“I Believe in Science..”

August 30, 2016

RT if you agree with @HillaryClinton! #ImWithHer #ClimateVoter pic.twitter.com/mH8SJb9RPe

— Sierra Club (@sierraclub) July 29, 2016

Society is in trouble if “I believe in Science..” are now fighting words. But here we are.

Posted by greenman3610
Filed in Crock of the Week

9 Comments »

9 Responses to ““I Believe in Science..””

(((ClimateNicole))) (@nicole473) Says:

August 30, 2016 at 7:18 pm
THAT is a great ad. Now we just have to elect her!

Reply
Kiwiiano Says:

August 31, 2016 at 2:45 am
It gives me hope, even though as a New Zealander I have no contact with the USofA. I’m just keeping my fingers crossed it’s not just pre-election hollow promises. For my Grandchilden’s sake.

Reply
webej Says:

August 31, 2016 at 7:51 am
Sounds great, except that along with it you get a business-as-usual corruption enabling money-bought political system by someone who would have been indicted under the espionage act (and many other corruption and racketeering related charges) if laws were actually enforced. Plus someone whose track record on foreign affairs threatens more CIA meddling, efforts at regime change, continuation of foreign wars, drone killings, usurping of the executive, and above all, (nuclear) confrontation with Russia about American global hegemony.

Hopefully the political party duopoly will unravel shortly so that Americans actually have a democratic choice. Perhaps a miracle, with large swathes of the population voting outside the two-party crony capitalist league (for congressmen as well) for people who actually believe in something beyond money, and a return to the constitution and the rule of law.

Reply
- greenman3610 Says:
  
  August 31, 2016 at 9:29 am
  No one has been more thoroughly investigated by motivated and hostile pursuers over the last 25 years than Hillary Clinton – yet somehow all they come up with, since the days of Ken Starr, – is baseless charges, blowing smoke and then claiming “where there’s smoke there’s fire” – except no one can find the fire.
  If you can cite something real, I’m sure the Republican congress would like to look into it. Oh wait, they already have numerous times.
  
  Reply
- Kiwiiano Says:
  
  August 31, 2016 at 3:40 pm
  It’s too late for this round of elections, but hopefully we won’t see a repeat of the Bush-Gore fiasco where Nader voters derailed Gore by a narrow margin. It’s a safe assumption we would have been much further along the path of dealing with climate change if Gore had got in.
  
  A vote for Tweedledum has to be waay better than a vote for Tweedledummer.
  
  Reply
- andrewfez Says:
  
  September 1, 2016 at 4:11 pm
  All that money that should be going to WWII style deployment of renewables is going into military industrial wastefulness, especially unwinnable, impotent perpetual wars which Clinton plans on continuing. 8 years of Clinton will mean $6T more war debt with higher levels of terrorism than today as a result, and a small percent of that amount spent on green energy. We are totally dependent on NY and CA to make large cuts, alongside other state, city, and township responses to the problem.
  
  Reply
David L. Jewett Says:

August 31, 2016 at 12:07 pm
Why is mitigating climate change always tied to the economy?

Reply
Brooklyn Culture Jammers Says:

September 1, 2016 at 11:59 am
Dealing with warming at the scale we’re seeing it is NOT a task the Clintons are up for. Their specialty is trying to craft ‘win-win’ situations. Dealing with warming on the scale we’re seeing and doing something substantial to stop it means we’ll have losers. And those losers are going to be fossil fuel companies and people who can’t take the hit from all of those fuels getting more expensive. We ‘Muricans have been pretending this is a binary choice and that a non-denier was better than a denier. But Hillary hasn’t begun to talk about what drastic changes we’d need to make if we’re going to avoid a tipping point into runaway warming.

Reply
- andrewfez Says:
  
  September 1, 2016 at 3:58 pm
  I have a suspicion the Democrats are just projecting out 4 or 8 years what clean energy development will look like based on current rates of deployment, and are just promising that.
  
  Reply