the Clinton news network strikes out again

AKA: Communist News Network.

CNN already lost viewership due to its yellow journalism, plus this town hall was just scary. Elizabeth Warren wants to impose a "no carbon footprint," which would completely kill the economy and make the US a 3rd world nation. Unless you can live like the Amish, you're toast. This woman's ideas are simply off the rails, and the other candidates here are not far behind.

What a joke.

I am amazed at how many actually believe humans have something to do with the climate. Humans couldn't affect it if we tried. Then why the hoopla? The whackos have enough people who buy into it now, by teaching the hoax in govt-run schools for 20 yrs. Now they are running with it, the redistribution of your money by congress.

Bingo! Stupid is as stupid does!

I think that Craig Bannister is very shallow in diminishing the climate change interviews into who gets the highest ratings. This is not a topic to be reduced to a viewer rating. This was a venue for seriously concerned potential leaders of our country.to express their opinions on possible solutions to the climate change problem. Even our military leaders are concerned with this crisis.

It's the height of arrogance to think that humans can change the climate of Earth~~ either for bad or good! CO2 is necessary for life on Earth. I can't believe how ridiculous these people are who think CO2 is bad. We've got to have it for the plants to breathe. If the plants don't have CO2 to breathe, they die. If the plants die we have no O2 and we die. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out.

Hello DrBarbara
I think you are oversimplifying. Sure we need CO2, but most scientists who study this issue have come to the conclusion that to much of CO2 and other "greenhouse" gases are contributing to an increase in temperature that will lead to dire consequences if solutions are not found. I understand that there are scientists who have not arrived at the same conclusions and consequently it has become a political issue. I do think it takes rocket (climate) scientists to figure this out. Even our military take this very seriously.

The only thing wrong with your thinking is that the Earth's temperature is not rising. It hasn't risen in a decade.

I guess we both buy into what resonates with us.

The solution is easy because the problem is a hoax.

CO2 has nothing to do with our warming. The warming is caused by natural forces.

Botanists and health workers can replace climatologists to deal with its increase

The United States Department of Defense recognizes the reality of climate change and the significant risk it poses to U.S. interests globally.

Zing! Love it.

funny

No one mentions the most scary thing talked about -- Senator Sanders said he would convince the people (not the leaders) of the other countries to stop spending on military and stop trying to fight each other and to start spending all that money on the danger that unites us -- global climate change. A good part of the $16 trillion Senator Sanders proposes to spend on climate change will come from our military budget.
I do not know why no one mentions that. By the way, Senator Sanders also said the same thing on the Rachael Maddow show a few weeks ago. She asked him would the leaders agree and he said he would convince all the worlds citizens to confront our main problem -- climate change.

He also wants to stop climate change by aborting babies the world over. He is a total Communist.

Mann and his hockey stick recently lost a Canadian court case. Mann must pay Dr. Tim Ball's legal expenses. Several years ago Mann brought the suit, after Ball, a climatologist, apparently referred to Mann’s “work” as fraudulent.

There were several earlier global warmings during this interglacial period, and each was also likely at least as warm as it is now. And co2 had NOTHING to do with any of these earlier global warmings since all were before co2 began increasing. Each warming was obviously caused by natural forces, so why are alarmists so certain that our current warming (such as it is) was instead caused by co2 increase?

Instead of considering this historical data, the alarmist computer models ASSUME that co2 increase causes warming. At least some of the co2 increase was brought on by human activity, so claiming humans are responsible certainly makes the climate science more interesting (and powerful) but does that claim have anything to do with reality? There is no evidence that co2 has ever had any impact on our global temperature, even over geologic periods when co2 was 10 to 20 times higher than now. The only justification is not only a lie but an argument which appeals to ignorance "there's been nothing like this before....".

A rational approach to modeling the climate strongly indicates that past history be considered rather than resorting to pure speculation that co2, a trace gas, is causing our current warming.

The alarmists brushed off these earlier global warmings, apparently believing that these were not global. However, there was some uncertainty since one of their members, Dr. Phil Jones (Univ. of East Anglia), stated publicly, that if the MWP was global and at least as warm as now then it was a “different ballgame”. Why didn't he bother checking? It is not difficult to demonstrate that the most recent past warming, the Medieval Warming Period, (about 1,000 years-ago) was global and at least as warm as it is now.

https://principia-scientifi...

But the alarmists went a step further, compounding their theory with additional speculation, namely the ASSUMPTION that water vapor feedback was the actual culprit, causing 2 to 3 times the temperature increase as brought on by the co2 increase.

Why would any rational scientist rely on co2 speculation to project future temperatures when there is historical data showing that co2 was not involved? Worse, why deny the historical data? Where are the considerations about the fact that co2 has already doubled 8 times (40% since 1800s) and we know that the supposed impact by co2 on temperature dissipates rapidly as co2 level increases?

Henrik Svensmark and his associates have come forth with a theory (back in the 90s, as I recall) where co2 is not even a consideration. Svensmark’s theory involves cosmic rays modulated by solar activity which influences cloud cover. (CERN has long since quietly validated that cosmic rays can influence cloud cover.) We are apparently entering a period of low sun activity and if this low activity lasts for sufficiently long a forthcoming cooling is expected. (LOL. Al Gore is now (presumably unrelated to Svensmark theory), predicting "bitter cold".

Hello Dennis Ables
What is your take on the fact that the United States Department of Defense recognizes climate change as a fact and is preparing for it?

ignorance

Fair enough, 1st amendment rights allows you to bash the military.

If true, very sad.

OK so where is the push back? Fox News should have their own “climate” program. Let’s get together all of the climate change “experts” and have a REAL two sided debate.
Would love to see Joe Bastardi and professor Lindzen at MIT on the panel.

