks. Is not a quantifiable determinate of scientific fact. Says the guy who quotes polls After two decades of the climate boys crying wolf the populace has finally tuned out and elected a "Denier" as POTUS.

This is a very Passive Aggressive way to govern. I agree, but when side wants more government and the other side wants less, compromise looks a lot like gridlock.

http://grist.org/briefly/major-tv-networks-spent-just-50-minutes-on-climate-change-combined-last-year/ "Major TV networks spent just 50 minutes on climate change — combined — last year. That’s a dramatic, 66-percent drop in coverage from 2015 across evening and Sunday news programs airing on ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox, according to a new study from Media Matters. ABC, for one, spent just six minutes on climate issues in 2016." Looks like the American people are done with Chicken Little.

Probably the best outcome for the Rs. This puts the ownership of Obamacare back into the lap of the Dems. The Republicans should not lay a glove on Obamacare until it's inevitable collapse. Until then they will be able to use it a a cudgel to beat Dems in election after election.