Fred Smith Stifles Climate Change Discussion at Democrat National Convention. Amazing!

And in yet another example of his amazing ability to derail efforts to SAVE OUR PLANET, Fred Smith controls and stifles ALL discussion of the WORLD’S MOST SERIOUS PROBLEM at the Democrat National Convention.

Read on!

[quote]CHARLOTTE, N.C. — Though the 2012 Democratic Party platform declares that the “national security threat from climate change is real, urgent, and severe,” it is apparently not urgent and severe enough to merit mention by speakers at the Democratic National Convention during the past two days. The Daily Caller reviewed the speech transcripts of the over 80 speakers who took the stage at the Time Warner Cable Arena here in Charlotte on Tuesday and Wednesday, and [color=#800080]
only one mentioned climate change — and even he only mentioned it in passing

“Thanks to President Obama, America is laying the foundation for the way we power tomorrow,” said Tom Steyer, co-founder of the Advanced Energy Economy trade association, in one of the early and therefore likely least watched speeches to the convention Wednesday.
“So here’s my question for you: Should we go back to the boom-and-bust, ‘drill-baby-drill,’ polluting energy policies of yesterday, or should we embrace an advanced energy economy that meets opportunity with innovation? Should we settle for an economy built on shifting and uncertain sands, or should we keep building an economy made to last?” “Gov. Romney’s road to the future will lead to dirty air and increasing climate volatility, uncertainty over energy prices, and less security, not more,” Steyer continued. “President Obama’s road to the future will lead us to energy independence, energy security, a safer and cleaner environment, and countless new jobs that can never be outsourced.”

That reference to “increasing climate volatility” was the only explicit reference to climate change in two days of speakers
[/color]. The DC searched every speech for the words “global warming” and “climate,” and only Steyer’s speech produced a result. Next to Steyer, the only other mention that came close was President Bill Clinton’s passing reference to reducing greenhouse gasses, though the former president didn’t explicitly tie the reduction in greenhouse gasses in his nearly hour-long speech to an effort to combat climate change.

While even a three-day long convention can’t mention every issue, climate change is an issue that the Democratic Party platform speaks of in apocalyptic terms. “The change wrought by a warming planet will lead to new conflicts over refugees and resources; new suffering from drought and famine; catastrophic natural disasters; and the degradation of vital ecosystems across the globe,” the platform declares.
“We know that global climate change is one of the biggest threats of this generation — an economic, environmental, and national security catastrophe in the making,” it states in another section. Indeed, the words “climate change” appear in the document 18 times.

President Obama himself recently told in a written statement that “Climate change is the one of the biggest issues of this generation,” though he has been criticized for being too silent on the issue since 2010. During the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama famously declared that “this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.” But even Obama’s secretary of the interior, Ken Salazar, didn’t explicitly mention climate change during his speech to the convention Tuesday. Though Salazar spoke of Obama’s effort to move toward a ”clean energy economy,” he didn’t say the move was in any way tied to climate change and in fact even boasted that American “oil production is at a 14-year high.” Does the complete lack of comment on climate change suggest that Democrats no longer see the issue as the mortal threat it was once presented as?

“I don’t think so, but I have no way of knowing,” Democratic National Committee spokesman Brad Woodhouse told TheDC in the corridor of the Time Warner Cable Arena when asked whether climate change was no longer such an important issue since it wasn’t mentioned even once during the convention’s first day. “I haven’t seen all these speeches,” he added.

Read more: … z25rDm3tK5[/quote]

They probably didn’t discuss gravity or heart disease or evolution or obesity either but no one would deny any of them. :loco:

Touche…they failed to mention Fred Smith losing his shit on a messageboard as well…

[quote=“fred smith”]…at the Democrat
National Convention.[/quote]

Uh huh. Been out lately Freddy boy? I think it’s getting to you old chap. Have a drink, sit down, relax and rest for a while.

Well, we all know Freds sources are highly inaccurate, I always assumed Fred also knew but liked to have a little fun, anyway, as to the claim only one person mentioned climate change out of 80 speakers, said person being Tom Steyer, errm, no. I only watched 2 speeches, Clinton and Obama, but I do distinctly recall Obama mentioning it. Sorry Fred, but you really should know by now not to rely on Republican “news” as being factual.

