Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders: Climate Change is STILL the Number One Security Threat

Castle Bravo Nuclear Bomb test at Bikini Atoll. Public domain image, source Wikimedia
Castle Bravo Nuclear Bomb test at Bikini Atoll. Public domain image, source Wikimedia

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

In the aftermath of the horrific events in Paris, you would think some politicians might have been jolted into reconnecting with reality, regarding the relative dangers posed by climate change vs terrorism. But a few politicians seem to be clinging to the ridiculous view, that climate change is somehow more of a threat, than well organised homicidal maniacs.

According to Slate;

At Saturday night’s second Democratic presidential debate, just a day after ISIS launched horrific coordinated terrorist attacks in Paris, moderator and Slate political columnist John Dickerson asked Bernie Sanders a straightforward question: “Sen. Sanders, you said you want to rid the planet of ISIS. In the previous debate you said the greatest threat to national security was climate change. Do you still believe that?”

Sanders didn’t hesitate: “Absolutely.”

Read more:

Guns and bombs are horrible enough, but they might only be a taste of what the near future holds. For example, lets consider the issue of nuclear terrorism.

Iran, an alleged sponsor of state terrorism, is rapidly approaching the point at which they could potentially possess substantial quantities of highly enriched Uranium – though Iran claims they are enriching Uranium for peaceful purposes. Financially bankrupt North Korea has produced enough HEU to make at least one or two bombs, at least one of which they have detonated. Unstable Pakistan, which suffers frequent military coups, possesses an unknown number of nuclear bombs, and bomb making material. Other countries are almost certainly either operating, or considering, their own nuclear programmes – in many cases in response to concerns about what their neighbours are doing.

I’m not suggesting that even Iran, which holds regular public “death to America” rallies, necessarily actually wants to blow up an American city. But as enrichment technology spreads, sooner or later, some of the material currently in the possession of corrupt, unstable regimes, is going to find its way into the hands of someone who wants to kill a lot of people.

Possession of Highly Enriched Uranium is a dream scenario for wannabe nuclear terrorists. HEU is incredibly difficult to produce, but once it has been produced, it is as easy to handle as any other lump of metal – as long as you are careful not to pile too much mass in one place, before you are ready to detonate the bomb.

1. HEU is incredibly stealthy. Highly Enriched Uranium, unlike Plutonium, is not very radioactive, until it reaches critical mass and carves the heart out of a major city. Your only hope of detecting a smuggled HEU component is to make it “fizz” – to target the hidden consignment with a beam of neutrons, in the hope of simulating a small secondary nuclear fission reaction. If you are lucky, the secondary reaction will set off your radiation detector. If the sample of HEU which you are trying to tickle with the neutron beam is small, or has a suboptimal shape (flat and thin, rather than ball shaped), and is well concealed behind plenty of shielding, you are unlikely to get a significant response to your neutron beam. For example, if say a consignment of tractors were imported into a country, and some of the washers in the engines of the tractors were made out of HEU rather than steel, it is unlikely the subterfuge would be detected. HEU is twice as dense as lead, so you wouldn’t need many washer size pieces of HEU, to create the critical mass of material required for a terrorist bomb.

2. HEU has a good shelf life. Unlike Plutonium, whose half-life is 24,000 years, Highly Enriched Uranium has a half-life of 700 million years. Your HEU bomb components could sit on a shelf and remain perfectly viable for centuries, providing they were protected from corrosion. Once HEU is in circulation, the threat it poses will be very hard to contain.

3. HEU is easy to use. Unlike Plutonium, which requires complex implosion triggers, HEU can in principle be detonated by smashing two lumps of material together. The other components required to produce a working nuclear bomb are fairly easy to obtain, with the exception of a Polonium initiator, which may or may not be required for the construction of a viable atomic bomb. However, as the recent assassination of Alexander Litvenenko demonstrated, smuggling Polonium into a Western country is not a significant challenge. Polonium is highly radioactive, but most of its radiation is emitted in the form of Alpha particles, which are very easy to shield from detection – a few sheets of paper would suffice. In the case of the Litvinenko murder, the Polonium was carried undetected in liquid form, in a small glass or plastic bottle.

As for building a HEU bomb, the required construction technique is well within the skill level of a terrorist bomb expert, possibly with the assistance of an expert metal machinist. Probably not much more complex than making a pipe bomb.

Will someone successfully build and use a terrorist nuclear bomb? It is impossible to say. But in any case, the nuclear threat is only the tip of the iceberg – we haven’t covered other routes to atrocity, such as weaponised diseases; Ebola, Anthrax, or maybe a strain of the Plague which has been deliberately bred to be antibiotic resistant.

Plague should especially concern Americans. 10 – 15 people are infected with the plague every year in mainland America, from exposure to animal carriers in the wild. A wannabe biological terrorist wouldn’t have to cross any international borders, to obtain their US plague sample. The only reason the Plague is not a bigger issue in America, is that there are effective treatments. A weaponised version of the plague, which has been deliberately hardened, by repeatedly exposing generations of cultured plague bacteria to slowly increasing doses of antibiotics, selecting for mutants which can resist the antibiotics, might not be so easy to stop. Of course you would have to also regularly try your hardened mutant strain on a few test subjects, to make sure your selective breeding process hadn’t damaged the virulence of your biological weapon – but psychotic terrorists wouldn’t have any qualms about kidnapping a steady supply of victims.

For small payloads, such as biological weapons, you wouldn’t even have to launch the attack from America. Small, fully automated drones are commercially available, which have a maximum range of thousands of miles. It would be entirely possible to launch a stealthy, high precision drone attack against mainland North America, from a base in South America, Africa or Europe, or an attack against Europe, from a launch site in Northern Africa or the Middle East.

Why have I explored these ghastly scenarios, in such nauseating detail? I believe people who claim climate change is more of a threat than terrorism haven’t faced up to the reality of what is possible. Suggesting all of these horrific yet technically viable scenarios are somehow less of a threat, than a mild temperature rise which might or might not manifest over the next few decades, in my opinion is completely nuts.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
November 15, 2015 6:39 pm

George Bush —-> WMD’s in Iraq.
Obama and Bernie – “Climate Change”.
’nuff said.

Reply to  Wayne Delbeke
November 15, 2015 7:25 pm

They found evidence for WMD program on the ground. Nothing for the magical danger of “Climate Change”. You missed the gassed Kurds.

Reply to  Michael
November 15, 2015 8:13 pm

“They found evidence for WMD program on the ground.” Really!
Sure there’s plutonium scattered about, but the WMD that Bush/Blair told us existed was a fantasy.
(Saddam had used gas previously.)

Reply to  Michael
November 15, 2015 10:21 pm

Nerve gas is classified as a WMD. Since Saddam had used it previously, he obviously had WMDs.

Reply to  Michael
November 15, 2015 11:02 pm

Amazing that nerve gas and bacteriological agents are classified as “WMD” when they usually wouldn’t kill any more people than large conventional bombs (re. WW1).

Reply to  Michael
November 16, 2015 3:46 am

Phaedrus: “but the WMD that Bush/Blair told us existed was a fantasy.”
Detective Phaedrus enters the basement lab. Finds all the precursor chemicals needed to make meth, finds all the equipment needed to make meth, finds recipes for meth, finds logs detailing meth distribution…
But finds no Meth.
“False alarm, no meth lab here, the neighborhood is safe” he declares….

Reply to  Michael
November 16, 2015 6:22 am

The weapons existed, we know that because Saddam used them against his own people.
The programs also existed and had been mothballed ready to be restarted when the pressure was off.
BTW, the idiots on the left were demanding that the pressure be removed right up to the day the Iraq war resumed.
The WMDs existed, even if you refuse to believe the evidence.

Reply to  Michael
November 16, 2015 8:40 am

It’s not even arguable if Iraq had WMDs, it’s a fact.
Now whether this justified the 2003 invasion or not, that’s arguable.

Reply to  Michael
November 16, 2015 1:50 pm

So who provided the nerve gas products and intelligence to end the war between Iran and Iraq?
A lot of people claim it was the US. So the US knew there were chemical weapons at one point. However, anyone who watched Collin Powell’s amazingly cartoonist presentation to the UN should have been embarrassed for the poor man who was obviously just following the career destroying orders of his Commander in Chief. (IMHO as a non-American and non-participant in the folly in Iraq. Sad.)
Propaganda or a grain of truth? Probably both. Not judging, just saying. The public can never know how many layers there are in the Cake.

Reply to  Michael
November 17, 2015 11:15 am

Of course Saddam Hussein had gas weapons – it is well documented that they were used extensively in air-dropped bombs and artillery shells. In fact, during the Iraq invasion, hundreds of US M-687 artillery projectiles were found in disposal sites – mostly empty, all over 20 years old and completely unuseable.

Paul Westhaver
Reply to  Wayne Delbeke
November 15, 2015 9:26 pm

Saddam Hussein 1) SAID that he had them and 2) he had previously used them on the Kurds.
Hillary Clinton also claimed they were there as did the NYT and just about everyone. Do I need to link the video of Saddam saying it and the images of the bloated bodies of the Kurds… really… you wanna go there?

richard verney
Reply to  Paul Westhaver
November 15, 2015 10:21 pm

Hussein said that he had them no more, but that was not believed.
The UN inspectors had found no evidence of their continued existence, but were not satisfied that they had enough evidence of their destruction. In the event, Bush called time and the UN inspectors were not given further time to carry out ground checks.
The overwhelming evidence is that Hussein did not pose any significant threat to the West, and that the war was all about regime change; Hussein being a thoroughly nasty person (as are all the dictatorships in the area). Unfortunately, the results of that was destabilisation of the Middle East.
Destabilisation of the area was always the foreseeable outcome, after all in the Iran/Iraq war it was deliberately ended leaving both powers intact so as not to destabilise the area. So it was known, back in the 1980s, the problems that would be caused by a castrated Iraq. Unfortunately, we are now just reaping the seeds of all of this added by the later regime change in Libya and western government support of so called ‘moderates’ who now turn out to be largely ISIL, and who Putin was telling us that we were supporting and arming groups more dangerous than Al Qu*ed*.
You would have thought that we might have learnt our lessen, and that we might realise that a moderate is not someone who holds a machine gun, grenades and bazookas, but the motives behind western governments interventions are not easy to understand, as is exemplified by Bernie sanders comments.. .