Add Patrick Moore to that discussion.

https://youtu.be/BpBnJq19R60

I would say that it is not a 2 sided debate. The vast majority of climatologists and those in associated scientific fields support climate change. Like having a 2 sided debate between those who believe the earth is flat and those who believe the earth is a sphere. Even the United States Department of Defense recognizes climate change.

The vast majority of climatologists support climate change because if they didn't they would loose all those LIE-beral demon-communist-cRAT grants they so heavily depend on.

Where do the scientists who disagree get their grants?

Climate Alarmist I see.
No need to have an actual debate because your view is all that matters, right?

The actual debate is ongoing in peer reviewed science journals by scientists. The rest of us pick political sides.

Those so-called science journals are run by LIE-berals, all of whom have an agenda.

Whats your agenda?

So what happens to the scientists who have a view that differs from the whole Sky is Falling group of scientists?

If you are not on the Man Made Climate Change bandwagon, you are ostracized and mocked. It is heresy to disagree with the science community that bows at the alter of the Climate Change Ideology.

https://youtu.be/OwqIy8Ikv-c
https://youtu.be/RkdbSxyXftc
https://youtu.be/qZN2jt2cCU4

So what happens to the scientists who have a view that differs from the whole Sky is Falling group of scientists? I think that one of them ( Dr. Richard Lindzen ) convinced our president to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord. It is my hope that the scientific community will continue to study the issue and convey accurate findings to the public and that it is not totally taken over by politics. Fortunately both of us can hold our opposite beliefs and try to convince the other but only time will tell.

It is my hope that the scientific community will continue to study the issue.."

But I thought the science was settled? If it is settled, then why do we need to continue to spend millions of dollars to study the issue?

Well obviously you don't think it is settled. Science is an ongoing study. The more we know the better we are able to figure out effective solutions. Science is always exploring more deeply how things work.

You are correct...I do not think the science is settled. President Obama thought it was though. He made that statement numerous times.

The climate is ever changing. To think man can control it via taxes and other foolish liberal/leftists schemes is ridiculous.

Well mudpaw, we have our beliefs. Fortunately we live in an incredible country that allows us to express our views openly. Time will tell. Good luck.

Do you believe UN and IPCC climate policy? Maybe you should rethink that reality created by politicians with a political agenda. IPCC is directed by UNFCCC and their vision is found in UN Agenda 21. Connect the dots and listen to IPCC leaders…

Omar Edenhofer, Co-Chair UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Mitigation of Climate Change working group: “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy…” (political motive)

“…the next world climate summit [in Paris] …is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.” (political motive)

Quote Christiana Figueres, UN Framework Convention on Climate Change: “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally …to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution…” (political motive)

Political agenda at Paris… yep and UN is proud of it…

Don't know if you are stIll in this thread. Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Didn't have time to more thoroughly address the issue. Only had a basic understanding of the IPCC. Doing some more reading on them and also the contrary position of the NIPCC. Maybe continue discussion when another climate change article appears.

Hi Stephan, I also was skeptical of the debate between scientists on climate change. I ignored media hype and went straight to science based source material… both IPCC and Climate research scientists. The fence is whether natural dynamic reality and recent human influence should be viewed separately or mutually. Should they be weighted or understood in planetary context? I learned a lot about IPCC, their basis and goals. Complex, but not complicated to understand.

The media and public influenced by media, seem to believe (falsely) that IPCC is an international authority on ALL (natural and human) aspects of climate. This is a popular but totally false notion. The IPCC is, in fact, no more than a UN supported political agenda lobby group, doing what lobby groups usually do.

Understand, IPCC can NOT be accused of cherry-picking data to support their claim of “significant man-made warming” …when IPCC Charter directs it to focus EXCLUSIVELY on human factors. IPCC primary goal is to focus on “human inducted climate change” and “socio-economic” impacts and “socio-economic” mitigation. That is IPCC’s role within a broader UN political agenda.

Fatal flaw inside the IPCC Charter: "The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation."

I really, really, appreciate you posting this. I collect quotes and documents on this topic. Is there any links you could give me so that I can save these documents?

I’ll do some looking… just upgrade from 7pro to 10pro and my files are now a total wreck and harder than heck to filter (find stuff). Many of my web-cites are now defunked and even YouTube removed linked videos they disagreed with… You might have to search for individual quote but not on Google et el; I use IXquick out of EU and always open links anonymously.

Here’s the note I sent the WH: Mr. President;
UN Officials discuss their real purpose of Paris UN climate agreement.
Quote UN climate official Ottmar Edenhofer: “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole,” said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.
And: “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy…”
And: “…the next world climate summit [in Paris] …is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.”

Quote Christiana Figueres, executive secretary U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change: “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally …to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution…”
And: “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”

I buy into what most climate scientists have found.

All CNN has on were ignorant bloviating dumbocrat fools proposing idiotic expensive solutions to a non-existent problem.

Bingo! And they want to convince their followers to agree to spend all that money (that nobody has, btw). Then when they get control of all that money, climate change will be dropped from the agenda and the Communists will take over everything.

I figure the globalist communist controllers must be laughing their behinds off at how easy it is to manipulate the gullible masses to advocate for their own demise.

Awww, Sniffles. CNN sucks and there is even proof of it.

Run around… scream and shout… “The sky is falling…”
That is Democrat and Socialist game plan… yelling “climate wolf” 24/7/365.
They are Piped Pipers of insanity, with many blind sheeple followers.
Easy to be "duped" when school teachers “sell this falsehood” to children.

They remind me of SpongeBob running around in circles with his arms in the air and screaming bloody murder.