uring the recent presidential debate, Hillary Clinton returned to the same line we’ve been fed for eight years: there’s an economic boom waiting in the Green Economy.

No, there isn’t. In Part 3 of this 6 part series, Bill takes apart Hillary’s energy plans and examines the consequences to the planet.

Transcript below:

CLINTON: Take clean energy. Some country is going to be the clean- energy superpower of the 21st century.

And here’s what we can do. We can deploy a half a billion more solar panels. We can have enough clean energy to power every home. We can build a new modern electric grid. That’s a lot of jobs; that’s a lot of new economic activity.

Wait. Didn’t President Obama promise us unlimited prosperity from this new Green economy eight years ago? And four years ago?

In fact, didn’t President Obama take $500 million dollars of taxpayer money – that’s five hundred MILLION dollars of YOUR MONEY, and give it to a solar cell company called Solyndra? And didn’t $500 million of our dollars go poof! after Solyndra then went bankrupt? Your party is so financially stupid that you poured money into a company that went bankrupt AFTER you stole $500 million from the American people to prop it up.

Solyndra went bankrupt because your entire idea is bankrupt. Renewables do not scale up to even 5% of our total energy needs because we need energy at night and on cloudy days and on days with no wind. The giant IVAN-pah solar plant outside of Las Vegas, heavily touted by your party’s President, sucked up another one thousand, five hundred million dollars of taxpayer money, and now we find that it is not able to run without continued subsidies? Why? Because the electricity generated by the giant IVAN-pah solar plant in Nevada costs about $200 / megawatt-hour, compared to $35 / megawatt-hour for clean burning natural gas.

What’s much worse than these taxpayer-funded experiments in economic failure is that you Democrats do everything in your power to prevent access cheap American energy: you won’t let us build new nuclear plants using abundant, melt-down proof thorium; and you won’t let us mine the coal under our feet, or drill for the oil under our feet, or frack the natural gas under our feet. Cheap, abundant ENERGY costs in America would combat the cheap, abundant LABOR costs of places like China, but despite your talk you don’t care about bringing jobs back to America.

Instead, you say we have to commit economic suicide, and condemn generations of people and entire cities to poverty and crime and hopelessness because of “climate change.” So let’s talk a little bit about undisputed historical data, and not computer models that have to be constantly readjusted to comply with reality.

Near the end of the Cretaceous period – let’s say 80 million years ago – the center of what is now the US – Kansas – was not two inches underwater, or two feet underwater, or twenty feet, or two hundred feet. Eighty million years ago Kansas was under TWO THOUSAND FEET of water because the polar caps had completely melted. Current CO2 levels are about 400 parts per million. Back then CO2 was not ten percent higher, but A THOUSAND PERCENT higher, at about 4000ppm. There were ferns and trees and pterodactyls and plesiosaurs. IN KANSAS.

That was 80 million years ago. 80 THOUSAND years ago, that same spot in Kansas was not under two thousand feet of water but rather under 10,000 feet of ice. Imagine a jetliner flying over Kansas, and now imagine solid ice that went ONE THIRD of the way to that airplane.

Whose coal plants and SUV’s and private jets caused this “climate change?”

I’ll wait.

Earth’s atmosphere has negative feedback mechanisms that stabilize temperatures, because if it didn’t it would have burned to a cinder or frozen solid a billion years ago.

I agree with this work and I’ll add my own — here is a link to my support of the Science being used is bad.

Analysis of Global Temperature Trends, August, 2016, what’s really going on with the Climate?