DNC 2012: Obama’s speech to the Democratic National Convention (Full transcript)

Inaccurate? How so? Did not my source indicate that during the first two days… prior to the Obama speech… that no mention of climate change or at least not directly was made? And so you have Obama providing the two lines that you have provided? and that is proof that climate change is front and center? strange then that Al Gore was no where to be seen… especially after his prominent role last year… I think that you are being disingenous about the lack of attention given to climate change at this year’s national convention… So where is the discussion of stopping the rising seas and healing Mother Earth?

:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:


This was even one of the two sentence BOLDED and you still missed the “two day” reference? Jesus. Pull yourself together man!

That reference to “increasing climate volatility” was the only explicit reference to climate change [color=#FF0000]
in two days
[/color]of speakers

Are gravity, heart disease and evolution major issues taken up by the Democrat Party? So are you suggesting and, perhaps agreeing, that the Democrat Party no longer cares about climate change… and if it does, such concern is consigned to the level of “gravity, heart disease and evolution?” Okay, I can live with that… apparently, a problem that required vast resource and a national nay international effort is no longer anything more than a pedestrian concern that requires the usual effort… perhaps, attendance at a fund-raising lunch or ball and perhaps an occasional speech to the committed? Interesting how the issue has fallen from its paramount heights… why in just four years…

Are there new facts about climate change that make it worth discussing at such an event? Are there other issues which take priority? Climate change may well still be a priority for the Democrats, but not a priority at that conference… Is that not a possibility, Fred?

Hey, fred- before commenting on the political situation in the US it what probably help if you learned the names of the political parties involved.

Do you really want to tread this path? Think about what you are saying…

Oh most definitely but then if climate change is not the priority… what happens to the whole politicized movement that has underpinned the same? Are we seeing the Occupy Wall Street collapse of Climate Change hysteria?

So a conference is to annunciate the priorities but it would still remain a priority even though the Democrat National Convention cannot find time to mention it except, apparently, for two lines in a major speech by Obama? Really? That is your final answer? Would you like to call a friend first?

Most definitely a possibility but one that makes Fred Smith or rather Big Super Mega Fred Smith laugh and laugh and laugh like he has never laughed before…

To wit, a visual demonstration of my views…

:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:

Do you really want to tread this path? Think about what you are saying…

Oh most definitely but then if climate change is not the priority… what happens to the whole politicized movement that has underpinned the same? Are we seeing the Occupy Wall Street collapse of Climate Change hysteria?

So a conference is to annunciate the priorities but it would still remain a priority even though the Democrat National Convention cannot find time to mention it except, apparently, for two lines in a major speech by Obama? Really? That is your final answer? Would you like to call a friend first?

Most definitely a possibility but one that makes Fred Smith or rather Big Super Mega Fred Smith laugh and laugh and laugh like he has never laughed before…

To wit, a visual demonstration of my views…

:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:[/quote]

I meant, are there new facts (new evidence) to support the Democratic stance? If there is no new evidence for them then is it worth them banging the same drum for the sake of it? Isn’t an idea of humanity that we constantly embrace change? Todays priorities become tomorrows lies… Or tomorrows problems become yesterdays lies. Something like that.

Truer words were never spoken… never… ever…

:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:

Ever considered that it’s an issue that goes way beyond party politics.

It’s basic, elementary science. Something you obviously failed.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

Truer words were never spoken… never… ever…

:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:[/quote]

Did you catch the series VEEP? I’m not sure how true to life it is regarding (in the US in this case) the continual fuck up we call politics, yet I found it fascinating as well as humorous. The thick of it is the UK originator…

Yes, I suppose it does but when the very movement was led by none other than the former vice president and presidential candidate for same party and prominently featured at the last party convention, one really REALLY has to wonder what has happened when it gets a vague two-sentence line in the president’s speech and is barely refered to by one other speaker among 80 total.

Yes, because you studied with a famous (cough cough) climatologist for a semester during your rich academic career which is why you are now actively involved in… er, no… um climate … er science… no that cannot be right… what is your profession again? and why does it not even remotely involve something so “elementary?”

