> Blah blah blah, announcements of a plan to create a committee to create a committee. You're willfully ignoring things I wrote up there to paint a very dishon

> Blah blah blah, announcements of a plan to create a committee to create a committee. You're willfully ignoring things I wrote up there to paint a very dishonest narrative. > Every year, the President’s budget continues to invest in the crucial programs that will keep the United States at the forefront of clean energy research, development, and deployment. Read this -- research into clean energy requires funding from the federal government. Much like the moonshots projects in the 60s in space and defense, we need something similar in a way that's not entirely dependent on the Wall Street markets (who are focused on short term gains). Don't you think this is much better and actionable than a committee? > And solar grew because it got massively cheaper. Guess what, it'll continue to grow under Trump. Why can't Obama claim credit for that? Do you think it would have happened independently of his administration's viewpoints on solar? No doubt, if he holds status quo, solar will continue to grow at the same or higher pace. But if he subsidizes coal further, I would be skeptical. But we will know whether your prediction was true or not in a few years time. > Don't get me wrong, I did vote for Obama I'm not getting you wrong, you're getting me wrong. You're just dismissing reasonable conversation. And you voting for Obama doesn't give you a blank cheque to parade inarticulate arguments nor does it give you the freedom to cherrypick what you liked and disliked about his election. > http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/09/politics/supreme-court-obama-epa-climate-change/ http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/09/politics/supreme-court-obama-e... Read that. His administration has been hampered by Republicans on partisan lines from 2010, and maybe even day 1 depending on whom you ask. Don't get me wrong, I welcome criticism about his transparency, whistleblower treatment, and spying.