Republican candidates: 'I'm not a scientist.' ...

[onehandle]

Hillary Clinton: 'We must take action on climate change.'

[img][/img]

https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/626395727246327808

[JaneyVee]

1. Scientists: "I'm not a Republican..."

[Android3.14]

2. Sure. Whatever.

Where is your plan for an Apollo-style project to deal with it, then?

[drm604]

4. Does this count?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/26/politics/clinton-climate-change-renewable-energy/

Clinton's plan focuses largely on residential power usage and is buoyed by a focus on solar. By the end of her hypothetical first term as president, Clinton promised that the United States would have more than 500 million solar panels installed across the country.

The presidential candidate also stressed building an energy grid more focused on renewable energy, particularly solar, by the end of the decade. According to a fact sheet circulated by Clinton's campaign, a Clinton presidency would hope to increase output of solar energy by 700% by the end of the decade.

[Android3.14]

7. Of course it doesn't. It is barely anything

Who measures solar power by the number of panels?

Nobody. The measure is done in units of power, as in megawatt-hours. Counting panels is as stupid as counting the number of blades on a windmill.

She said panels because the word is so ambiguous that British Petroleum could make the same claim truthfully and have it amount to nothing.

How many megawatts is half a billion panels? How much area must a panel occupy in order to be a solar panel? A half billion solar powered calculators would technically be a half billion solar panels.

Why are people so blind to the non-answers she spouts?

What we need is an Apollo-style project that harnesses industry, education, the military, and national goals to fundamentally change the way our country generates and uses power.

Check it out.

The New Apollo Project.

[DanTex]

8. Raising renewable electricity from 7% to 33% in ten years is not "barely anything."

Please tell me you didn't really think that Hillary's plan was only based on the number of solar panels.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/28/us/politics/hillary-clinton-lays-out-climate-change-plan.html?_r=0

[Android3.14]

11. Nope, it's based on fluff and sound bites

Sure, she's going to challenge big oil.
Sure she is.

[DanTex]

12. And that's about the intellectual level of response I expected.

[Android3.14]

13. Insults are all you have, apparently

Come on, DanTex, you can communicate like an adult.

Tell me what, specifically, she will do. How much money will she put into the effort? How will she raise the money? How many terawatt hours of power is Citicorp Clinton going to generate from renewable resources? How will she transform our transportation infrastructure?

We want...no...we need specifics rather than more blathering pap from this candidate.

[DanTex]

14. Well, I tried numbers and percentages in my last post.

Those were ignored, along with the article I linked to giving more details. Not surprising: I've found that phrases like "Citicorp Clinton" represent the peak of intellectual ability of most Bernistas. Bernie must be wondering what he ever did to deserve supporters like these.

[Android3.14]

16. Still with the insults

Really, Dantex, I'm confident you can step up and speak with a civil tongue (type with a civil wrist?).

The story to which you linked failed to provide any specifics, which even you know is the SOP of her majesty, Queen Getoutamychair.

"Clinton promised that the United States would have more than 500 million solar panels" - Okeedokee. See my post in this thread on why this is freaking lame.

"Clinton presidency would hope to increase output of solar energy by 700% by the end of the decade" - Ooooh, 700 percent. Wow. Any who, solar energy provides four-tenths of 1 percent of the total energy consumed in the United States. She's going to somehow increase that sevenfold to a whopping 2.8 percent? A 700-percent increase wouldn't even compete with the increase in energy usage, much less the way we've been producing energy to date.

That, by the way Dantex, were all the numbers and percentages in your much-touted article.

Do you even ask yourself if Miss Bought-and-Paid-for is pantsing you in front of the DU community? The answer is yes, she is.

[DanTex]

17. Guess you missed these numbers and percentages...

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.

Seriously, drop the "Miss Bought-and-Paid-for" stuff. Bernie is a great person, and deserves to be respected and taken seriously. His supporters make that difficult.

[Android3.14]

18. And a chicken in every oven

She is making promises that extend beyond the two terms she is shooting for in this election. She can promise anything she wants. Additionally, 33 percent is still far to little. We need a fundamental revision on the way we produce, store and distribute energy. We should be throwing all our resources at maintaining our current pace of generating more and more power, but using renewable resources and/or fusion. Cleaning up this mess of climate change will never happen if we keep burning crap to make power.

The numbers are probably arbitrary in that bit, slapped out by speechwriters without any regard to specific resources or consequences.

[DanTex]

19. That's a good summary of Bernie's entire platform.

I agree with you that 33% is too little, but in terms of making promises that obviously won't happen (single payer, free college, financial transaction tax, etc.), Bernie is the champion.

The good news, though, is that you've moved past the nonsense of insisting that her whole plan is based on the number of solar panels. Congrats.

[George II]

20. If you've already concluded that in your sarcastic response, why debate this at all?

[Android3.14]

21. You mistake debate with questioning

Or maybe you think I am pretending to try to come to a conclusion about Hillary. I'm not. She is an empty suit, bought and paid for. She will say sweet nothings until the cows come home.

I'm actually trying, through this debate, to illustrate that fact.

I took the position that HRC is making empty promises which sound good until you examine them closely, which it is obvious I have successfully defended, based on the low brow insults and whining.

Whereas the people attempting to defend said empty promises are still trying to figure out how to use a dictionary. It is probably a major reason she can so easily lead them by the nose.

[Android3.14]

10. And consider this

Last edited Thu Jul 30, 2015, 04:29 PM - Edit history (1)

According to different online sources, an average panel makes .2 kwh of power on average each day, so a half billion panels would make 100,000,000 kwh = 100 gigawatt hours each day or 36,500 gigawatt hours each year on average.

The United States used 29,260,000 gigawatts hours of power in 2006.

So even if we did have 500,000,000 "average" panels, it would generate 0.017 of the total energy we need based on 2006 figures.

A house uses on average 0.010908 gigawatt hours of energy each year. This means Clinton's half-billion panel goal might generate enough energy to run 3 million households out of 125 million houses in the U.S., or 0.024 of the houses.

Yes, rooftop solar power is important, but 500,000,000 isn't really saying much. She is just making sound bites.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States#Consumption_by_source
http://www.solarpowerrocks.com/solar-basics/how-much-electricity-does-a-solar-panel-produce/

[LiberalAndProud]

3. OT: (Not primary specific) The surprising thing -- the sad thing is that

funding for the sciences has historically done better under Republican administrations. It's paradoxical and short-sighted of our party. You have to have priorities, and science should be one. Especially in these times.

[Gothmog]

5. The "I'am not a scientist" refrain is weak

[TlalocW]

6. If the media had any courage

After a republican said, "I'm not a scientist," the interviewer would say, "Oh, so you're admitting you're not qualified to comment on such a complex scientific issue, and maybe we should listen to those more qualified?"

Yeah, that will happen.

TlalocW

[Charles de Gaudless]

9. ROFL!

Thanks! I needed that laugh!

[restorefreedom]

15. excellent!

the "i am not a scientist" meme is code for "i am stupid to understand what the scientists tell us in plain english" or "i am too owned by big money energy to ever think of giving any credence to the reality that is staring us all in the face"