Yes, I must have failed that “elementary” science whereby all debate is shut off to fit in with preordained predestination preambles… Yes, that must be it. And I really must have messed up my elementary economics whereby I totally missed how a solution along those currently in vogue will actually do anything whatsoever about the problem at all. But given that this is truly an egregious state of affairs, I guess that I must now comfort myself with the fact that apparently every world leader including those of the U.S. and its Democrat Party are in the same boat as I… such an outcome I would never have been able to predict even two years ago but then who would have guessed that it would have all ended up being so … elementary…

But surely the Democrats lackluster interest in climate change is merely for domestic consumption as this is an election year and the “interest in staving off the climate change disaster” will return once November’s election is over… right? and all other efforts will continue and gain renewed “steam” after Obama is re-elected… right? But wait! What’s this?

[quote]Obama’s U-Turn: UN Climate Talks Going Nowhere
Posted on September 7, 2012 by Editor | 6 Comments

After one week of UN climate talks in Thailand, not a single country has made a fresh commitment, and US negotiators stunned delegates by calling for any new treaty to be ‘flexible’ and ‘dynamic’ rather than legally binding, representing a complete U-turn on its previous position.
[/color] The UN climate talks featuring delegates from 190 nations, that have been ongoing for the last week in Bangkok, Thailand, and which conclude today, have produced few concrete results. The talks were happening against a backdrop of record Arctic ice melt, recent flooding in the Philippines, Asam and other areas, recent drought in the US, and an ongoing food crisis in the Sahel.Last December at the Durban COP talks, the world’s nations agreed that they would sign a legally-binding pact to cut emissions and help developing nations adapt to climate change, from 2020. Part of this agreement included a promise to deepen existing promises to cut emissions by the end of the decade. However, after one week of talks in Thailand,
[color=#BF00FF]not a single country [/color]
has made a fresh commitment, and US negotiators stunned delegates by calling for any new treaty to be ‘flexible’ and ‘dynamic’ rather than legally binding, representing a complete U-turn on its previous position.

In response, 130 developing countries sought to put pressure on developed countries by threatening to deny them access to Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) credits, which developed countries use to offset their emissions by financing projects in the poor ones. But this tactic could backfire, as Takehiro Kano, a senior climate negotiator with Japan, said that if they went ahead, Japan’s response might just be to lower its voluntary target of cutting emissions 25% below 1990 levels by 2020, and Justin Lee, Australia’s climate change ambassador, retorted that the Australian government would anyway “take international action that best supports Australia’s domestic initiatives”.[/quote]

And what was the main point of Kyoto? To reduce carbon emissions? Well, let’s see how all the money that was raised did in terms of effectiveness. Hmmmmm not very well… what a surprise… how could a UN-style bureaucratic effort not have achieved success? all while coming at a great cost? I am sure that there is some “elementary” scientific reason for this… how about it? any of our earnest climate change alarmists want to take this one and explain this vast waste of money? After all, this is the CENTRAL plank to your climate change efforts… or have I missed something? Looking forward to the torture logic that will seek to justify these efforts as a “starting point?” or better yet “a building block?” or maybe a plea for understanding along the likes of the following: “Yes, it failed, but we have to start somewhere. We have to start trying to do something?” Let’s see what happens when the usual fools rush in… extra points for those who use “science” in each and every sentence…

The CDM was established under the Kyoto Protocol with the stated aims of reducing the costs of cutting greenhouse gas emissions in industrialized countries, and promoting sustainable development in developing countries. Unfortunately the mechanism has failed to meet either of its goals and is undermining the effectiveness of the Kyoto Protocol.

A significant proportion, perhaps the majority, of CDM credits is from projects that do not actually reduce emissions. When the CDM has lowered emissions in developing countries, it has often been a stunningly expensive process.
[/color]Developers and regulators have rarely made any effort to ensure that CDM projects provide any non-climate benefits. Some projects applying for the CDM are causing serious social and environmental harm. When the CDM does cause a project to be implemented that lowers emissions locally, there is no global climate benefit because the CDM is at best a zero-sum game. Each so-called “emission reduction” generates an offset that allows an industrialized country to keep on polluting, discourages it from investing in innovation and deployment of low-carbon technologies, and slows down the needed rapid transition to an economy compatible with a stable climate. … ow-rez.pdf

Why good oversight and management is required… This appears to be a problem that bedevils almost all efforts on climate change in developing nations not just those managed by the State Department or USAID. This should serve as a warning for similar “well-meaning efforts” in the developing world that may end up being costly but not effective. Can one imagine what a similar investigation into UN agencies would find?

