Democratic presidential candidates eschewed using the term climate change for more alarming phrases like “climate chaos” during Thursday night’s primary debate.
“Well, first of all, I don’t even call it climate change, it’s a climate crisis,” Democratic California Sen. Kamala Harris said the debate.
“It represents an existential threat to us as a species,” Harris said. “And the fact that we have a president of the United States who has embraced science fiction over science fact will be to our collective peril.”
Democratic California Rep. Eric Swalwell used the phrase “climate chaos” in his closing debate remarks, echoing the language used by environmental activists pushing for aggressive global warming policies.
“This is the generation that will end climate chaos,” Swalwell said.
Independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’ campaign tweeted out during the debate that “we must combat our climate crisis and take on the fossil fuel industry.”
Sanders, who also partook in the debate, supports the Green New Deal, which calls for a massive government takeover to “green” the economy.
Instead of spending trillions of dollars on misguided wars and weapons of mass destruction, we must combat our climate crisis and take on the fossil fuel industry. We need a Green New Deal. #DemDebate2
— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) June 28, 2019
Scientists use climate change or global warming to describe human impacts on global average temperature, not activist talking points.
Despite this, two major media outlets changed their editorial policies this year to use “emergency” or “crisis” instead of climate change.
Read more at Daily Caller
Pocahontas is Left there too alongside Bernie , Big Brother versus Big Government.
Oh man! If only the voters would give them the keys to the place!!!
They’d gut our house in a New York minute.
I think independent “candidate” Burning Sandwich has made the real issue completely clear. It’s not about the environment, or fixing climate; it’s all about killing the industrial might of this nation and inciting the paranoia about “Big Business” to power the dirty work to make it happen. it’s self-hatred, anti-American crap like this that just gauls me.
Did anyone watch the debate? Anyone? anyone?
It seems like the wheels fall off it, no matter what they name it.
Why do the smellocrats avoid terms like
” Climate Change ” , ” Global Warming ” , ” Greenhouse Effect ”
Is it because even they know it’s a gargantuan political
LIE ??
Are even some smellocrats that COGNIZANT ?!
Using “climate Change” and more inflammatory language such as “crisis” or “chaos” is a complete DISSERVICE to our nation. Regardless of where you stand on the issue of mans contribution or natural variability on the “modest” increase in global temperatures, somehow, the conversation needs to CHANGE. A more productive approach, in my estimation should be intelligent, well informed debate about our ENERGY TRANSITION and attendant environmental protection. Vilification of energy PROVIDERS, like Sen. Sanders continually repeats is NOT a constructive solution to anything. If you want the right answer, then you need to start with the right question. So, to all the environmental “activists” out there, with the ELIMINATION of fossil fuels by XYZ date, all you need to answer is one fundamental question: “What CLEAN, SCALABLE, SUSTAINABLE alternative do you suggest to REPLACE 95% of the U.S transportation fuel and industrial heat and 65% of our electricity? A thoughtful, well informed dabate (somehow) needs to get started. Otherwise, all we are doing is pushing peas around on our plate…
Well said, Randy. The alarmists won’t acknowledge reasonable questions like yours.
Randy Verret thank you for your well thought out and well written comment. You are right that the question has not been debated on what alternatives to fossil fuels would actually work. These politicians seem totally ignorant to reliability or energy density of non-nuclear alternate energy sources. However, debating the right question would certainly make considering alternate energy unnecessary. The right question challenges the notion that mankind’s emissions are a problem. The earth temperature history has a high correlation with solar output and poor one with carbon dioxide levels. The UN climate models which the entire “crisis” is built on are not supported by real world data. If we ever had a true debate on the question of the need to cut back on fossil fuels, we wouldn’t have to debate how to do it.
David…Agreed! Way too much drama & theater in an arena that is based on PHYSICS. When it comes to SOUND scientific methodology, I say “More Cowbell!”
All the mindless braying with Biden the Bean Brain promising to cure cancer as well as Kamela Harris vowing to ban guns with a excutive order nothing but the same usial poppycock and malarkey the same mindless banter we hear from these nuts all the time and Obama without scandal its the same old mindless braying we get these this idiots all the time