Just sayin'...
Posted on 11/29/2015 12:05:40 PM PST by Kaslin
Appearing on November 29th Fox News Sunday, 2016 Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina slammed President Barack Obama and his allies as “delusional” for continually pushing the notion that climate change is a chief national security threat for the United States and the world at-large.
Fiorina was asked about the issue by host Chris Wallace in context of this upcoming week’s United Nations climate change summit in Paris and the argument that addressing climate change makes the world safer and rebukes Islamic terrorists.
Carly Fiorina Slams 'Delusional' Obama, Left for Pushing Climate Change as National Security Threat
The GOP candidate immediately pounced on the President, twice declaring that it is “delusional” for the left and specifically the President and Hillary Clinton for arguing “that climate change is our near-term most severe security threat” when, in reality, “[i]t is ISIS, period, followed closely by Iran and perhaps Russia.”
Fiorina further explained that “President Obama continues to think that somehow our behavior causes terrorism, so he says the climate change summit is a powerful rebuke” when “it's not” because:
The terrorists don't care that we're gathering in Paris other than it provides a target, just as he said ‘well, Republicans are giving terrorists a recruiting tool and we don't think refugees should be allowed in the country if we cannot properly vet them.’ President Obama is delusional about the threat, which is apparently he won't do anything about it.
Wallace then challenged her on whether or not the climate talks themselves are still worthwhile and Fiorina shot back:
If you read the fine print of the science, what the scientists tell us, all those scientist who sea rates and manmade, they say a single nation acting alone will make no difference at all, that it will take a concerted global effort over 30 years, costing trillions of dollars. I think the likelihood is near zero, so no, I do not think it’s particularly productive.
Instead of harping on global warming, Fiorina offered some suggestions of her own for the global community to focus on that would have a more lasting impact:
I think it would be far more productive if President Obama indeed was there leading an international coalition to stop human trafficking or for humanitarian relief for the refugees or and international coalition to defeat ISIS. All those would be more useful than time in Paris spent talking about climate change.
Bingo
Dobbs is on FBN, not FNC
Well English isn’t my first language but I do know how to write dates
Nothing could be further from the truth.
First off, there is no proof that the Earth is warming. In fact all science points to the fact that the Earth is cooling.
Second, there is no real proof that atmospheric carbon dioxide in the trace quantities of roughly 0.04% of the atmosphere (or 400ppm ) has any significant impact on solar heating and green house effect, not that there would be any significant impact on climate even if the concentration of CO2 went up by even 3-5 times because the trace amounts are still insignificant compared to the other components of the atmosphere.
Third, there is no proof that any increase in the Earth's mean temperature would have a negative effect on climate or the environment. However, there is proof that a slight rise in Earths man temperature would be beneficial for plant growing seasons and that the higher CO2 concentrations combined with the longer and warmer growing sense would have a very beneficial effect on plant life, especially plants that are used as food crops.
Fourth, any warming caused by CO2 would be very gradual and would be caught immediately by the extensive array of very precise weather satellites and earth borne monitoring stations built during the last 20 years that are now proving to us that global warming is not happening and that global cooling is the actual situation.
Fifth, man made atmospheric CO2 levels are a byproduct of buying fossil fuels that can be rapidly reversed and returned to lower levels simply by cutting back on the burning of fossil fuels and letting the Earth's natural process for consuming and fixing CO2 do their jobs. This reversion of atmospheric CO2 levels would happen over a period of of a year or so through the Earth's normal consumption of CO2 by plants, microbes, various chemical process, absorption of CO2 by the oceans, rain, ect as part of the Earth's Carbon Cycle.
As a general rule, bring fossil fuels for energy is a waste of valuable resources and can be phased out in favor of Nuclear or next generation solar and other power sources as soon as their technology is matured to the point where they are technically practical and economically viable.
On day in the future we will see clean nuclear energy and advanced technology nuclear fission and fusion power plants, solar, hydroelectric, geothermal power generation systems taking over and phasing out the burning of fossil fuel, but for right now the only viable alternative to fossil
fuels is Nuclear fission reactors. Such reactors safely and efficiently supplied most of Europe's power requirements until Green Madness caused EU politicians to shutter it's networks and bankrupt European economies with an expensive, unworkable, unreliable and ultimately disastrous and economically ruinous scheme to replace nuclear power with technically unready sources “Green Energy” that are still in the basic developmental stages, are not environmentally friendly, are unreliable and at the capricious whims of the weather and cannot supply sufficient power to meet EU energy needs.
If we are concerned about CO2 emissions, the best way to address the situation in the short term with next generation Nuclear Power Plants.
The big Environmental issue is really how the Third World is going to produce it's energy as it industrializes because the emissions and pollution from the current Industrial Nations are decreasing as products become more energy efficient and pollution controls get better and better.
What is required is plan to evolve a series of efficient, next generation energy production systems so that the Third World industrializes using clean , modern and efficient power generation and manufacturing technology.
The current slash and burn, toxic waste contaminated Brown Fields producing model for economic development pioneered by China that ignores environmental anti pollution control technology that pollutes the air and environment with toxic chemicals to save money to lower production costs is not sustainable
If we do not learn from the mistakes of the past, we will relearn them the hard way .
But the current obsession with CO2 gas emissions and the fear that they will cause a world wide climate disaster are misplaced concerns that are doing far more harm than good to the world because these unjustified fears have given rise to massive and irrational misallocation of the world scare resources and capitol that could have been used to solve much more serious and pressing problems faced by the world community.
I speak Norteno/Texmex Spanish-taught at home as a child-as my second language-I don’t wrote it perfectly, but dates are the same as in English-not written as the original article had it...
I agree, it’s a diversion. But most people either don’t care about climate change or do not believe it. The items you listed are at the top of the list of things people do care about.
IMO, this diversion is really an irritant, one that will backfire and PO the voters and just give more support to the Trump/Cruz folks. Just about anything the current establishment does, gun control, climate change, EPA rulings, etc will PO the voters.
I think the left is in a lose lose situation.
I wish Trump and the others would ridicule this climate change nonsense more aggressively....MAN CANNOT AFFECT THE WEATHER...GEEZ...the whole thing is just so stupid. How delusional and narcisstic do you have to be to actually believe that if you pass a law, that you can change the weather...and ocean levels etc. No one really attacks this stuff...man., id have a field day with it..frustraing.
Just sayin'...
Like almost all Republicans she has left AGW open to the benefit of the doubt. I question the intelligence of anyone who thinks man is affecting the climate.
“Why does the media let him get away with this?”
Because they WORK for him!!!
I watched her on the show this morning. She was very coherent and clear in her replies to Snarky Wallace. She seems to be well coached, intelligent and up to speed on most issues.
Not presidential material, but I can definitely see her playing a role as a Cabinet Scty. in a Trump or Cruz admin.
” I can definitely see her playing a role as a Cabinet Scty. in a Cruz admin.”
I day put her in charge of dismantling the EPA and replacing it with a tiny administrative body that gives most power to the states.
Who is Fiorina?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.