Reply to  Paul Westhaver
November 15, 2015 10:30 pm

Of course Saddam said he had them! It was a bluff that back-fired and ultimately started GW2.
A little more patience and we might not have the mess we have today!

Reply to  Paul Westhaver
November 15, 2015 10:37 pm

Buried tanks of “pesticide” were found. In concentrated form, pesticides are nerve agents.
Of course the gullible media swallowed hook, line, and sinker, the supposed distinction between the two.

Reply to  Paul Westhaver
November 15, 2015 11:22 pm

“Buried tanks of “pesticide” were found. In concentrated form, pesticides are nerve agents.”
Stink, you mean I have WMD nerve agents in my garage, holy crap.

Mike McMillan
Reply to  Paul Westhaver
November 16, 2015 12:39 am

Wikipedia isn’t a good source for controversial topics. If you click on the “View History” tab, then hit “Oldest” at the bottom of the page, you’ll find the edit wars on WMD started back in 2002, with over 2000 edits and re-edits and reverted vandalism. And the PC view always comes out on top.

Reply to  Paul Westhaver
November 16, 2015 2:07 am

The way I see it, Saddam unquestionably had WMD – and a big program for it – and had indeed used WMD – but he feared an invasion and so he had complied and destroyed all, or most, of the finished product. But he also wanted his neighbours to think he still had them (his power always stemmed from the threat of terror), and so tried to play this double game, ultimately unsuccessfully. I’m pretty sure that Bush and Blair did believe genuinely that he had such a capacity largely intact (vide the obstructionist treatment of the UN inspections) but they didn’t KNOW it, as their good intelligence inside Iraq was close to absolute zero. So they had to make a political case, and exaggerated the certainty, as politicians tend to do when it suits them.
The bigger error was the failure to do the job first time round, 1990/1991, when much bigger and well equipped western forces under the gentlemanly Bush Senior, gave way to liberal media opinion and stopped after ejecting Saddam from Kuwait, instead of finishing it there and then with half a million allied troops on hand. As usual, the west only fights half a war, when war is only ever total. So much of the evil which now assails us, and the poor benighted people of the middle east, stems from that lack of resolution.

Paul Westhaver
Reply to  Paul Westhaver
November 16, 2015 6:03 am

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
“There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.
“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,
“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do.”
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. “[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real …
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
For all you revisionist idiots.

Reply to  Paul Westhaver
November 16, 2015 6:25 am

The inspectors had been looking for years. How many hundreds of years did you want to give them?
Saddam said he had destroyed them, but refused to provide the evidence of that destruction and did everything he could to prevent the inspectors from doing their job.
Regardless, the left was demanding that the sanctions be lifted, for the children of course, so there was another clock running.

Reply to  Paul Westhaver
November 16, 2015 7:50 am

“The overwhelming evidence is that Hussein did not pose any significant threat to the West”
at the time of GWII or in the future?
Was the perpetual continuation of sanctions the future of Iraq?
Do you believe for one second that Saddam wasn’t going to try to get WMD?

Reply to  Paul Westhaver
November 16, 2015 8:48 am

In US law WMD definition is soooo general that the military and commercial enterprises use them everyday. It’s like the DEA definition of pot as a schedule 1 narcotic, right up there with heroin. This WMD definition is so ridiculous that the Boston Marathon bomber was charged with having one. It’s of course made this general for scare so that military/FBI has the authority and public backing to go after anyone they decide to. From the FBI site:
Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) are defined in US law (18 USC §2332a) as:
“(A) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title (i.e. explosive device);

Reply to  Paul Westhaver
November 16, 2015 9:15 am

Kudos Paul on the post “revisionist idiots” Another similar post could be made on the liberal and Jacobin support of the “democratic” Arab Spring led by those champions of democracy: the Muslim Brotherhood!

Reply to  Paul Westhaver
November 16, 2015 10:15 am

What would Europe look like today if NATO forces had not occupied Germany for decades after WWII?

Mike Rossander
Reply to  Paul Westhaver
November 16, 2015 1:45 pm

Yes, BFL, you almost certainly do have chemical warfare agents in your garage. The difference between many insecticides and the chemicals used by armies is only in dosage (and sometimes surficants). This is especially true of the older broad-spectrum insecticides such as organophosphates that attack biological pathways common to both insects and mammals. The active ingredients are the same. If you didn’t already know that, frankly you shouldn’t be in this conversation.
(Note: It is less true for the newer generation of insecticides which have been engineered to attack pathways more unique to the target insect. Neonicotinoids, for example, are highly toxic to plant-eating insects but comparatively very safe for mammals.)

George Tetley
Reply to  Wayne Delbeke
November 16, 2015 4:21 am

Political Madness is a disease, present in 99.9% of the political classes,
You just have to look at Europe today, Hundreds of thousands of Muslims coming to Christian Countries, from where ??? Refugee camps, I repeat Refugee Camps in Muslim Countries, ( where they under control and feed by the West ) to be giving the key to the cities in Europe !!! Not to go into Camps where they can be processed, ( Economical, Criminal, Terrorist, Political ) but given money, food , clothes, and homes in the cities that are being bombed by their religious brethren!.
Rant finished

Reply to  George Tetley
November 16, 2015 6:41 am

YOU SAY a disease, ? is it not a gene, politicians the world over all lack reality when you are born stupid?

Ziiex Zeburz
Reply to  George Tetley
November 16, 2015 6:57 am

Idiots ? In my country the politicians debated over 18 hours ( 4 days) to, or not to provide needles for injections in Hospitals at a cost to the patent of (approx) $0.05 each. The politicians and their families have a free “special” Hospital

Reply to  Wayne Delbeke
November 16, 2015 7:28 am

The PP (precautionary principle) implies that you had to eliminate Saddam in case of serious doubt over WMD possession.
No way out!

Reply to  simple-touriste
November 16, 2015 12:29 pm

The same principal used for Climate Change(?)

Reply to  Phaedrus
November 16, 2015 12:57 pm

The PP should apply equally to any potential risk with reasonable plausibility, but significant uncertainty over its range and even its mere existence.
The plausibility of CAGW is minuscule. It was higher when it CO2 increases was believed to occur before warming, and scientists had no data to confirm or refute that. Overwhelming evidence goes against CAGW.
The plausibility of the hypothesis that a dictator who had a WMD program, who previously used gas against its population will restart its WMD program ASAP is high.
The idea behind PP is that we shouldn’t rest until we get absolute, definitive proof of anything. Before we get absolute proof of the risks of something, consequences can be serious, so we should try to take steps to minimize potentially harmful consequences of our activities, at reasonable cost.
Of course people disagree about “reasonable cost”, what constitutes sufficient evidence to take actions, and even constitute absolute proof. Very reasonable can disagree on risk analysis. But some stuff are undisputable.

Reply to  simple-touriste
November 16, 2015 1:45 pm

SH had acquired no less than 550 tons of yellowcake uranium which was shipped to Canada in small shipments.
WASHINGTON (CNN) — The United States secretly shipped out of Iraq more than 500 tons of low-grade uranium dating back to the Saddam Hussein era, the Pentagon said Monday.
The U.S. military spent $70 million ensuring the safe transportation of 550 metric tons of the uranium from Iraq to Canada, said Pentagon spokesman Brian Whitman.
The shipment, which until recently was kept secret, involved a U.S. truck convoy, 37 cargo flights out of Baghdad to a transitional location, and then a transoceanic voyage on board a U.S.-government-owned ship designed to carry troops to a war zone, he said.
I doubt he acquired it to make glow-in-the-dark garden gnomes.
Also, a German technician, Karl-Heinz Schaab, was prosecuted for exporting centrifuge components and plans.
All the hardware was shipped to Syria, where it was subsequently rebuilt with help from North Korea, and then destroyed by an Israeli air strike.
The Story of ‘Operation Orchard’: How Israel Destroyed Syria’s Al Kibar Nuclear Reactor
In September 2007, Israeli fighter jets destroyed a mysterious complex in the Syrian desert. The incident could have led to war, but it was hushed up by all sides. Was it a nuclear plant and who gave the orders for the strike?
Then there was this:
Isis storms Saddam-era chemical weapons complex in Iraq
Facility containing disused stores of sarin and mustard gas overrun by jihadist group

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  simple-touriste
November 16, 2015 3:28 pm

It appears that Iraq had or has a uranium mine.
In the run up to the start of GW2 I came across a reference to it. With the story about the efforts to purchase more “yellow cake” I figured they must be pretty far along-about where Iran is now.
Anyway finding “yellow cake” is not surprising as Iraq at one time exported it.

Reply to  simple-touriste
November 16, 2015 4:53 pm

Mike the Morlock: “It appears that Iraq had or has a uranium mine.”
Apparently it came from Nigeria.
That was covered up by the Palme affair in the US.

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  simple-touriste
November 16, 2015 6:25 pm

From one of the articles you reference the second one.
“Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said.”
I got fooled once into thinking they (Iraq) were buying it, but it seem to have been their own stuff.
Needless to say given time they could have constructed a uranium bomb

Reply to  Wayne Delbeke
November 16, 2015 7:58 am

Actually it was Clinton, Clinton, Kerry, Reid, etc that first said there were WMD’s in Iraq and warned us that there must be regime change. Most Democratic Senators voted for the Iraq war.
Get your facts straight:
If you remember that day, it was a day of speeches. And at least out among the Littles, the final count wasn’t known until the roll was called. Here are your brave warrior Dems, those who voted Yes, covered in testosterone (or confusion) and glory. I’ve highlighted a few names to note:
YEAs — 77
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA) Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)

November 15, 2015 6:40 pm

he must say what he needs to say to garner the votes from his well defined constituency that consists of save-the-planet voters who cannot imagine what could possibly be more important than saving the planet.

