“The winter was too cold, the summer not hot enough, and now comes an autumn of discontent for apple growers. Due to last year’s cold winter and cold, wet and late spring, the quality and quantity of our apples are not as good as last year. It’s a very touchy subject.”
Yeah, I'll bet, what with all the fart-mi$ters screaming global warming.
"Gubernatorial rivals spar over child agency, health care; Coakley, Baker stand by their records in TV debate" by Michael Levenson | Globe Staff October 08, 2014
Democrat Martha Coakley and Republican Charlie Baker were more combative in their second debate, quarreling pointedly Tuesday night over the state’s troubled child protection system and spiraling health care costs.
The hourlong debate exposed some of the rising tensions that have animated the race since a pro-Baker super PAC launched a blistering ad accusing Coakley of failing to protect abused children in the state’s Department of Children and Families.
Coakley, who has strongly denounced the ad, repeatedly pointed to her work as a prosecutor who handled child abuse cases and accused Baker of presiding over cuts to the child welfare system when he was state budget chief in the 1990s.
“When your administration was . . . cutting budgets, we were seeing the uptick in those cases in the child abuse unit where I worked in Middlesex County,” she said.
******************
The independent candidates were positioned at the edge of the stage, reflecting how the race has become a contest between the Republican and Democratic candidates who are essentially tied in the polls with fewer than four weeks remaining in the race....
Glad the Globe decided who was an important and serious candidate for us. I thought that was our job as voters, but....
Lively railed against abortion, illegal immigration, and big government. But he was largely ignored....
Yup, he's definitely my guy.
--more--"
Related: Stand-ins prepare Baker, Coakley for debate season
How about a stand-in for the actual job?
"Environmentalists recall changes in Baker’s position on climate change" by David Abel | Globe Staff October 08, 2014
During his last campaign for governor, Charlie Baker met with several of the state’s most prominent environmental advocates for a nonpartisan briefing at his campaign headquarters.
The advocates say the meeting with Baker in 2010 turned tense quickly, as the Republican candidate held forth in front of a whiteboard on why he believed climate change was not the result of human causes, a view at odds with most climate scientists.
“I was stunned, as I believed him to be a bright fellow,” said Jack Clarke, director of public policy at Mass Audubon, the largest and oldest conservation group in New England. “However, he said there were those smarter than he that convinced him.”
The environmentalists have generally supported Democratic candidates, many of whom share their positions on climate change. What they say Baker said four years ago is now resurfacing as voters parse his record and his statements in his campaign against Attorney General Martha Coakley for the state’s top office.
PFFFFFFT!
Baker said he has a very different memory of the meeting, and recalls saying that “we should reduce our carbon footprint.” His campaign points to an interview he gave shortly after the meeting with the advocates, in which he said that scientists agree global temperatures are rising and “it’d probably be a good idea to do something about that.”
Go eat an apple.
Baker has struck a markedly different tone this campaign, even agreeing, at least in broad terms, with Coakley, the Democratic nominee, on many major environmental issues. And he now says that humans are contributing to climate change.
But his comments during the private briefing on environmental issues in 2010 suggest his views were more conservative than previously reported.
The environmental advocates who provided the account to the Globe all believe strongly that humans are contributing to climate change. And they gave similar accounts of the meeting in separate interviews with a Globe reporter.
Science doesn't require belief.
George Bachrach, president of the Environmental League of Massachusetts, said, “He was more eager to prove us wrong than hear our positions, on the causes of climate change, the costs. He referenced the 1 percent of climate scientists that doubt the man-made causes of climate change. We found that startling.”
You know what 1% has my attention, right? That was over three horrible winters ago.
Sue Reid, former director of the Boston-based Conservation Law Foundation, and John Rogers, a senior energy analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists in Cambridge, also attended the meeting and said they, too, were surprised by Baker’s adamant views about climate change.
“Mr. Baker didn’t seem to have a strong understanding of climate science or the facts about renewable energy,” Rogers said.
Tim Buckley, a spokesman for the Baker campaign, dismissed the advocates as partisans and rebutted their account....
--more--"
There is environmental debate on Wednesday and I will be sure to miss it.
"Republican Charlie Baker and Democrat Martha Coakley now agree on core environmental issues, but both support providing tax credits to promote renewable energy; and both view natural gas as a bridge to a future when the state can rely more on renewable energy. Both remain open to expanding existing pipelines, though both said they would be reluctant to approve projects such as one controversial proposal that would extend a pipeline from shale gas fields in Pennsylvania to Dracut. Baker said he now believes humans are causing climate change, [and] no longer opposes Cape Wind. He called it a “done deal.” There are still differences."
Uh-huh.
Related:
The edge goes to Charlie Baker
Running from the ‘R’ word
Jack Connors raises $200,000 for Charlie Baker
That i$ what i$ going to decide thing$.
NEXT DAY UPDATES:
"Problems past and present in the state child welfare system have suddenly become the main flashpoint in the governor’s race. Democrat Martha Coakley and Republican Charlie Baker are attacking one another’s records for failing to strengthen the child protection system and allowing problems to fester. But a closer look at some of their statements in debates Tuesday night and Wednesday morning reveal that both are glossing over facts and omitting key contextual information, offering voters just a sliver of the truth — or even distorting it — to bolster their arguments."
The Globe gives you the claims and backstories as they booster their arguments, even though I thought the debate last night(?) was about environment.
Also see: Charlie Baker and the ‘compassion deficit’
