Seriously, why wouldn’t Hillary and Trump debate a subject that continuously ranks last or next to last on the lists of American concerns?
(Guardian) Climate change has been the elephant in the room during the past two US presidential debates. Ignoring this issue would be more understandable if this metaphorical pachyderm wasn’t about to rampage the lives of Americans, causing upheaval on a scale not seen since the start of human civilization.
“I’ve been shocked at the lack of questions on climate change, it really is fiddling while the world burns,” said Kerry Emanuel, a leading climate scientist. “This is the great issue of our time and we are skirting around it. I’m just baffled by it.”
The great issue!!!!!! That no one really cares about. And so great that Warmists refuse to practice what they preach in their own lives.
(Boston Globe) Unless Wednesday’s presidential debate moderator Chris Wallace changes his mind, the three presidential debates will add up to four-and-a-half hours without one question from the moderators about climate change. That would be an utter embarrassment to the American political process, a fitting final demonstration of how gutter politics have ignored an issue that affects every person in the United States, and the world.
Instead, Wallace has chosen these topics: debt and entitlements, immigration, the economy, the Supreme Court, foreign hot spots, and the candidates’ fitness to be president. All of these are important, but climate change has massive tentacles in all of them, a critical area for candidates to demonstrate their fitness to occupy the White House.
Got that? ‘Climate change’ is everything!!!!!
(Pittsburgh Post Gazette) However, there is one crucially important issue that has not even been raised by the moderators. That is the question about what the candidates plan to do to deal with the changing climate. They need to be asked: “What is your plan to deal with climate change and how do you plan to convert to green energy?” This is a question that needs to be answered effectively to assure a reasonable future for our country and for our planet.
Donald Trump: “well, I plan to ban the use of trees to produce newspapers and require all news organizations that are Believers to only use solar and wind to power their Internet productions.” Now, that would be funny.
There are lots and lots of articles and opinion pieces scattered around in just the last 24 hours, all taking the same line while failing to provide any scientific evidence (note for Warmists: correlation is not causation) that the current warming is caused mostly or solely by Mankind. We’ll wrap up with the Huffington Post, which has three questions that should be asked, pre-ordaining that Hotcoldwetdry is real
Chris, please ask these three important questions:
First, super storms such as Hurricane Matthew or severe flooding and widespread wildfires in the western U.S. will almost certainly become stronger, more frequent, and more destructive as the climate change accelerates. What policies do you support to address current and future devastation to communities across the U.S. caused by climate change-enhanced weather emergencies?
Of course, the previous prognostications have failed to come to fruition, as it did not make U.S. landfall as a major hurricane, continuing the drought, the longest on record for the U.S.
Next, the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change recently reached the threshold to enter into force, well ahead of schedule. The Agreement, which the U.S. formally joined in September, requires that signatories collectively develop domestic programs to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions to a level that will stabilize global warming. How do you propose we achieve this international obligation?
The U.S. didn’t formally join it, since it wasn’t ratified by the U.S. Senate, as required by our Constitution. Obama joined it. Let him give up his own giant carbon footprint. If Trump wasn’t losing badly, he could simply cancel our involvement with a few words on a piece of paper.
Finally, according to estimates by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, rising sea levels in the coming decades will have disastrous effects on low-lying coastal countries and small island states such as Bangladesh, Kiribati, and Tuvalu. What duty does the U.S. owe to vulnerable communities around the world already suffering from the effects of climate change, and those who will suffer greater destruction in the future?
None, because sea rise is entirely normal during the Holocene, it is not accelerating, and it is actually below what should be seen during a Holocence warm period. And why is everything in the future? Why does each prognostication of doom fail to materialize, forcing Warmists to come up with new prognostications of future doom? Could it be that their models are wrong? Could it be that this is simply a political movement, not a scientific one? Of course it is a political movement.
Warmists had their shot to ask questions during the previous debates, run by hardcore Believers. They’ve mostly ignored the issue during the previous election cycles. Why? Because no one really cares.