Reply to  Chaam Jamal
November 15, 2015 7:49 pm

To save a planet, you must have one in jeopardy.
Ours is not

Ziiex Zeburz
Reply to  inMAGICn
November 16, 2015 7:01 am

inMagicn (is that a call sign ? )
And pray tell me which planet are you from?
Beam me up!

Reply to  inMAGICn
November 16, 2015 11:28 am

Please do beam up. This planet called Earth is not in jeopardy. If life can survive 90%+ species extinction at the end of the Permian, I think it, let alone the entire planet will somehow make it through the trivial increase in CO2, the gas of life, in the atmosphere.
Oh, and it’s inMAGICn. And anyone signing as Ziiex Zeburz has a lot of gall commenting on my handle.

Reply to  inMAGICn
November 16, 2015 12:01 pm

… Ziiex Zeburz has a lot of gall commenting on my handle.
LOL! ZZ is Owned!

Reply to  Chaam Jamal
November 16, 2015 11:47 am

Bernie Sanders from Vermont where about 55% of the state’s electric power is being shut down and now Vermont is looking to Quebec/Canada for electric power supplies.
Can be real “green” if someone else is supplying your electric power.

Reply to  Chaam Jamal
November 16, 2015 1:44 pm

I agree. His followers have turned him into a messiah that they project all their hopes and fantasies on…and then he hands them all over to Hillary at the party covention. Then she will become their new messiah.

November 15, 2015 6:47 pm

Thousands of people have been killed in heat waves that are made worse by GW. Thousands of people are forced to leave farms because of drought that is made worse by GW.
Many more than France 13 Nov.
Many more than Towers 11 Sept
Sanders is correct.

Reply to  trafamadore
November 16, 2015 8:46 am

One flew over the cuckoo’s nest.

Reply to  trafamadore
November 16, 2015 10:22 am

I would much rather die from the heat from our sun than from the heat driving me to jump from the Twin Towers.

Reply to  trafamadore
November 16, 2015 11:38 am

If you hope to convince anyone here, you are going to have to provide some evidence. Do you know how many people die each year from indoor air pollution (a result from cooking and heating using an open fire because they don’t have access to affordable energy)? According to the International Energy Agency, of the 1.5 billion people without electricity, 4.3 million die each year from household air pollution resulting from the use of traditional biomass fuels for cooking.
Your comment that “Thousands of people have been killed in heat waves that are made worse by GW” seems a paltry in comparison.

Reply to  trafamadore
November 16, 2015 12:51 pm

Thousands of people have been killed in heat waves that are made worse by GW.
Stop making stuff up.

November 15, 2015 6:48 pm

Bernie and Obama are ISIS appeasers championing the ISIS war on western civilization and giving aid and abetting to the perpetrators.
Obama will have a long list of war crimes to answer to at The Hague in 2018.
Oh yea. The USA Dept. of Justice does not recognize the authority of The Hague.
No matter, Mr. Obama can be detained and rendered as easily as his political opponents only this time it is HE in the noose of INTERPOL.
Question: Can Mr. Obama “pay off” the INTERPOL guards and Officials? That is a question of “Cash On Hand” in Mr. Obama’s pockets.
Ha ha

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
November 15, 2015 6:50 pm

Sanders didn’t hesitate: “Absolutely.”

Bernie Sanders manages the nearly impossible task of making Hillary Clinton look good.

Doug S
Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
November 15, 2015 7:39 pm


November 15, 2015 7:02 pm

Bernie is as always willing to say whatever he needs to say. This nozzle took his honeymoon in a place famous for setting a party line. Did anyone on stage disagree with him.

November 15, 2015 7:03 pm

As I’ve said before, liberals and socialists don’t like reality !!!

Reply to  Marcus
November 15, 2015 7:49 pm

Or prosperity, or freedom, or national pride, or other people.

richard verney
Reply to  indefatigablefrog
November 15, 2015 10:47 pm

Should have concluded:
but love spending other people’s money usually wasting it on hopeless causes.

Reply to  Marcus
November 16, 2015 1:57 pm

Speaking as a socialist, some of us understand reality. There’s a few of us that understand capitalism is necessary but requires regulation to provide the best benefit. Capitalism allows creativity to flourish, but there needs to be a socialist oversight to keep the criminals from abusing the system and reducing opportunity for others to enter that system. There’s also always going to be a need for essential goods and services that capitalism cannot adequately or ever supply. It’s what I call “practical socialism” as opposed to neo-Marxist “pie-in-the-sky” socialism.
Those are the ones that scream “No more capitalism!” and have no clue how that would affect their lives negatively. They are pure creatures of reaction and emotion, no logical thought process involved. It’s why they bought into AGW. It was a pre-packaged hate-the-oil-companies religious theology that fit right into their illogical worldview.

Bob Weber
November 15, 2015 7:13 pm

The Paris attack will be used by the leading Democrats to gain sympathy and support for the COP21 goals.
How long will it be before they say something like “If we can only reduce climate change (whatever that means) through fossil fuel reductions, we will also reduce a major (sic) cause of terrorism” – and how long will it be before they start to equate climate skepticism with supporting the conditions that supposedly cause terrorism, and then blame us for ‘interfering’ with the united fight against the ‘two biggest threats’ to mankind?
Will free expression of scientific dissent from this ‘unity’ at the COP21 be repressed by security measures?

Reply to  Bob Weber
November 15, 2015 8:18 pm

How long will it be? There’s no reason to wait. Bernie Sanders has already called climate change a “threat multiplier.” He also said, “If we do not get our act together and listen to what the scientists say,” we will see more of these international conflicts. So climate change is the cause of terrorism. It’s the cause of everything bad. Before the industrial age, nothing bad ever happened because there was no climate change to cause it.

Bob Weber
Reply to  Louis
November 15, 2015 9:22 pm

Bernie is a funny guy to watch and listen to – as Bernie talks and waves his arms back and forth, he reminds me of one of those wind-up carnival monkey toys…
Bernie must have some back-channel comm link to ISIS to really know what’s teeing them off. Has anyone ever heard of any terrorist who has said he was on the rampage because the weather and climate were bad? How come they’re demanding everything but relief from the 0.8C temperature increase since 1850?
Bernie supports the very climate and terrorism policies promoted by what he rails against – Wall Street and the Big Banks, while Clinton tries very hard to hide the marionette strings connecting her to them.

Reply to  Bob Weber
November 15, 2015 8:25 pm

Bob– I have a different take.
I think the the Paris Jihadist terrorist attacks will show how irresponsible Leftist European governments have been in allowing so many unscreened Muslims into Europe, 1000’s of whom were Jihadi terrorists.
The more terrorists attacks that occur in Europe and the US in the months and years ahead, the stronger the blowback against Leftist ideology will be.
Also, since NONE of the dire projections of the Leftist’s CAGW cult are coming even close to reflecting reality, the blowback against Leftists will be huge once this hypothesis is officially disconfirmed and people realize $trillions of their hard-earned money was wasted on this silly CAGW cult.

Bob Weber
Reply to  SAMURAI
November 15, 2015 9:49 pm

Hopefully by then the Leftists won’t establish an even tighter iron-grip before the public can push back. Ideally Paris would only be about the science, but it won’t be now.
Before this happened COP21 looked like it was headed for failure. Now they’ll have a chance to conjoin the issues and work towards muddling the message despite whatever the BRIC nations do there. They’ll go into it with a different attitude, and they’ll be more determined to come out with a global governance position of some kind. I expect an even more dismissive intolerant attitude towards anyone against them.
They will make every attempt to lock everyone into emission reductions before temps fall post El-Nino & post SC24. If they fail in COP21, they will project onto COP22 the usual “it’s the last chance” BS. I think the top people have heard of the distinct possibility that low solar activity will cool us down over the next decades, and I think they’re scared they won’t get their way before that happens, before the public has a chance to push back upon experiencing plain evidence that all can see without warmist data manipulation.

Gerry, England
Reply to  SAMURAI
November 16, 2015 3:54 am

The problem is knowing just how deluded the Warmists are. Do they really understand how much influence the sun has but ignore it? If they know then Bob’s scenario that they urgently need an agreement before the population really notices that we are cooling not warming is spot on. It is the ‘last chance’ but not to save the planet. And do the pro-CAGW governments really understand what damage a binding agreement will do to their economies? A review was carried out in the UK and then hidden because it didn’t give them what they wanted to hear. I think they will get a fudge agreement where nobody signs up to anything binding but all agree it is a big problem….and who’s up for a gathering in Morocco.

Reply to  SAMURAI
November 16, 2015 9:08 pm

samauri – the general populace does not have any idea how much of their money has been wasted by govt on AGW, or on anything.

Reply to  Bob Weber
November 16, 2015 5:56 am

Climate change causes terrorism? And hang nails, and hemorrhoids, and bad breath! (snark)

Reply to  Bob Weber
November 16, 2015 1:59 pm

Some have already blamed the Syrian civil war on AGW-caused drought.

Ben Howison
November 15, 2015 7:15 pm

Well, I think fighting climate change IS much more profitable than fighting terrorists, ‘course more people will die but “stuff happens”.

Just Steve
November 15, 2015 7:18 pm

As we all know, climate change causes terrorism. You know, just like it did back in 1801 with the Barbary Pirates.

