Bernie Sanders who, believe it or not, is actually a
2016 Democrat presidential candidate for president, is also actually one of
those people who still believes that global warming represents the greatest
threat to America’s national security, rehashing the stance taken by any number
of Democrat politicians in recent years as part of an ongoing effort to
perpetuate the myth that carbon dioxide emissions are somehow much more
dangerous to this country than are the Muslim terrorists who are quite intent
upon killing anyone who refuses to take part in their violent and perverted
little cult. Even though I don’t seem recall
a single instance where it’s been climate change that’s blown up anyone sitting
in a café.
So it was then on the day after the last Democrat
‘debate’, and I use the term loosely, that we saw Bernie go on CBS’ ‘Face the
Nation and essentially double-down on the rather idiotic remarks that he had
made just the night before. Bernie said,
“If we are going to see an increase in drought, in flood, and extreme weather
disturbances as a result of climate change, what that means is that people all
over the world are going to be fighting over limited natural resources.” How is it that any rational thinking human
being, Republican or Democrat, could hear such drivel and remain of the opinion
that the person who uttered it should be considered as being a viable candidate
for president?
And, apparently, old Bernie was nowhere near being
finished, having much more to say on the topic to anyone willing to listen. Because he continued on with his juvenile
little rant saying, “If there is not enough water, if there is not enough land
to grow your crops, then you’re going to see migrations of people fighting over
land that will sustain them. And that will lead to international
conflict.” But to be fair to Bernie,
he’s far from being the only liberal politician, nor the only Democrat
candidate, to try to make the cockamamie connection between terrorism and the
climate. Sanders’ primary opponents
Hitlery Clinton and Marty O’Malley have also repeated this very same insane
argument.
Even Barry “Almighty” himself has said on any number
of occasions how it is that global warming is the U.S.’s greatest national
security threat. And it was in a speech
back in October that John Kerry Heinz, a longtime advocate of ‘climate change’,
said, “It is not a coincidence that immediately prior to the civil war in
Syria, the country experienced the worst drought on record.” And while all of these losers acknowledge
“terrorism is a major issue that we’ve got to address today,” they still name
carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels represent the greatest long-term
threat to Americans. And you have to ask
yourself, what does it say about the voters in this country that we now have these
corrupt imbeciles in their current positions?
And it was during the same previously mentioned Democrat
‘debate’ that also heard Sanders also say, “In fact, climate change is directly
related to the growth of terrorism.” He went on to say, “And if we do not get
our act together and listen to what the scientists say you’re gonna see
countries all over the world– this is what the C.I.A. says, they’re gonna be
struggling over limited amounts of water, limited amounts of land to grow their
crops. And you’re gonna see all kinds of international conflict.” And yet those in our state-controlled media can
hear such nonsense and can continue to feel justified in calling into question
the legitimacy of Republican candidates? Nope, no bias here.
But seriously folks, how can it be intelligently
argued that global warming is actually what’s driving Islamic terrorism? And to simply bolster support for a U.N.
climate treaty misses the point entirely of whether global warming is a driver
of violent conflict. And yet it was the
liberal rag, ‘Time’ magazine that recently came rushing to Sanders’ defense,
arguing that “many academics and national security experts agree that climate
change contributes to an uncertain world where terrorism can thrive.” And it
was Time’s Justin Worland who went so far as to point to a 2014 Defense
Department report and another study published in the Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences earlier this year to bolster such claims.
This guy Worland made clear his political
affiliation when he wrote, “The worst drought on record in the Middle Eastern
country has created instability for farmers and threatened the food supply.”
And he also went on to write, “At the same time, the government has struggled
to hold on to power across the country in the face of militant groups and
millions of Syrians have fled their homeland.”
If anything, this guy proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that he, just like
most of those who so proudly identify themselves as journalists today, is far
from being an actual journalist and is nothing more than an shill for the
Democrat Party. I’d be willing to be
that a good many ‘journalists’ are actually on the payroll of the DNC.
Look, even the bona fide experts say that it remains
very much unclear if global warming actually has had any detectable impact on
Syria’s climate in the run-up to the start of the civil war in 2011. Syria has a very long history of droughts, and
poor government agricultural policies encouraged farmers to grow cotton and
other water-intensive cash crops — despite the country’s drought-ridden
past. But it would seem that none of
that makes any difference to our climate change alarmists who really come
across as nothing more than desperate as they try to attach global warming to
every new global calamity that presents itself, no matter how ridiculous.
Chip Knappenberger and Patrick Michaels, climate
scientists at the libertarian Cato Institute, wrote back in March: “It is not
until you dig pretty deep into the technical scientific literature, that you
find out that the anthropogenic climate change impact on drought conditions in
the Fertile Crescent is extremely minimal and tenuous—so much so that it is
debatable as to whether it is detectable at all.” They also wrote: Drought “conditions which
are part and parcel of the region climate and the intensity and frequency of
which remain dominated by natural variability, even in this era of increasing
greenhouse gas emissions from human activities.”
While a drought no doubt made things worse for
Syrians, contributing to rising tensions, the cause of conflicts almost always
stem from politics and not environmental causes. National security expert Jeff
Kueter with the George C. Marshall Institute wrote in a 2014 paper that
“[p]olitical and economic factors prove to be much better and more compelling
explanations for men to fight other men.”
Claims that global warming will drive more violent conflict also hinges
on the argument that warming will cause extreme weather events, like droughts,
to become more frequent and intense. But
that doesn’t seem to be occurring like climate models predicted.
And according to the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC), a scientific intergovernmental body that operates under
the auspices of the United Nations, and was set up at the request of member
governments and was established in 1988, found in its latest major report
there’s no strong evidence extreme weather is getting more frequent or extreme.
The IPCC said “there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low
confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness since the
middle of the 20th century due to lack of direct observations, geographical
inconsistencies in the trends, and dependencies of inferred trends on the index
choice.”
Look, what this all boils down to is an interesting
little fact that was brought to light by a recent Fox News poll. You see, it
was in that poll that 24 percent of those taking part identified terrorism as being
their primary issue regarding the next election while only 3 percent said they
were most worried about climate change.
So might that be why Democrats are working so hard to make a connection
between the two? There seems to very
little that can occur in this world that Democrats don’t see as being somehow
associated with climate change, no matter how remotely that association might
be. Today’s Democrats are nothing more
than real life ‘Chicken Littles.’ And as
the election get closer the rhetoric will only get more intense.
No comments:
Post a Comment