Inadequate oversight, lax bookkeeping, sloppy paperwork, haphazard performance agreements and missing financial documentation
[/color]have plagued U.S. State Department spending of tens of millions of dollars to combat climate change, according to a report by State’s internal financial watchdog — and the problem could be much, much bigger than that.
The audit report, issued last month by the State Department’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG), casts an unflattering spotlight on a relatively obscure branch of the State Department that supervises climate change spending, and depicts it as over-extended in its responsibilities, unstaffed in critical monitoring posts, and [color=#FF0000]
more concerned with spending money than in monitoring its effectiveness

The State Department branch is known as the Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs and its Office of Global Change, or OES/EGC, which have become the nerve center of the Obama administration’s international climate change policy, and the epicenter of its foreign climate change spending, which continues to balloon despite serious economic problems at home. The OIG report points to a host of lapses in the way OES/EGC has supervised climate change spending, based on what the OIG observed in a sampling of climate change projects between 2006 and 2010, when the overall spending tab amounted to some $214 million. The OIG sampling involved $34 million of the total. The picture painted by the OIG report is vigorously disputed by the State Department’s Assistant Secretary for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, Kerri Ann Jones, even as she accepted most of the OIG’s recommendations in her 10-page reply to the audit. Jones took over her post in August 2009, toward the very end of the period examined by the Inspector General’s office. Since then, however, the situation may have gotten worse. For one thing, the Obama administration’s spending on international climate change projects accelerated between 2010, when the OIG report ended its scrutiny, and mid-2012, when the report appeared — and continues today. That spending spree has been based on its commitments at a variety of United Nations-sponsored climate change meetings, including the failed Copenhagen climate change conference in December 2009, and subsequent sessions in Mexico, South Africa and, most recently, the Rio + 20 U.N. summit conference on “sustainable development” in Brazil.

Through that process, the world’s developed countries have committed to spend some $30 billion annually on climate change projects in the developing world, with the U.S. a major contributor. (The first board meeting of a so-called Green Climate Fund that hopes to handle most of that money takes place starting on August 23.) According to a State Department website, the U.S. has contributed some $5.1 billion in climate change funding to developing countries in 2010 and 2011 alone, with additional money still pouring forth in 2012. Among the lapses highlighted by the OIG in its sampling: OIG looked at seven of 19 program grants totaling $34 million, and discovered they contained no specific plans for monitoring the results. As the report demurely noted, “Without comprehensive monitoring of grants, the department may not always have reasonable assurance that federal funds were spent in accordance with the grant award; that the grant recipient performed program activities as dictated in the grant award; and that the program’s indicators, goals and objectives were achieved.” So-called grant oversight officers whose responsibilities included developing the monitoring plans, also failed to provide written reviews of compliance with State Department reporting standards, along with a variety of other financial procedures. In some cases, there apparently weren’t enough oversight officers to go around; when three left their jobs, OIG found evidence that only one was replaced.

Oversight officers apparently didn’t do a lot of overseeing. The OIG discovered that actual visits to climate change sites were rare, and when they occurred, not much effort went into examining the actual paperwork involved. In one series of Indian cases examined by OIG, the officers’ reports “typically summarized meetings held with grantee officials where only the statuses of the programs were discussed.”
Requirements that grant recipients submit quarterly financial statements were apparently ignored, even though procedures called for cutoffs if the statements were not provided. The report cites an unnamed recipient in Hyderabad, India, who got two separate grants totaling $1.1 million: funding continued to be doled out throughout the project, even though the reporting requirements were completely ignored. And in other cases, even when quarterly reports were received, they were often flawed.

The same cavalier attitude toward reporting apparently applied even when projects ended. As the report discreetly puts it, overseers “did not always obtain the final reports needed to ensure that final deliverables were achieved, funds were reconciled, and proper closeout of the project was completed.” One reason for this, apparently, is that reporting requirements for detailed results toward specific indicators — along with general goals and objectives — were not included in any of the seven grants examined by OIG. One of the missing indicators in a number of cases was the actual amount of greenhouse gases removed from the atmosphere by the project. The lack of a written demand for specific, reported results in the case of State Department grants became even more dramatic when the Inspector General’s Office examined another important financing tool, known as a “climate change inter-agency acquisition agreement” — essentially, the employment of another branch of the U.S. government to carry out commitments State has negotiated in areas ranging from defense to health to legal education. The acquisition agreements are common for the State Department, where non-diplomatic expertise can be in short supply. During the period examined by the OIG, State spent three times as much — $115 million — on the agreements, versus $34 million on grants.
If anything, the OIG report says, the quality and quantity of financial and other reporting in the State Department’s hands for such agreements, was even worse than for outright grants.