November 15, 2015 7:18 pm

Obama ignored intel that Iraq’s Kaliki was destroying any hopes of unity and a democracy that was inclusive. The factions that united to drive out Sadam and Al Quaeda felt betrayed and ISIS’ power grew. I suspect attempts to blame the Syrian civil war on climate change has been driven by their desire to divert attention from how the Obama administration’s bad foreign policy created greater chaos and emboldened terrorists.–and-lost-iraq/2014/07/03/0dd6a8a4-f7ec-11e3-a606-946fd632f9f1_story.html

Curious George
November 15, 2015 7:21 pm

Bernie “everything will be free” proposes socialism. In four years we will live in socialism! Says an old geezer, I don’t mind, I have a terminal cancer.

Reply to  Curious George
November 16, 2015 9:10 pm

Curious George – I hope your family and health care team are wonderful and deliver what you need in dignity.

Dudley Horscroft
November 15, 2015 7:23 pm

You don’t even need something as complicated as drones. Remember the Japanese attacks on USA mainland soil? No? You have forgotten them, or never heard of them? See:
Terrorist operations are carried out in peace time. Helium is readily available. Smaller balloons with incendiary bombs could easily be launched from yachts off the coast. In summer, when the trees are dry and hot, a few balloons could easily wipe out vast areas of forest. Plausibly when the wind direction is steady, bombs could be radio controlled to be dropped near small towns. Three or four bombs in a wooded area near a town could wipe out the town.
Are the isolated forest fires that are so newsworthy when they wipe out hundreds of thousands of wooded acres really started by @lightning strikes@?

Curious George
Reply to  Dudley Horscroft
November 15, 2015 7:26 pm

Middle Eastern forest have been wiped out thousands of years ago.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Curious George
November 15, 2015 10:10 pm

I did not know there were railroads “thousands” of years ago.
Historic significance of the Cedars of Lebanon
“… the Ottoman Turks deforested all of the cedar growing areas within easy transport distance of their Hijaz railway to provide fuel for their wood-burning engines. Only the highest and most remote groves escaped damage.

Reply to  Curious George
November 16, 2015 6:31 am

Ottoman Turks also deforested all of Jordan, with the exception of the odd tree here and there, for the cross ties for their railroad. Jordanians still hate the Turks for atrocities like this. The King of Jordan initiated a program to bring back trees to the barren hills many years ago, but it will be generations before it will produce significant results. Thousands of acres are covered with drip irrigation to help the effort, while in other areas, acacias have been planted dry in hopes of establishing some kind of rudimentary plants in the hills.

Reply to  Curious George
November 16, 2015 10:35 am

If there’s any truth in the Old Testament’s account of lions and bears, there had to be some plant growth greater than what is currently in the Middle East in order to sustain a food chain ample enough to feed the larger mammals.

Reply to  Dudley Horscroft
November 15, 2015 11:07 pm

“In summer, when the trees are dry and hot, a few balloons could easily wipe out vast areas of forest. Plausibly when the wind direction is steady, bombs could be radio controlled to be dropped near small towns. Three or four bombs in a wooded area near a town could wipe out the town.”
Obviously fire setting balloon bombs should be classified as “WMD”.

November 15, 2015 7:27 pm

I’m pretty sure that the biggest problem that we face isn’t climate change or terrorism.
Surely, it’s the fact that the political class have completely lost touch with reality.
Especially the fact that they have chosen to guide science in the direction of supporting their policies, rather than allowing their policies to be guided by science.
Now they are about to commit a vast proportion of global resources to battling with phantasmogorical creations.
The climate is changing and that change must be stopped in its tracks, before it is too late.
For example, where are the missing Cat 3+ hurricane landfalls in N. America.
Isn’t anybody concerned about this? Hurricane have basically disappeared.
That can’t be natural.
With concerted and committed effort, we could bring catastrophic hurricanes back to US shores.
And is nobody concerned about the recent news that Antarctica may be gaining ice?
By attaching blow-torches to penguins, then we could blow billions in public funds on trying to compensate for dangerous Antarctic ice gain.
And what about islands. The Chinese just built several new ones.
Now we have more islands than shown in a regular school atlas.
We were supposed to be losing islands not gaining new ones.
You, me, Christiana Figueres, and the Prophet Gore.
We can all contribute towards stopping things from changing.
With our new slogan, “Ban technology. Bring back the LIA.”

Tom in Florida
Reply to  indefatigablefrog
November 15, 2015 7:37 pm

“I’m pretty sure that the biggest problem that we face isn’t climate change or terrorism.
Surely, it’s the fact that the political class have completely lost touch with reality.”
Let’s add an ignorant public that keeps electing these fools.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
November 15, 2015 7:52 pm

I’d add that. It’s a great….oh look, “Dancing With the Stars!”

richard verney
Reply to  Tom in Florida
November 15, 2015 10:53 pm

And what do you suggest since there are only fools on the ballot? Not once in my lifetime have I seen on the ballot papers anyone remotely capable of running a country.
I don’t vote, and perhaps if turn out was less than 10% some one would take note, and a debate may ensue about legitimacy and how we can get democracy. In this computer/internet age, perhaps the people should vote on nearly all issues, on an issue by issue basis. Only Switzerland has some passing claim to democracy.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
November 15, 2015 11:11 pm

Have to point out that politicians are the best actors in the universe as proven by their many reverses once in office. Obviously not even they know which wind blown principles that they actually support until it becomes crony convenient. For example, they can give a speech pro-union then pro-corporate depending on the venue. With the average lying actor politician to vote for I can see why many say “why bother”.

Charles Nelson
Reply to  Tom in Florida
November 16, 2015 1:15 am


David A
Reply to  Tom in Florida
November 16, 2015 4:32 am

“I’m pretty sure that the biggest problem that we face isn’t climate change or terrorism.
Surely, it’s the fact that the political class have completely lost touch with reality.”
Unfortunately the ladder is not orthogonal, as lost touch with reality makes the sane world ever more vulnerable to terrorism and perhaps the most devastating nuclear option, a couple of well placed EMPs. This would set the US back to pre industrial green hell for perhaps decades.
Eric Worrall’s fine article needs the EMP possibility added to the list. Also this comment, “I’m not suggesting that even Iran, which holds regular public “death to America” rallies, necessarily actually wants to blow up an American city” is, I.M.V. either wrong or poorly worded, as I am quite certain they very much would love to blow up a U.S.A. city, they just do not want to get caught!

Reply to  Tom in Florida
November 16, 2015 6:48 am

And what do you suggest since there are only fools on the ballot?
Every ballot should have “None of the Above” as an option at the bottom. If a majority of the voters select “none of the above”, then there must be a new election with new candidates. Those candidates that lost to “None of the Above” are barred from ever running again for this office.
Legally, you could change your name to “None_of_the_Above ZZZZZ”. Then you would appear at the bottom of the ballot as:
ZZZZZ, None_of_the_Above
You would stand a fair chance of winning every election in which you ran. So rather than not voting, change your name and run for office to clean up the mess.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
November 16, 2015 6:51 am

And what do you suggest since there are only fools on the ballot?
This is actually not correct. Every ballot typically has two choices.
1. The incompetent
2. The crook.
Sanders and Clinton. One truly believes what they say. The other says whatever you want to hear.

Reply to  indefatigablefrog
November 15, 2015 7:49 pm

“Surely, it’s the fact that the political class have completely lost touch with reality.”
in which case all 40,000 of them will man up for Gaia and trot off to COP21 in Paris won’t they?

michael hart
Reply to  indefatigablefrog
November 15, 2015 7:49 pm

I’m pretty sure that the biggest problem that we face isn’t climate change or terrorism.
Surely, it’s the fact that the political class have completely lost touch with reality.

Me too. I occasionally wonder what it must have have been like to live during the reign of some of the Roman Emperors who were completely radio-rentals. Caligula and his horse currently come to mind.

Evan Jones
Reply to  michael hart
November 16, 2015 1:53 am

Caligula and his horse currently come to mind.
If we had a few more “Noble Incatatus” types in the senate, it might be an improvement.

November 15, 2015 7:41 pm

I sometimes think I should become a survivalist. Thanks to Eric, this is one of those times. Darn.

Evan Jones
Reply to  commieBob
November 16, 2015 1:55 am

I sometimes think I should become a survivalist.
Be advised: their survival rate is not particularly encouraging.

November 15, 2015 7:42 pm

The gullibility of some fools is unfathomable. For instance, here is a syndicated columnist of many years’ experience that, having gulped down the Koolaid, has faith in Gaia’s Church of Thermageddon and the Apocalypse, and brushes off terrorism as a nuisance.

Reply to  karabar
November 16, 2015 1:04 am

I took a look at your link. Facepalm doesn’t do it justice. Observa’s link from above is an eyeopener.
Why France will do nothing about the Paris Massacre: Spengler
Ignored in news coverage of the Paris massacre is the single most pertinent piece of background: A 2014 opinion poll found that ISIS had an approval rating in France (at 16%) almost as high as President Francois Holland (at 18%). In the 18-to-24-year-old demographic, ISIS’ support jumped to 27%. Muslims comprise about a tenth of France’s population, so the results imply that ISIS had the support of the overwhelming majority of French Muslims (and especially Muslim youth), as well as the endorsement of a large part of the non-Muslim Left.

Evan Jones
Reply to  karabar
November 16, 2015 1:58 am

The problem being that these overblown things seem to keep blowing up.

November 15, 2015 8:02 pm

Let’s not forget that old Christiana ‘Charlie Chaplin’ Figueres has been threatening to chop the head off anyone who doesn’t toe the line at the 21st Conference Of The Partygoers, so ‘climate change’ is definitely encouraging a few swivel-eyed lunatics.

