Hillary Clinton – Delingpole World

What the Greenies Don’t Want You to Know About the California Wildfires

What is the cause of the devastating fires in California which have killed more than 40 people, destroyed or damaged more than 5000 buildings, with an estimated financial loss running into the tens of billions of dollars?
Climate change, of course!

Well, at least it is if you believe all the usual suspects.

Here’s Al Gore, trying to pin it on “global warming” while simultaneously promoting the renewables interests that have made him so disgustingly rich:

“All over the West we’re seeing these fires get much, much worse,” Gore said, noting that a number of factors contribute to this. “The underlying cause is the heat.”
[…] “The heart of it is that we still depend on fossil fuels,” Gore said.

Here’s another failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton:

“It’s been a tough couple of weeks with hurricanes and earthquakes and now these terrible fires,” Clinton told an audience at the University of California, Davis while promoting her new book “What Happened.”

“So in addition to expressing our sympathy, we need to really come together to try to work to prevent and mitigate, and that starts with acknowledging climate change and the role that it plays in exacerbating such events,” Clinton said, according to First Coast News.

Here’s Jacques Leslie in the LA Times.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Weinstein Is a Model of Liberal Values

Of all the sordid details to emerge thus far from the burgeoning Harvey Weinstein scandal, there’s one that creeps me out above all else.
No, I don’t mean the potted plant jerk-off scene, or the shower jerk-off scenes or the scene where he sits jerking off to some rare nude footage of Meg Ryan…

I mean the one right near the beginning of the scandal, where he announced how he was going to make everything better:

“I am going to need a place to channel my anger so I’ve decided I’m going to give the NRA my full attention.”

Let us pause awhile to relish that moment, because I don’t think history will ever provide us with a better example of what’s wrong not just with Hollywood in particular, but with liberalism in general. Let us bathe in the truly Augean disgustingness, the moral bankruptcy of Wankstain’s message to a world which he has personally done so much to deprave, demean and debase.

What Weinstein is saying, basically is this:

Read the rest at Breitbart.

It’s Tough Being the Only British Journalist Who’s Right about Everything

The Donald’s disbelief in global warming is not some wind-up stunt: it’s going to be a core part of his programme.

So I made £250 betting on Trump to win the presidency. It would have been more, except that every time I got close to topping up my stake, this boring, mimsy, responsible voice in my head kept saying: ‘Now, now James. Don’t be silly. All your sensible friends who know much, much more than you do about politics have been telling you that President Trump just isn’t going to happen.’

One of them was m’learned colleague Toby Young. Until recently we used to do a podcast together. Because it was partly aimed at a US audience, we’d usually chat about the presidential race and I’d go into my crazy spiel about why Trump was the only sane choice; and Toby would patiently explain how silly this was because Trump wanted to disband Nato and we’d probably end up with the third world war.

Toby has now got himself a proper job (working for an education charity), as have most of my journalistic contemporaries. Of late, I’ve begun to feel like the pilled-up, grey-haired rave casualty on the dance floor who hasn’t quite accepted that the party’s over. There I am, persuading myself that I’m the last of the breed, fearlessly relaying truth to power when all the rest have fled the field. But maybe the truth is — or so I’ve sometimes wondered in my darker moments — that I’m just a puerile contrarian raging against reality, when what I should really have done is embraced Remain and rooted for Hillary, like all my more sophisticated friends at places like the Economist, the Times and the Financial Times.

Instead, look at what happened! No, I can’t believe it either — it feels so weird and unnatural I almost want a rerun. Not only was I in the journalistic minority of being right about Brexit, but I was in the even tinier minority of being right about Trump. Maybe it wasn’t such a totally lunatic thing taking that contract with Breitbart, after all.

Breitbart, as you’re probably now aware, is the right-wing US website which can more or less claim ownership of Donald Trump’s victory. Until last week, they were derided by the left-liberal media as being quite beyond the pale of civilised discussion because of their shockingly rude stories about feminists and Islamists and Black Lives Matter activists. Even one or two conservative friends advised me that I’d be tainting myself by association with such a fringe organisation.

What I replied to these kind friends was: ‘One — you clearly don’t understand what’s happening to the media. Fat fees and fantastical expenses have gone. To earn a living you have to go where the money is. And increasingly that ain’t on what’s left of Fleet Street.

