Good Lord, Sanders blames terrorism on climate change...
- Thread starter millhawk
- Start date
Wow, OP! This is D-U-M-B, dumb! Stop reading news on your right wing freak sites.
That's an interesting concept. Can one be a worshiper of a thing they don't know about? I'll take the negative in that debate.
Agreed. As was his and the other yahoo's statement on changing our military because the cold war is over and it's a new world, and so our military should be reorganized to fight terrorism. And that there is no need for armored divisions, etc.... News flash Bernie and other idiot, the cold war may have technically ended years ago, but recent actions and build up by Putan, and the Chinese makes me believe we need to be able to fight all threats that may face us down the road.
At least Hillary mention the South China Sea and Putan with her response.
This was a direct quote from the debate, not from a "right wing" freak sites. Idiot.
“In fact, climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism,” said Sanders.
The notion that global warming is causing an increase in extreme weather events is dubious at best. There have always been floods, fires, droughts, storms, etc., etc., and there always will be. Then to take from that the MASSIVE LEAP to claim people will commit more terrorism due to increases in extreme weather caused by global warming is... well, it's simply breathtaking in its stupidity.
It's like playing six degrees of global warming instead of Kevin Bacon. Bet you can get to a direct relation by degree 3 or 4 most of the time.
It's like playing six degrees of global warming instead of Kevin Bacon. Bet you can get to a direct relation by degree 3 or 4 most of the time.
That climate change could mess with water and food supply in regions and lead to increased turmoil?
I went short, and didn't do an as a result of in there. You are kind of a joker little gotcha guy aren't ya?
The right does ignore facts. It doubts "settled science" when they change data to get preferred out comes. Sanders did say it's a bigger threat than terrorism
Apparently the wingers on here aren't able to understand the nuanced difference.
It's absolutely a bigger threat. Larger hurricanes, more intense droughts, lost coastal land, all of these can and will wreak more havoc than any terrorist could.
Yawn. There's no proof of any of that. Even if somewhat true, warming world is not nothing but bad news. In fact, global warming will have many benefits.
Climate change has done more good than harm so far and is likely to continue doing so for most of this century. This is not a right-wing fantasy; it is the consensus of expert opinion. Yet almost nobody seems to know this, says British scientist and journalist Matt Ridley.
- The chief benefits of global warming include: fewer winter deaths; lower energy costs; better agricultural yields; probably fewer droughts; maybe richer biodiversity.
- It is a little-known fact that winter deaths exceed summer deaths.
- Overall, Tol finds that climate change in the past century improved human welfare.
- He calculates the improvement has been 1.4 percent of global economic output, rising to 1.5 percent by 2025.
- For some people, this means the difference between survival and starvation.
Even polar bears are thriving so far. It's worth noting that the three years with the lowest polar bear cub survival in the western Hudson Bay (1974, 1984 and 1992) were the years when the sea ice was too thick for ringed seals to appear in good numbers in spring. Bears need broken ice.
Building wind turbines, growing biofuels and substituting wood for coal in power stations -- all policies designed explicitly to fight climate change -- have had negligible effects on carbon dioxide emissions. But they have driven people into fuel poverty, made industries uncompetitive, driven up food prices, accelerated the destruction of forests, killed rare birds of prey, and divided communities.
So we are doing real harm now to impede a change that will produce net benefits for 70 years.
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=23746
That we don't need armored division in our military anymore and that we need to retool the military to fight today's threats. I'll give you a hint: Hillary didn't agree with him. This ought to be interesting.
Maybe that could get jobs at Solyndra.
Throw in a sweet Prius for aspiring terrorists and I think we have a winning plan.
It's not really a tough concept. You are what you do, not what you say you are.
That's not how worship works. Worship is all about the word; the logos. Deed often has little to do with worship.
Soup does. Prime does. Strumm sometimes does. That new Red Warrior guy might. This movement is well represented here.
As would any sensible, well informed person.
About not needing armored divisions anymore. Already asked, but apparently, you can't read?
I'm curious...do you believe the atmosphere is warming? Forget about the cause...do you deny the actual measured warming?
Have you stopped beating your wife?
Yes, it appears atmospheric temps have risen a little bit. But the climate has always been in a constant state of change. Wrecking economies in pursuit of achieving a "carbon neutral" world would come with absolutely no guarantee that temps will stop rising.
See...you went off the rails there. So let's get back to the essential question. You acknowledge GW. That's good...it's progress.
Do you understand that as the atmosphere warms it will cause climates to change? Do you also acknowledge that?