November 15, 2015 8:04 pm

There is a radical cult in Shite Islam called “Twelvers”, that wishes to bring about Armageddon, thereby bringing about the Second Coming of the 12th Imam, followed by the obliteration of all infidels in the world….
Iran’s previous PM Ahmadinejad is a “Twelver”, which explains why he worked so hard to establish an nuke program, with the eventual goal of creating Armageddon.
Yes, I understand how crazy this may sound, but as a common CIA adage explains, “when dealing with Jihadists, NEVER rule out crazy”…..

john byatt
November 15, 2015 8:39 pm

Tol just threw you under a bus

November 15, 2015 8:47 pm

I’m pretty sure the greatest threat t our security are Luna Lovegood’s Wrakspurts, or maybe snipes. We definitely need to focus trillions of dollars of spending and regulation on those.

Reply to  Michael Selden
November 16, 2015 6:34 am

If outlawing guns is supposed to end gun violence, why don’t we just outlaw terrorists?

Joel O'Bryan
November 15, 2015 8:59 pm

When your religion says CC is the biggest threat and you’re a faithful believer, no amount of reality will change your mind. The only answer is for rational society to continue to marginalize the socialist-democrats at the ballot box.

November 15, 2015 9:15 pm

A trip over to Slate is enlightening. The left is convinced that Sanders is correct, that climate change in the middle east has led to the poverty that created ISIS, and that if we can reduce CO2, everything will be fine again, or something like that. They also think that climate change has led to the migration of 157.8 million people. Not 158 million mind you. OK, so they think man is causing the climate to change this time, fine, but what they don’t get is that reducing CO2 is impossible without starving half the population. Maybe that doesn’t bother them, or they think we can just conjure up the power out of magical windmills. Anyway, a visit to Slate is a trip to a fantasy world.

Reply to  CarlF
November 15, 2015 11:17 pm

So Slate and Sander’s are convinced that globull warming is the cause of the middle east mess, and their corrections are apparently going to take a couple of hundred years to get real results to correct. Seems like a major logic flaw in there somewhere…..

Reply to  BFL
November 16, 2015 8:31 am

Did you mean Gullible warming?

Reply to  CarlF
November 16, 2015 6:35 am

Apparently the middle east was a paradise prior to 1950.

Reply to  MarkW
November 16, 2015 9:16 pm

I see what you did there…

Reply to  CarlF
November 16, 2015 2:14 pm

And when gas prices skyrocket in 25 years as the oil wells start running dry, they’ll be the first to whine about the rising costs of fossil fuels and why the government isn’t doing enough to keep the gas in their gas tanks.

Reply to  AndyJ
November 16, 2015 9:18 pm

In the last couple of decades, I recall TWO episodes, quite separated in time, to regulate the price of a gallon of gas in the U.S., as prices passed the $4/gallon mark.//

November 15, 2015 9:21 pm

“Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders: Climate Change is STILL the Number One Security Threat”
Heh – Hilary is a bigger security threat than Climate Change.

David A
Reply to  Mark and two Cats
November 16, 2015 5:01 am

…plus 10 Mark, and certainly not just her email scandal, or Benghazi, which she “accepted full responsibility for” while at the same time spending hours lying and denying any responsibility.
The Hillary and the O appear to have only one affect in the ME, that of strengthening the position of Jihadists terrorists both Shia and Sunni; in Libya, where Gadhafi, a long neutered terrorist threat, was killed by the Hillary, with no foresight or planning on what would take place in the power vacuum that followed! So the Hillary cackled about this killing, “We came, we saw, Gadhafi died” and then in Iran, where we gave the largest state sponsors of terrorism hundreds of billions of dollars to play their nuclear games, and
in Egypt, where thankfully the O’s Muslim Brotherhood push failed, and in Syria where we gave arms to ISIS in a failed attempt of purportedly supporting “moderates” of similar if slightly less overt genocidal disposition. In Syria the O has, like Hillary in Libya, had ZERO follow up plan for who is to replace Assad, who at least protected the few remaining Christians. Apparently the O’s post Assad plan was to simply let the Jihadists have another state while spending hundreds of millions of dollars to train the only five moderates actually found in the M.E.
Now the O wants to import hundreds of thousands of unfiltered “moderates” because it is working so well in the E.U.
So yes Mark, progressive elitist ideology is the biggest security threat we face.

Reply to  David A
November 16, 2015 6:36 am

In Democrat circles, accepting full responsibility means you get a raise and a promotion.

November 15, 2015 9:24 pm

Bernie’s defense of ISIS atrocities, climate change made them do it. Go after Exxon and Mobil … nuts

Paul Westhaver
November 15, 2015 9:27 pm

Bernie Sanders is a useful idiot. Keep talking Bernie.

November 15, 2015 9:32 pm

This article is a classic example of indoctrinating the audience to lap up the next step – exercising the precautionary principle against perceived threats. Maybe that only means the precautionary principle is vulnerable to dire circumstances that make it the lesser evil. How long before those who failed with RICO begin a new campaign targeting climate terrorists (avoids the hated climate denier meme, at least) while pounding the drum of the precautionary principle? My guess is some organization somewhere is already at work on this and it will arise in some form at COP21.
Back on topic, Bernie is wrong on two counts but he’s never really been the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Steve Lohr
November 15, 2015 9:33 pm

Bernie is just one of the many components of the caldron of political slop bubbling before our eyes. I don’t need to list much to give one a case of the sweats. Russia looking for land, France going full bore blaster, Western politics in full pussy mode and rising powerful, huge, and unstable economies vulnerable to crisis, total world dependence on everything coming from somewhere else, an insane diversion of investments into toy power generation, a proliferation of entitled populations who demand they be cared for at an ever increasing rate, and no end in sight for any of this. I need not go on. All we need is to sparge in a catalyst and who knows what kind of troll will leap from the pot.

Charles Nelson
November 15, 2015 10:09 pm

WUWT is doing untold damage to its reputation for even handedness with this recent foray into ‘politics’.
Shoddy science and corruption can be condemned from any point on the political spectrum.
The amount of irrational hatred and ignorance on display here over the last couple of days has left me feeling a little queasy. I really don’t want to turn my back on this site, but I will if you keep this up.

Reply to  Charles Nelson
November 15, 2015 10:46 pm

100 times agreed.

Reply to  Charles Nelson
November 15, 2015 11:09 pm

Some guy says climate is the #1 threat? and you think AW is being political?
REALLY ???????

Reply to  AndyG55
November 16, 2015 12:31 am

+ 100 [there was a need to balance “les”}

Jim in London
Reply to  Charles Nelson
November 15, 2015 11:59 pm

Irrational hated making you feel queasy you want to turn your back on it then challenge it instead.
If Paris has taught us anything it. Is in the face of the onslaught of hated we can’t run away.
Climate debate Climate Skeptism is part of the democratic process which we have to continue the dead and the injured in Paris we owe them that

Reply to  Charles Nelson
November 16, 2015 3:31 am


Samuel C. Cogar
Reply to  Charles Nelson
November 16, 2015 4:16 am

The amount of irrational hatred and ignorance on display here over the last couple of days has left me feeling a little queasy. I really don’t want to turn my back on this site, but I will if you keep this up.

Apparently one of the younger generation that truly believes that ….. “Emotionally offending words will break your bones but sticks and stones will never harm you”.
T’is utterly amazing the number of people that make “life and death decisions” …. based on the “queasy” feelings in their stomach.

David A
Reply to  Samuel C. Cogar
November 16, 2015 5:06 am

I am curious though what “irrational hatred and ignorance” the poster was referring to before threatening to run off to his safe space.

Reply to  Samuel C. Cogar
November 16, 2015 6:39 am

The left has a long history of defining any view that they disagree with as hateful.

Reply to  Charles Nelson
November 16, 2015 5:00 am

Politics is what drives AGW proponents. You cannot separate the two when every proposal they make either requires billions of dollars of other people’s money or, in the most extreme cases, incarceration or execution of those that disagree with their prescriptions.
While Anthony and the contributors to WUWT most often stick to the science, pointing out the politics is unavoidable IF you’re paying attention. Scientists can’t, on their own, lay a hand on your money or person. Governments can.
It’s called living in reality.

Reply to  Charles Nelson
November 16, 2015 6:38 am

The trolls are out in force, demanding that the failures of their peculiar religion remain hidden from the masses.

Reply to  Charles Nelson
November 16, 2015 8:14 am

I’m curious, how do you deal with Bernie with these comments about others who disagree with him?
“In a statement, Sen. Sanders said:
I applaud President Obama for recognizing that climate change is the great planetary crisis facing our country and the world. I support his plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired power plants and to promote more wind and solar power and other sources of renewable energy.
It is time for Republicans in Congress to stop obstructing efforts to transform our energy system away from fossil fuels and toward energy efficiency and renewable energy sources.
I understand that Republicans, including many of those running for president, are dependent on the Koch brothers, oil companies, and other fossil-fuel contributors. Maybe for once they can overcome the needs of their campaign contributors and worry instead about the planet they are leaving their kids and grandchildren and young people all over the world.”
Do you find truth in these statements from Bernie?
Are you comfortable to eliminate fossil fuels and starve the world?

Reply to  Charles Nelson
November 16, 2015 10:35 am

Climate change debate exists because it is political. The science is actually pretty well documented though ignored in favor of models and it is models alone that fuels the politics. No discussion of climate today can be without politics and that has been true since Hansen’s gangsters fiddled with the thermostat at the congressional hearings those many years ago.

November 15, 2015 10:39 pm

There are many reasons to vote for a GOP candidate. Most of them are called Bernie Sanders.

November 15, 2015 11:06 pm

Sanders? Is this guy into chicken?
Does yummy chicken !!
(or is that chicken-little)

Mike McMillan
November 16, 2015 12:31 am

Thanks for that inspirational photo at the top of the page. After that test, there was no Bikini Atoll.

Reply to  Mike McMillan
November 16, 2015 12:53 am

It’s still there. What is gone is the test site, replaced with a ~200m diameter submerged crater.

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  Patrick
November 16, 2015 9:23 am

Some of the warships anchored off the island survived the test and had to sunk later. The BB USS New York and the CV USS Saratoga come to mind.