Among other things: In five acquisition agreements examined by the auditors, none contained the required performance and financial reports “necessary for effective program monitoring in a timely manner.” In four of the five cases, there was “no evidence” that the Bureau of Oceans had designated an oversight officer, as required. Indeed, OIG found evidence that the Bureau had conducted only one site visit — in 2008 — among all the sampled programs that used inter-agency exchange agreements, in this case involving a project carried out by USAID on the bureau’s behalf. In that one case, the report says, the visit “did not include a review of receipts or other documentation for expenditures to substantiate financial progress or a review of documentation that supported performance reports submitted to OES/EGC and that served as evidence that activities had occurred.” The only expenditures OIG could verify in all five inter-agency cases it examined were for travel costs. As the report starkly put it: “OIG was not provided any supporting documentation that could be substantiated for the majority of the recipients’ expenditures.” The report added that there was only “limited evidence” that Bureau of Oceans officials “had requested or reviewed supporting documentation to substantiate assertions made in the reports.”

In one specific case where OIG itself demanded the evidence from the contractor of the project, the only available documentation was the demands for payment from five sub-contractors. “OIG received no documentation to verify the expenses claimed or ensure that only authorized expenditures were charged to the project,” the report declares. But while other U.S. government agencies may have been blurry about their supervision of the money they paid out on State’s behalf to other climate change contractors, they were highly specific — and highly expensive — when it came to the fees they charged for that role. Starting in 2008, the OIG report notes, USAID, the U.S. government’s most active international helping agency, began charging a “General and Administrative Support Overhead Rate” of 23.7 percent for funds it administered under inter-agency agreements, including those in the climate change domain. Thus, on two Indian grants totaling $10.5 million and administered by USAID over two years, the overhead fee was about $2 million. “Thus,” the report notes, “only approximately $8.5 million of the total was budgeted toward the execution of the [climate change] program.”

On examining the problem more closely, however, OIG discovered that the documentation wasn’t there because the Bureau of Oceans didn’t ask for it. The Bureau’s agreements with other agencies to carry out its work “did not include language that required recipients to maintain supporting documentation for financial expenditures and all pertinent achievements for purposes of substantiation.” Or, as Assistant Secretary Jones put it in her letter reviewing the OIG report, when it comes to dealing with other Federal agencies, her Bureau provides only “guidance” on the details of performance reporting, while the agencies “are not required to perform project related accounting and are not subject to overhead auditing procedures. Overall, a State Department spokesman assured Fox News, in response to questions, the Bureau of Oceans is taking the OIG report and all its recommendations “seriously,” and is “working closely with the [State] Department in the development and implementation of new policies and procedures.” The catch, however, is that in her letter, Jones promised to change many things more specifically — but only after officials located deeper in the State Department’s labyrinthine bureaucracy come up with “standardized policies for inter-agency agreements.” And that could involve a much bigger problem. In discussing the lack of documentation with State Department officials early this year, OIG discovered that there are apparently no rules demanding that every part of the State Department handle and account for such inter-agency spending in the same way. And that includes “procedures for reviewing and approving agreements to ensure compliance with Federal and [State] Department requirements.”

The catch, therefore, is that OIG’s discovery about the Bureau of Oceans’ quirky and sometimes non-existent standards could be true across the entire State Department when it comes to inter-agency spending. Or, as the inspector general’s report delicately put it, the accounting problems with climate change may “signify a Department-wide shortcoming, as inter-agency agreements may not be efficiently and effectively administered and managed in the areas of policy application, review and approval, and overall program management.” That could mean discrepancies could involve much bigger bucks than have been examined so far, and well beyond the area of climate change. According to OIG, in fiscal 2010 and 2011 alone, the State Department transferred some $4.6 billion to other U.S. agencies to perform work on its behalf, ranging from USAID ($968 million) to Defense (1.358 billion) to Justice ($558 million).

Read more: … z23iZ74k4d[/quote]