Bernie Sanders, on Climate Change, says “ we must listen to the scientists”!
But at the CNN Town Hall a week ago Sanders dismissed any thoughts of using nuclear power as a renewable source despite assurances from “ SCIENTISTS”! that is the best option and storage of its waste is safe.
But Elizabeth Warren took the prize as the chicken little of the forum calling Climate Change the
EXISTENTIAL CRISIS Yikes! Warren is a millionaire 12 times over and Professor at Harvard
( ok she teaches Law not English but lawyers have to know the meanings of words).
Climate Change doesn’t even rise to the level of existential threat which is not to say it poses no problems. No matter the wailings of Josh and his Twitter morons our existence on earth is not threatened by “ climate change”. Our quality of life may change but not our existence.
[/i]
In reality climate change is a smokescreen put up by the left to hide its real agenda:
to turn our economy and political system to socialism and away from the status quo of capitalism.
The left! Why don't you cite your source material, Red
There is an increasingly large subset of former climate change deniers whose argument is now “OK, it’s bad, but it’s not an Existential Threat.” After years of arguing that there is no such thing as man-made climate change, a hoax made up by scientists to get funding (or something) now it exists but it’s just a Quality of Life issue. If Quality of Life covers the health of billions of people, with millions dying of disease, heat exposure, hunger and thirst. But it’s not existential, see, because not
all humans will die, and the wealthy in the US will probably find a way to keep living. So it’s all good!
What is so incredibly idiotic about this argument is that their solution to this “OK it’s a problem but not an existential one” is the same as it was when they denied the threat ever existed; do nothing. The endless parsing over words and definitions is just obvious obfuscation if you don’t then say what you are willing to do about it.
You think the Green New Deal is only justified by an Existential Threat? So what does the world getting unhealthier, the loss of food supplies and potable water, fewer regions on the globe that sustain life, heightened chances of natural disaster causing property damage and loss of life, lower GDP, what action does all that justify? Nothing? Make a counter proposal, or shut the fuck up.
The irony is that given the threats that even the Trump Administration has accepted, some moderate action like the Paris Climate Agreement would probably be a decent counter to the more aggressive proposals in the Green New Deal. But where does the US stand on that again? Where does REDSTATEWARD stand on that?
And the same piece that REDSTATEWARD is ripping off here without citation makes the same old argument that well, even if we did something as drastic as the Green New Deal, it will be useless because other countries won’t. Yeah, if only there was some accord or agreement we all signed to combat the problem in the same way…