Reply to  Patrick
November 16, 2015 10:38 am

Eh…. I think you missed some humor there.

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  Mike McMillan
November 16, 2015 3:45 pm

michael 🙂

Crispin in Waterloo
November 16, 2015 12:57 am

I doubt N Korea can make a nuke. They were probably given one by a friend to keep up appearances. Their missile program consists of about forty Russian engineers who lost their jobs back home.
One of the greatest contributions to keeping the world safe from nuclear weapons was South Africa’s decision to pretend to be making pebble bed reactors long enough for the old boys to collect their pension checks.
One of the gravest threats from nukes is Iran trying to take out Saudi Arabia. The casual Westener knows little of where the real religious animosities lie. Taking pot shots at the infidels is a sideshow.

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
November 16, 2015 1:08 am

Well a nuclear fissile bomb is not really needed to fill people with fear. All is needed is some radioactive material, such as found in medical equipment, and a conventional bomb, and a few city blocks are brought to a standstill!

Reply to  Patrick
November 16, 2015 6:44 am

The ultimate fear weapon, yet the reality is that it’s fairly easy to clean up such contamination.
Guys with Geiger counters in protective suits pick up the biggest pieces, then set up filters in the storm water drains and bring out fire hoses.
The area will remain marginally above background for a few years, but the reality is that background radiation varies tremendously depending on where you live. Living in the Rockies will expose you to 2 or 3 times more radiation over your lifetime than you would get living on the coast.
Higher elevation means more cosmic radiation and granite is a natural concentrator of uranium.
For that matter, your granite counter top will set off most Geiger counters.

Reply to  Patrick
November 16, 2015 9:56 am

Tour Montparnasse was evacuated because… it was discovered that some asbestos was present.
People have been working there for years. Everything was stopped because they could not take the risk of a few more days of “contamination”.
Don’t come in France to do business.
Don’t invest in France.
Crazyness is the norm.

Reply to  Patrick
November 16, 2015 10:43 am

Or something less obvious like a slurry of radioactive material dumped into the water tank of a street sweeper. Any science fiction writer can come up with many ways to deliver a deadly payload without drawing attention to themselves with explosives. If the purpose is to project terror you really only need to do simple but terrifying things.

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
November 16, 2015 1:10 am

I thought the target was Israel?

David A
Reply to  Patrick
November 16, 2015 5:15 am

Indeed it is, however any ideology based on taking the head off of anyone who disagrees with you, is going to manifest that ideology in perpetual wars, both external, and internal as in Sunni vs Shia. This along with a well trained and armed military has kept Israel alive. In Islamic ideology world domination is the goal, they just have trouble defining the specifics of who the leaders are while trying to get there.

November 16, 2015 1:00 am


Reply to  Bryan
November 16, 2015 1:11 am

Sorry, presses wrong key.
What does this essay hope to achieve.
The author is clearly a Republican.
Turning a purely scientific question about the effect of increased CO2 in the atmosphere into a political football is no help to the skeptic cause.
This ya – boo slanging match approach will alienate Democrats and others on the left.
In the fullness of time the effect of atmospheric CO2 will be fully understood and hopefully no-one will feel obliged to change which party the y support.

Samuel C. Cogar
Reply to  Bryan
November 16, 2015 4:30 am

….. will alienate Democrats and others on the left.
You can’t alienate “the left” any more than what they already are.

Reply to  Bryan
November 16, 2015 5:05 am

So, in pointing out what a socialist Democrat (Bernie’s own term) says you’re able to divine someone else’s political affiliation.
So, what will the Power Ball numbers be next Wednesday?

David A
Reply to  Bryan
November 16, 2015 5:23 am

“What does this essay hope to achieve?”
If you support the idea of blaming 1400 years of Islamic terrorism on your SUV then this post is not for you.
The following were not caused by your SUV…
The Paris Killers were Muslim
The Shoe Bomber was a Muslim
The Beltway Snipers were Muslims
The Fort Hood Shooter was a Muslim
The underwear Bomber was a Muslim
The U.S.S. Cole Bombers were Muslims
The Madrid Train Bombers were Muslims
The Bafi Nightclub Bombers were Muslims
The London Subway Bombers were Muslims
The Moscow Theater Attackers were Muslims
The Boston Marathon Bombers were Muslims
The Pan-Am flight #93 Bombers were Muslims
The Air France Entebbe Hijackers were Muslims
The Iranian Embassy Takeover, was by Muslims
The Beirut U.S. Embassy bombers were Muslims
The Libyan U.S. Embassy Attack was by Muslims
The Buenos Aires Suicide Bombers were Muslims
The Israeli Olympic Team Attackers were Muslims
The Kenyan U.S, Embassy Bombers were Muslims
The Saudi, Khobar Towers Bombers were Muslims
The Beirut Marine Barracks bombers were Muslims
The Besian Russian School Attackers were Muslims
The first World Trade Center Bombers were Muslims
The Bombay & Mumbai India Attackers were Muslims
The Achille Lauro Cruise Ship Hijackers were Muslims
The September 11th 2001 Airline Hijackers were Muslims

Reply to  Bryan
November 16, 2015 6:45 am

Pointing out that Sanders is an idiot means you are clearly a Republican?

Reply to  Bryan
November 16, 2015 6:47 am

If I were to point out that Hillary lied in her claims regarding gun deaths, would that make me a Republican too?

Reply to  Bryan
November 16, 2015 10:48 am

Sanders can be an idiot independently of party affiliation of who ever notices his idiocy.

November 16, 2015 1:06 am

No 1 threat eh,
the world has been greening for the last 30 years, food price index is at an 8 year low-

Reply to  richard
November 16, 2015 11:30 pm

Food is so cheap nobody grows it anymore. Inspired by Yogi Berra.

King of Cool
November 16, 2015 1:38 am

CO2 induced Climate Change disappears into insignificance compared with several real threats to mankind from natural disasters caused from within the earth’s crust and from outer space let alone from the ever mutating bugs and viruses that continuously invade our bodies.
The human race also has the ability to go a long way in destroying itself in a Dr Strangelove scenario that is not impossible at some stage of our future.
But to-day, I do not think that ISIS has the capacity or the desire to use a nuclear weapon against the West. Even if remotely possible I am sure that the US President from either side of the political spectrum would have no hesitation in ensuring that the West obliterated their Caliphate out of existence first… and ISIS must realise that and want to leave a some sort of legacy no matter how many virgins are waiting up there in the desert sky.
No, I am sure our immediate and mid term threat is unfortunately going to be a lot more of what we have seen in Paris – cheap, effective and very hard to prevent. The first thing we need to in combating it is to divert sufficient funds and the unity and will from the non problem towards a solution to the real one.

Reply to  King of Cool
November 16, 2015 2:47 am

Sorry king of fools, The ISIS goal is to bring about Armageddon via a Caliphate !!

Reply to  King of Cool
November 16, 2015 6:24 am

I do not think that ISIS has … the desire to use a nuclear weapon against the West
Would you invite someone into your house, when that person fundamentally believes that God’s will is that they throw you out of your house?
the problem people fail to realize is that Islam is not homogeneous. There a different schools of Islamic Law. Some require that you convert of die. Others will tolerate your existence so long as you are willing to submit and pay.
But in all cases you either must convert to Islam, submit to the authority of Islam, or die. This is God’s will. There is no middle ground. There is no tolerant multiculturalism.

Reply to  King of Cool
November 16, 2015 6:47 am

I have no doubt that ISIS would use a nuclear weapon if they had one.

November 16, 2015 1:52 am

>>I’m not suggesting that even Iran, which holds regular
>>public “death to America” rallies, necessarily actually wants
>>to blow up an American city.
Of course they do, that is why this is so dangerous. Look up ‘eschatology’, and start to worry.
Iranias are Shia ‘twelvers’. Like ex-president Armadinnerjacket, they await the comming of Ali, the twelfth immam. The twelfth immam is currently hiding down a well, and he has been there for the last 1,200 years. And he will only come out if the well when Muslims are severely persecuted, and then he will save the righteous and everyone will become Muslim.
There are many Iranian clerics and politicians – just like Armadinnerjacket – who believe that the best way to get the immam out of the well is to arrange a nuclear strike against Israel or America. Then tere will be a retalliation, which will be the ‘persecution’ of Muslims, and the immam will come out of the well and lead Iran to world domination. This is why Armadinnerjacket made that eshatology speech in the UN, saying that Israel should be destroyed. I will look out for it when I get back home. I have trouble with videos on the iPad.
Sound crazy? Yeah, sure, but it is not unlike the Chrestian belief in Armageddon. And this is why the Iranians want a nuclear bomb so badly – they want to start the eschatological Armageddon process, so they will eventually triumph over the West. The old Cold War doctrine of M.A.D. does not work with Iran, because they WANT to die.
And people like Obama and his advisors know this full well, because they sacked Robert Spencer for telling the CIA all about this, back in 2011. So having been informed about Shia eschatology, which has been a central component of Shia doctrine for 1,200 years, you have to ask yourself why Obama agreed to give Iran nuclear technology. Just whose side is this guy on? What are his true intentions for America and the West??

Reply to  ralfellis
November 16, 2015 2:49 am

+ 1,000

Reply to  ralfellis
November 16, 2015 2:50 am

Obama was raised as a muslim..period !!!

Reply to  Marcus
November 16, 2015 3:32 am

Islam spawned ~700n years from the Judeo/Christian rubbish.

Reply to  Marcus
November 16, 2015 6:50 am

I really love it when atheists go out of their way to prove that they know nothing.