Read the rest at the Spectator.

Donald Trump Will Make a Much More Eco-Friendly President Than Hillary Clinton

DOMINICK REUTER/AFP/Getty Images

A Donald Trump presidency would be way more beneficial to the environment than a Hillary Clinton presidency.

Trump really needs to mention this point at his rallies, not just for the trolling, but also because it happens to be true.

Consider just one example: the hundreds of thousands of rare birds and endangered bats slaughtered in the US every year by the wind farms that Hillary Clinton applauds (and will no doubt go on subsidising) and that Donald Trump loathes (and will no doubt starve of subsidies and cause to become as extinct as the Dodo).

As the Daily Beast recently noted, Trump’s hatred of wind farms is probably the most consistent and long-standing of all his political convictions.

Trump does have a point. If you care about flying wildlife, bat-chomping, bird-slicing eco-crucifixes really are about the most pointlessly destructive form of power generation there is – as a series of recent studies show.

These ones specifically concern bats – one of the world’s most fragile species, carefully protected by large bodies of legislation.

And with good reason, as Oxford University ecologist Clive Hambler explains here:

Bats are what is known as K-selected species: they reproduce very slowly, live a long time and are easy to wipe out. Having evolved with few predators — flying at night helps — bats did very well with this strategy until the modern world. This is why they are so heavily protected by so many conventions and regulations: the biggest threats to their survival are made by us.

And the worst threat of all right now is wind turbines. A recent study in Germany by the Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research showed that bats killed by German turbines may have come from places 1,000 or more miles away. This would suggest that German turbines — which an earlier study claims kill more than 200,000 bats a year — may be depressing populations across the entire northeastern portion of Europe. Some studies in the US have put the death toll as high as 70 bats per installed megawatt per year: with 40,000 MW of turbines currently installed in the US and Canada. This would give an annual death toll of up to three -million.

Why is the public not more aware of this carnage? First, because the wind industry (with the shameful complicity of some ornithological organisations) has gone to great trouble to cover it up — to the extent of burying the corpses of victims. Second, because the ongoing obsession with climate change means that many environmentalists are turning a blind eye to the ecological costs of renewable energy. What they clearly don’t appreciate — for they know next to nothing about biology — is that most of the species they claim are threatened by ‘climate change’ have already survived 10 to 20 ice ages, and sea-level rises far more dramatic than any we have experienced in recent millennia or expect in the next few centuries. Climate change won’t drive those species to extinction; well-meaning environmentalists might.

Like a lot of true nature lovers – as opposed to the environmental industry’s numerous watermelons: green on the outside, red on the inside – Hambler is extremely concerned about the wind farm threat to wildlife.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Exposed: The Green Activists Who Cooked up the RICO Conspiracy against Big Oil

Reuters/Jason Reed

Big Oil is the new Big Tobacco and must be destroyed in the courts on RICO charges. This is the latest big idea in environmental circles – and it didn’t come from nowhere. It was in fact the invention of a tiny group of innocuous-looking green activists at a workshop three years ago in California.

Before I reveal their identities, let me give you some examples of just how successful they have been.

Hillary Clinton has called for an investigation into what Exxon really knew about climate change. (By weird coincidence, this came just after Exxon stopped funding an organization called the Clinton Foundation).

Sheldon Whitehouse and three other Democrat senators have written to Exxon accusing it of supporting “climate denial” and “anti-climate policy advocacy.”

A bunch of climate alarmist scientists have written to President Obama urging him to use RICO legislation against corporations which may “knowingly have deceived the American people about the risks of climate change.” (Though they’ve been a bit less vocal since one of their number got himself embroiled in the “largest science scandal in US history”)

Two separate journalistic investigations have claimed that Exxon’s scientists “knew” about the threat of global warming as early as the late 70s and that the company is guilty of some kind of cover up. Now Scientific American has jumped on the bandwagon too.

It’s all mendacious nonsense, as I explain here. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that unscrupulous lawyers, shyster politicians and green NGOs won’t go ahead and seize this flimsy excuse to intensify their war on capitalism in the guise of concern about the environment. Exxon, for example, may have no case to answer. But that won’t stop its operations, its reputation and its share value being seriously disrupted by a potential lawsuit, however ill-founded and vexatious.

Read the rest at Breitbart.