Bernie Sanders who, believe it or not, is actually a 2016 Democrat presidential candidate for president, is also actually one of those people who still believes that global warming represents the greatest threat to America’s national security, rehashing the stance taken by any number of Democrat politicians in recent years as part of an ongoing effort to perpetuate the myth that carbon dioxide emissions are somehow much more dangerous to this country than are the Muslim terrorists who are quite intent upon killing anyone who refuses to take part in their violent and perverted little cult.  Even though I don’t seem recall a single instance where it’s been climate change that’s blown up anyone sitting in a café.

So it was then on the day after the last Democrat ‘debate’, and I use the term loosely, that we saw Bernie go on CBS’ ‘Face the Nation and essentially double-down on the rather idiotic remarks that he had made just the night before.  Bernie said, “If we are going to see an increase in drought, in flood, and extreme weather disturbances as a result of climate change, what that means is that people all over the world are going to be fighting over limited natural resources.”  How is it that any rational thinking human being, Republican or Democrat, could hear such drivel and remain of the opinion that the person who uttered it should be considered as being a viable candidate for president?

And, apparently, old Bernie was nowhere near being finished, having much more to say on the topic to anyone willing to listen.  Because he continued on with his juvenile little rant saying, “If there is not enough water, if there is not enough land to grow your crops, then you’re going to see migrations of people fighting over land that will sustain them. And that will lead to international conflict.”  But to be fair to Bernie, he’s far from being the only liberal politician, nor the only Democrat candidate, to try to make the cockamamie connection between terrorism and the climate.  Sanders’ primary opponents Hitlery Clinton and Marty O’Malley have also repeated this very same insane argument.

Even Barry “Almighty” himself has said on any number of occasions how it is that global warming is the U.S.’s greatest national security threat.  And it was in a speech back in October that John Kerry Heinz, a longtime advocate of ‘climate change’, said, “It is not a coincidence that immediately prior to the civil war in Syria, the country experienced the worst drought on record.”  And while all of these losers acknowledge “terrorism is a major issue that we’ve got to address today,” they still name carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels represent the greatest long-term threat to Americans.  And you have to ask yourself, what does it say about the voters in this country that we now have these corrupt imbeciles in their current positions?

And it was during the same previously mentioned Democrat ‘debate’ that also heard Sanders also say, “In fact, climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism.” He went on to say, “And if we do not get our act together and listen to what the scientists say you’re gonna see countries all over the world– this is what the C.I.A. says, they’re gonna be struggling over limited amounts of water, limited amounts of land to grow their crops. And you’re gonna see all kinds of international conflict.”  And yet those in our state-controlled media can hear such nonsense and can continue to feel justified in calling into question the legitimacy of Republican candidates?  Nope, no bias here.

But seriously folks, how can it be intelligently argued that global warming is actually what’s driving Islamic terrorism?  And to simply bolster support for a U.N. climate treaty misses the point entirely of whether global warming is a driver of violent conflict.  And yet it was the liberal rag, ‘Time’ magazine that recently came rushing to Sanders’ defense, arguing that “many academics and national security experts agree that climate change contributes to an uncertain world where terrorism can thrive.” And it was Time’s Justin Worland who went so far as to point to a 2014 Defense Department report and another study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences earlier this year to bolster such claims.

This guy Worland made clear his political affiliation when he wrote, “The worst drought on record in the Middle Eastern country has created instability for farmers and threatened the food supply.” And he also went on to write, “At the same time, the government has struggled to hold on to power across the country in the face of militant groups and millions of Syrians have fled their homeland.”  If anything, this guy proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that he, just like most of those who so proudly identify themselves as journalists today, is far from being an actual journalist and is nothing more than an shill for the Democrat Party.  I’d be willing to be that a good many ‘journalists’ are actually on the payroll of the DNC.

Look, even the bona fide experts say that it remains very much unclear if global warming actually has had any detectable impact on Syria’s climate in the run-up to the start of the civil war in 2011.  Syria has a very long history of droughts, and poor government agricultural policies encouraged farmers to grow cotton and other water-intensive cash crops — despite the country’s drought-ridden past.  But it would seem that none of that makes any difference to our climate change alarmists who really come across as nothing more than desperate as they try to attach global warming to every new global calamity that presents itself, no matter how ridiculous.

Chip Knappenberger and Patrick Michaels, climate scientists at the libertarian Cato Institute, wrote back in March: “It is not until you dig pretty deep into the technical scientific literature, that you find out that the anthropogenic climate change impact on drought conditions in the Fertile Crescent is extremely minimal and tenuous—so much so that it is debatable as to whether it is detectable at all.”  They also wrote: Drought “conditions which are part and parcel of the region climate and the intensity and frequency of which remain dominated by natural variability, even in this era of increasing greenhouse gas emissions from human activities.”

While a drought no doubt made things worse for Syrians, contributing to rising tensions, the cause of conflicts almost always stem from politics and not environmental causes. National security expert Jeff Kueter with the George C. Marshall Institute wrote in a 2014 paper that “[p]olitical and economic factors prove to be much better and more compelling explanations for men to fight other men.”  Claims that global warming will drive more violent conflict also hinges on the argument that warming will cause extreme weather events, like droughts, to become more frequent and intense.  But that doesn’t seem to be occurring like climate models predicted.

And according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a scientific intergovernmental body that operates under the auspices of the United Nations, and was set up at the request of member governments and was established in 1988, found in its latest major report there’s no strong evidence extreme weather is getting more frequent or extreme. The IPCC said “there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness since the middle of the 20th century due to lack of direct observations, geographical inconsistencies in the trends, and dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice.”

Look, what this all boils down to is an interesting little fact that was brought to light by a recent Fox News poll. You see, it was in that poll that 24 percent of those taking part identified terrorism as being their primary issue regarding the next election while only 3 percent said they were most worried about climate change.  So might that be why Democrats are working so hard to make a connection between the two?  There seems to very little that can occur in this world that Democrats don’t see as being somehow associated with climate change, no matter how remotely that association might be.  Today’s Democrats are nothing more than real life ‘Chicken Littles.’  And as the election get closer the rhetoric will only get more intense.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s