Reply to  Marcus
November 16, 2015 1:40 pm

Well, Patrick is kinda right in that Islam came from Judaeo-Christianity. Most of the historical texts the K refers to are short synopses of Torah stories, but shorn of their detail, and many of their characters, and much of their meaning (the K is quite short an frustratingly repetitive). Many of these stories have a slightly different view to the standard Torah. And since the K mentions the flight of the Sabaeans in the early 6th century a number of times, it is likely that the Torah stories came via Saba.
The K then adds the history of Muhummad’s military campaigns against the Meccan camel trains and against the Jews of Medina. (Muhummad was a petty warlord and camel-train raider.) And many of these passages are not printable on a family website. And if you mix all of that together – voilla, you have the K. It is not very inspirational.

Reply to  ralfellis
November 16, 2015 6:50 am

Christians believe that it is God who will bring about Armageddon and that there is nothing man can do to change the time table already set down by God.

November 16, 2015 3:37 am

In the past, this site was very careful to not box itself in, politically. Appeals to rational thinking were the key point, using only science and clarity.
The dangers of writing about the political scene in general is divisive and counter productive. It will divide, not unite. Another point here: the people threatening all humanity with nuclear war are the leaders of the top nuclear power nations, that is, European governments, US governments, Russian and Chinese governments all going at each other in one way or another and slipping into WWIII.
This is a political problem due to no one wanting to disarm first.
And we are so used to this which has existed only in the last 60 years, we don’t even think about this anymore.

David A
Reply to  emsnews
November 16, 2015 5:35 am

Disarming first could well precipitate WW three. “MAD” is an effective policy, terrible, scary, but effective. The nuclear genie cannot be put back in the bag, but effort must be made to prevent insane dark age ideology from acquiring nuclear weapons, because “MAD” will not be effective with the insane.
In the US we have a political party blaming rule the world dark age ideology on CAGW. That is news WUWT is, IMV, obligated to cover.

Reply to  emsnews
November 16, 2015 6:40 am

This is a political problem due to no one wanting to disarm first.
Wolves do not attack sheep that are protected by dogs. If the sheep disarm, by removing the dog’s teeth, the wolves will attack.
All predators (including people) pick on the weak. They avoid a fight with someone able to defend themselves.
As Sun Tzu taught more than 2000 years ago. The Art of War is to prepare for War, so that you can avoid War. Your enemies must always be convinced that should they attack you, they would be destroyed.

Reply to  emsnews
November 16, 2015 6:53 am

The idiocy of the left knows no bounds.
1) It is the left that is pushing the AGW lunacy.
2) Just having nuclear weapons means you are threatening the world with annihilation? I suppose you are one of those guys who feels threatened every time he sees a gun?
3) It’s your style of pacifism that led to WWII, and it will probably cause WWIII as well. Not those evil people with weapons.

richard verney
November 16, 2015 3:57 am

I am not particularly interested in the political leaning articles, and much prefer the science. I would be happy to see almost no political led articles, but that said, I consider Climate Change to be 85% political, about 14% poor science, and about 1% (or less) solid science.
Given the politicalised nature of cAGW, and Climate Change, it is impossible to stick entirely to the science and to completely ignore the underlying politics that drive this forward.

November 16, 2015 4:14 am

Of course Sanders believes in CAGW – he “feels the burn”!

Mickey Reno
November 16, 2015 4:36 am

Bernie Sanders is comfortable with and 100% sure that he won’t be the Democratic nominee. He’s now simply trying to make the Primary race appear to be a serious competition, as opposed to a Hillary coronation and posterior buss-fest. Not coincidentally, this is a same tack the dominant left-leaning mass media takes toward Hillary. Oh sure, they’ll take a few gentle jabs at her, to make in look like they’re not completely partisan and in the tank for her. Then they’ll endorse her and slam the Republicans.

Reply to  Mickey Reno
November 16, 2015 6:36 am

The way I see it is much the same as you do. Bernie Sanders was put up to this just to make Empress Hillary look palatable in comparison. This gives the Dems a choice of the loon or the liar and since the end justifies the means, the liar should be the shoe-in nominee.
Oops! But… Clinton has so many negatives among Democrats that the primary voters may just go with the loon. And there are enough Democrats that see Bernie as only slightly left of center that he’s not considered a loon by a larger number of progressives.
You and I agree, Mickey, on what seems to be the obvious strategy being pursued by the Dems, but what if it turns out that they picked the wrong guy and Bernie wins in the primaries? Things could get really interesting, eh?

November 16, 2015 5:57 am

Re: Bernie Sanders & AGW 11/15/15:
Obama is losing the War on Terror,
Obama lost the War in Iraq,
Obama is losing the War in Afghanistan, his favorite war,
Obama is losing the Cold War.
Soviet Socialists have reason to hope,
National Socialists have reason to hope,
all Socialists have reason to hope.
Bernie Sanders has reason to hope.
Climate Changes (Change’s) everything.

Samuel C. Cogar
Reply to  Jeff Glassman
November 17, 2015 4:20 am

Losing a War is good, …… when you do it to protect and embolden “your own” without causing harm to yourself.

Reply to  Jeff Glassman
November 17, 2015 7:44 am

Re: Samuel C. Cogar 11/17/15 0420:
Losing a War is good, …… when you do it to protect and embolden “your own” without causing harm to yourself.
As Rick said, “We’ll always have Paris.” Or Benghazi. Or 9-11. Or Klinghoffer. The list seems endless. See David A’s short list, above. 11/16/2015 @ 05:23 am.
Cogar reminds me of Nina Conti’s Granny, who said that her departed husband, Frank, was a comedian. Told jokes during the war. Then, sadly, the war ended.
Otherwise, his comment is indecipherable, Obamese.
Obama, whose universal active verb is “make sure [shore]”. Does no one else hear this ingrained signal of incompetence?

Samuel C. Cogar
Reply to  Jeff Glassman
November 18, 2015 4:38 am

Jeff G,
If one never tells a lie …. then they won’t have to unlie it.
It is quite obvious that you deciphered my comment the second you read it.
Me positive your subconscious mind “triggered” your silly conscious response of an “Oh my gawd” self-realization.

November 16, 2015 6:20 am

Bernie is still in character. Don’t wake him up.

November 16, 2015 7:11 am

Re: MarkW 11/16/15 0634:
If outlawing guns is supposed to end gun violence, why don’t we just outlaw terrorists?
Democrats push gun control; create gun-free sanctuary cities, schools, restaurants, theaters, malls, arenas, churches; maniacs come dancing out of the woodwork to shoot up the soft targets.
Obama withdraws the boots, terrorists attack, Obama sends in the dress shoes. International gun control in full bloom.

November 16, 2015 7:18 am

Democrats such as Sanders and Obama are terrorism deniers.
Bob Clark

November 16, 2015 7:25 am

Sanders isn’t alone in arguing that climate change has the potential to make international conflicts worse. According to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, “Extreme weather, climate change, and public policies that affect food and water supplies will probably create or exacerbate humanitarian crises and instability risks.” The Department of Defense says that climate change “poses immediate risks to U.S. national security” and has the potential to exacerbate terrorism. There’s also substantial evidence that drought linked to climate change helped spark Syria’s civil war.

Reply to  Luke
November 16, 2015 7:34 am

Luke: Oboma’s political minions – at ANY government-paid level in ANY current government bureaucracy! – are not a source of truth about anything.

Reply to  RACookPE1978
November 16, 2015 12:45 pm

Oh I see. If government scientists or administrators suggest that global warming will have negative consequences they are political hacks. If they present information that suggests the some impacts of climate change may be less dire (Zwally’s recent paper for instance) there is no questioning of their results. That is the definition of hypocrisy.

Reply to  Luke
November 16, 2015 1:00 pm

Yes, government bureaucrats,”educators” and “scientists” have been paid 92 billions the past 3 years alone to spread their hypocritical propaganda. You can buy a lot of “democrat government politicians” for 31 trillion in carbon trading futures, and even some more for 1.3 trillion in new carbon taxes.
And they can be, and they enthusiastically are, being bought and paid for.

Reply to  RACookPE1978
November 16, 2015 1:02 pm

No, Luke, you really don’t see anything.
Did you manage to fail to notice the Climategate and the “Cause”? Did you manage to fail to notice the systematic distortion of climate science, or what passes for science, by the Obama administration?
Are you for real?

Reply to  Luke
November 16, 2015 10:52 am

Thankfully the climate is rather stable. When it does change it looks like this:

Reply to  dp
November 16, 2015 2:25 pm

That’s from when the ice from the last glaciation melted. Impressive.

Reply to  Luke
November 16, 2015 11:23 am

“Sanders isn’t alone in arguing that climate change has the potential to make international conflicts worse.”
Of course he isn’t.
There is an inexhaustible supply of credulous alarmists, and there always will be.
We will never reach peak stupid.

November 16, 2015 8:14 am

François Hollande just finished his boring speech in front of the whole Parlement, the “congress” (Assemblée nationale + Sénat).
The speech was silly and ignorant, confusing security and safety: in the Constitution “sûreté, résistance à l’oppression” doesn’t mean “security”. Safety means the protection against abuse by the State. Security is something else; either this buffoon doesn’t understand the difference or he hopes we don’t.
I lost track but
he managed to end with something about the cleanness of the planet.
Note: The constitutional reform wanted by Sarkozy created the right for the President to talk in front of the congress. The President cannot enter the Parliament and talk, according to the Constitution, he is the only citizen who cannot enter (following a fear of a potential wannabe dictator getting full power). When Sarkozy proposed that the President could make ONE speech in front of “le congrès” there was a lot of criticisms and the constitutional reform was described as one for a dictator.
But yesterday the President declared State of emergency which creates a right to control the medias.
The reform of the Constitution by Sarkozy was probably the most significant reform of these last years, and the greatest increase of individual rights. Only now people are beginning to say so, because they hate Sarkozy so much (for good reasons) they couldn’t say so before.

November 16, 2015 8:33 am

How long before this bunch force us into drinking Guyana Punch to “save the planet”?

