Bernie sanders: Climate change is directly related to terrorism

Like the government did in 74 with global cooling?

- - - Updated - - -

So you only believe alarmists websites. Check.

 

You're not contesting the content just the messenger. Typical.

 

When the messenger lacks credibility then so does the message.

 

Simple solutions for simple minds. Ignore the facts using a simple excuse yet many of the alarmists go to a cartoonists alarmist blog for their information.

 

Ironic!

 

Correcting Sanders is pure ageism.

 

Just shows the fallacy of your previous statement.

 

He is a Captain in the Navy and a pilot with 25 years of experience not a 25 year old pilot. The laugh is on you for lack of reading comprehension.

PS a Captain in the navy is pretty high up not like a captain in the Marines

You only have 1 strike left.

 

You're just wrong on that. If the message lacks credibility he should have attacked the message - he didn't because he couldn't and neither can you.

 

Well they have been experiencing years of drought which ultimately creates a food shortage.

 

So every where there is a drought we have terrorists? How do we stop nature?

 

Islamic terrorism and climate change hysteria.

Two things enabled by liberalism.

 

I cant wait until Sanders or Hillary claims "everyone is going to die if they don't cast their vote for me".

Given the democrats recent history one of these clown will indeed say that......


Islamic terrorism doesn't exist and they're Jesus and Nostradamus .....

 

Irony squared!

 

And the solution for them is to attack France. Got it. One last thing..........how do's attacking France alleviate the drought and hunger? I'm a little fuzzy on that part.

 

Mea culpa!

I did misread that.

However he is only voicing his opinion and does not speak for the entire military the way the Pentagon does.

Onus is still on you to prove that the Pentagon is wrong.

 

On one side we have 90% plus of all scientists and the Pentagon.

On the other we have extremists with a partisan agenda.

Not hard to figure out who lacks credibility on this topic.

 

You. There never was a 97%. Just a number for the gullible to repeat like a commandment.
None of your alarmist predictions have come true. None.

 

Onus is on you to provide credible substantiation for your allegation.

 

97% of people making the 97% claim have absolutely no idea where that number comes from.

If you look at the literature, the specific meaning of the 97% claim is: 97 percent of climate scientists agree that there is a global warming trend and that human beings are the main cause–that is, that we are over 50% responsible. The warming is a whopping 0.8 degrees over the past 150 years, a warming that has tapered off to essentially nothing in the last decade and a half.

Less than 1 degree in 150 years and no increase in the last 18years.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/

Is that proof? No. It's at least as much "proof" as you can provide.

 

Not only that, the IPCC only attributes warming from the 50's to man, so much of that 1 degree happened before the 50's.

 

No, there will NEVER be a justification that ever effectively argues that global warming=terrrorism. If that were the case, you'd get a mass migration FROM the Middle East(similarly to Black Flight in the mid-60's by upper class Whites) to some other region, without any terrorist activity(after all, they made their new homes in presumably better living conditions.)

To see if correlation=causation, you must first analyze the entire scope. Ask yourself: If weather met this "perfect climate"(whatever climate the advocates think that should be), do you think their radical rebellion all of a sudden stops? "Okay, it's not 110* degrees anymore, so we forgive the West! They're not the "great satan" after all"

ROFL, no. That suggestion only comes from people whose entirely unaware of the scope of the Middle Eastern problem. The problem isn't merely their fanaticism but also to the degree which it spreads. The idea that if we leave the Middle East alone, that they all of a sudden will drop their violent ambitions is naive.(After all, the U.S did not egg the Islamics on during the Piracy wars.)

We saw evidence of this during the Arab Spring. Our failed attempt to leave Iraq, our cowardly President asking US Citizens and government posts to withdraw from the area and did any of it improve? Obviously with the existence of ISIS, the answer is a resounding no.

We have but two options and neither of them is exactly "pretty" or "democratic" but they're the only real options if you're serious about protecting America.

1) If we insist on retreating from the Middle East, we must exclude those from the Middle East from coming over here. We shall neither fight them over here or there. But a complete isolation of the area. Alot of Liberals have been wringing over this, due to their "care and concern" but if you cared more about America(and your OWN damn safety), it wouldn't be a problem to you.

No one actually obliged America to take these people. Not the U.N, and not any charter of US Law. Just our naive presumptions about what immigration should entail.

2) If we're to fight this war, we must fight it seriously with the absolute decimation of these groups. There's always civilian casualties in a war but we can minimize those by directly targeting the enemy when they least expect it. Just as they plant their moles inside the Western countries, we should be planting our moles inside of their organizations and destroying them from within. If they're going to use guerrilla warfare, we'll also use guerrilla warfare.

We will, to quote Winston Churchill "fight them on the beaches." And then after the war? Since the Middle East is in a transition phase, it must be governed by the West. The goal is a Western-Arabic civilization like that of the UAE(United Arab Emirates), Qatar, etc.

An Arabic civilization that does respect to human rights and dignity. And in such a civilization, ISIS, Al-Qaeda, etc. None of them can ever exist again. When the Taliban was outrooted in Afghanistan, it had no hope but to take refuge in Pakistan. And if we improve our relations with Pakistan, it will yet again hide until finally the entire Arabic world squashes that ugly bug for what it is.

 

I think the mass terrorism coming out of California exhibits your position.

 

Wrong about what? You deny politics has a place in the military do you not? There is nothing I can do to debate a person who holds such a naive view

 

Ive been here only a few months and personally have answered this claim at least 5 times. I guess they think if you repeat a lie often enough it will make it so. 97% of humans agree on almost nothing at all and scientists even less as most are born skeptics.

I think that would be a much better word to describe us than deniers. We are indeed skeptics not deniers as should be all scientists .