Reply to  TRM
November 16, 2015 2:27 pm

When they realize all animal life creates CO2 with every breath we take.

Bruce Cobb
November 16, 2015 8:50 am

The “threat” of manmade climate change, which is what they always mean by “climate change” is pure myth, so the climate liar’s use of a “national security threat” due to “climate change” is a ploy, meant to trade on people’s fears of terrorism. Pushed to it’s logical conclusion, those who “deny climate change” could then be considered as “security threats” or worse.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
November 16, 2015 2:29 pm

I’ve already been called a “traitor to humanity” for pointing out that plants love CO2. It’s only a matter of time before they demand we be jailed for not worshipping in their insane cult…oh wait, that has already begun.

November 16, 2015 8:52 am

I can’t wait to vote for tweedle dee or tweedle dumb. Tough decisions ahead.

November 16, 2015 9:15 am

The event in Paris, surprised every honest man, and nobody asked who was brought up in this situation, many countries that were destroyed for no reason and flee from them all and even terrorists. Who is more terrorists? Those who became terrorists because of external influence or one that is all prepared to form terrorism ”
I feel sorry for the people in Paris or in any place where killed as fair, but I wonder: How many “tears spilled” Westerners are trying to destroy Serbia, killed more than 5,000 people, destroyed everything they could, with such “poor technique “the period of about 100 days, with 2,000 modern aircraft” merciful angels “. Few were they so destruction, but ensure themselves from the Serbs for the future billions of years, spewing “poor and osiraomašeni” uranium, and now, every year the number of patients with cancer exceeds several tens of thousands of innocents.
How do we call these who have sent so many “angels of mercy” to “terrorist” Serbia. France’s Kouchner probably enjoyed watching a “cultural and well-educated” Albanians have a lot of efforts to “defeat” the enemies of Europeanization cross on the church from the Middle Ages.
What do you think what fate awaits those who have made a “humanitarian wasteland” of Serbia.
We will see whether anyone from Europe and America to express condolences and was to admit that these “angels” were terrorists to the nth dimension.

Reply to  Nikola Milovic
November 16, 2015 9:33 am

So, this wasn’t a war? There weren’t two sides fighting to establish their superiority? Aircraft…”angels of destruction”…just roared out of nowhere, flown by imperialist aggressors bent on unjust destruction of Serbs? And who then, was slaughtering Croats? Was that also the terrorists from other nations? And did the imperialist nations institute genocidal rape against Bosnians? I suppose they don’t count.
Paris is not the same. It seems a different forum would be more appropriate to discuss the pros and cons of propagandizing genocide.

David A
Reply to  Nikola Milovic
November 16, 2015 11:23 am

Nikola, perhaps you have a language issue, as I could not follow your post, but the events in Paris surprised exactly zero rational people. Merkel of course was “shocked”.

Reply to  Nikola Milovic
November 16, 2015 12:21 pm

Nikola Milovic

I feel sorry for the people in Paris or in any place where killed as fair, but I wonder: How many “tears spilled” … Westerners are trying to destroy Serbia, killed more than 5,000 people, destroyed everything they could, with such “poor technique “the period of about 100 days, with 2,000 modern aircraft” merciful angels “. Few were they so destruction, but ensure themselves from the Serbs for the future billions of years, spewing “poor and osiraomašeni” uranium, and now, every year the number of patients with cancer exceeds several tens of thousands of innocents.
How do we call these who have sent so many “angels of mercy” to “terrorist” Serbia.

Hmmmn. Ask Hillary and Bill Clinton (typical modern democrat liberal immoral progressives). They were the ones who needed to “invent” a War in the Balkan States to deflect questions and attentions from Clinton’s impeachment and financial embarrassments (er, bribery) scandals.

November 16, 2015 9:16 am

No refutation of misconceptions, no facts, nothing will dissuade true believers. Make no mistake, globalwarmism has all the symptoms of a full-blown, radical religion.

November 16, 2015 9:37 am

Does anyone here honestly believe you can become a US Senator (let alone a Democratic Party Presidential Candidate!) while speaking out frankly on every topic? Really??
Obama recently quoted the French “principles” of “liberte, egalite, fraternite” as having inspired the corresponding American ones (plus “In (our) God We Trust”, or course). I’d happily settle for just the first of those, but so far, none of them have been realized on either side of the Atlantic.
So, let’s be realistic. Bernie Sanders wants to raise important issues, and to do that, he can’t afford to be tuned out automatically by the readership of the American mass media. In our “democratic” system of “representation”, in which all of the essential decisions are made before the people even get a look, let alone a vote, it’s all about choosing the best of a bad lot.
I live in Quebec, the most authoritarian of the five Canadian provinces I’ve experienced. And one of the best things I can say about living in Quebec, is that it borders on the State of Vermont, arguably the least authoritarian state in the USA.
How? Because in Vermont, not only resident US citizens, but even reputable aliens visiting from abroad are automatically trusted with sidearms for self-defence.
In Quebec, even after having been screened, tested, and re-screened regularly over a period decades, Canadian citizens are not allowed to convey any firearm via any means of public transport except by taxi (no bus, train, subway, ferry, airline), and sidearm owners can only take their sidearms (unloaded and under lock and key, of course) to an (expensive, mostly by invitation only) shooting club with a special permit, for which they must take and pass (and of course, pay for) a course in French, and at which their attendance must be meticulously recorded and transmitted to the provincial police. Club officials and members, and members of the public are also encouraged to communicate any suspicions or misgivings they might have about any gun oiwner to the police.
So, what can one say about the democratic, let alone patriotic, commitment of a government that doesn’t trust its own law-abiding citizens with arms for self-defence?
I’d choose the Vermont model, given the chance. And Bernie Sanders is the Senator from Vermont.

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  otropogo
November 16, 2015 10:16 am

otropogo It is the people of Vermont who protect their own rights. Not Mr. Sanders.
Vermonters can be peculiar people, they tend to get argumentative if antagonized, some of the Revolutionary War battles were fought there, they went very very badly for the British/Hessians
I like Vermonters and Vermont, As I kid and young adult I often vacationed there. There is no place like New England in the autumn. I miss it.

Reply to  Mike the Morlock
November 16, 2015 10:52 am

And they have a single payer health care system too. Oh wait….

Reply to  Mike the Morlock
November 16, 2015 8:51 pm

Mike the Morlock . ” It is the people of Vermont who protect their own rights. Not Mr. Sanders.”
I get that Mike, but it speaks in his favour that they elect him to represent them in the Senate.
I’ve got a Vermont connection too. In my youth I served briefly in the first British regular regiment formed in North America, originally called the Queen’s Rangers. They got whooped in Vermont, but the fault apparently lay in the inferiority of their smooth-bore muskets, which let the Green Mountain Boys pick them off from a safe distance with their rifled barrels.

Reply to  otropogo
November 16, 2015 12:04 pm

To paraphrase:
‘Does anyone here honestly believe you can become a… Presidential Candidate while speaking out frankly on every topic? Really??’ I mean, except for The Donald. ☺
Maybe that’s why he’s so far out in front…

eddie willers
November 16, 2015 9:54 am

Ben Carson’s theory of the Pyramids as storage bins has more validity than Bernie’s climate change causes terrorism.

November 16, 2015 10:59 am

It’s Hubble’s lesser known second law which states that political galaxies furthest from viability are flying away from reality at greater velocity in a linear relationship. See Gore and Kerry for plotted points on the graph.

November 16, 2015 11:21 am

I’m not suggesting that even Iran, which holds regular public “death to America” rallies, necessarily actually wants to blow up an American city.
I am.
Straight after they’ve vitrified Tel Aviv.

David A
Reply to  catweazle666
November 16, 2015 11:27 am

…exactly, they just do not wish to get caught. Their ultimate goal is likely an EMP fired from an unknown source in the Atlantic with instructions to sink itself after launch.

Reply to  catweazle666
November 16, 2015 2:18 pm

Having worked in Iran, the average Iranian I met is not so different from the rest of us. The Mullah’s on the other hand, frighten the typical Iranian even more than us.

November 16, 2015 12:30 pm

America has to create wars just to justify to the people their military spending.
Global Warming / Climate Change was put in place to cover up the effects of these experiments.
Can someone please explain this?

Reply to  jmorpuss
November 16, 2015 1:26 pm

I think you need to get your tin foil hat fixed, the Z-rays are frying your brain cell.
Or perhaps you could try builders’ lead flashing, 10SWG would probably be arequate.

Joel Snider
November 16, 2015 12:44 pm

I live outside Portland, Oregon. I’m already seeing idiots with ‘Ready for Bernie’ stickers on their cars.

November 16, 2015 2:56 pm

The climate change we are experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans and Man does not have the power to change it. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. Man has been unable to change a single weather event let alone the climate. So let us spend a lot of time and money trying to change things that we just cannot. The sun may suddenly explode so let us spend time worrying about that. Another star may come close enough to the sun to cause a radical change in the Earth’s orbit. Let us spend a lot of money worrying about that one too as is we could do anything to prevent it..

November 16, 2015 5:31 pm

Thanks, Paul Westhaver, for the statements by the Liberal Democrats about Saddam Insane’s WMD program, and why they thought he was dangerous to the United States.
Bush 43 gets all the blame for the Iraq war, but we know the U.S. had a long confrontational history with Saddam, long before George W. Bush came on the scene. He just happened to be president when everything came to a head.
Now, the Liberal Democrats want to act like they were just innocent bystanders to all the events, and had nothing to do with pushing the nation into the Iraq war.
I might borrow some of your quotes for another forum sometime, but I’ll give you the credit. 🙂

Paul Westhaver
Reply to  TA
November 16, 2015 7:22 pm

The true record of the past eludes the deluded left.
I am old enough to remember the circumstances and young enough to still …remember. If you know what I mean.
I got the list from, of all places,… snopes. They are all yours.

%d bloggers like this: