Carly Fiorina Shows How to Address the Left on Climate Change

National Review ^ | 08/12/2015 | David French

[Old Sarge]

When talking to a Leftist remember: there is no talking to a Leftist.

#factsdontmatter

[Reagan0704]

Who cares about her. She is a muslin sympathizer. Sorry but she is not going to win.

[SeekAndFind]

The point is not to elect her, but to learn how she handles gotcha questions like these.

[FroggyTheGremlim]

I think the very first question is: "Is the climate really changing?"

Here in Pittsburgh some winters are colder, some are warmer, some summers are warmer, some are cooler; some springs are wetter, some autumns are drier, but all-in-all, it's the same climate it has been during my 71-year lifetime.

To be sure, the air and waters are cleaner, but that's not climate change.

[jsanders2001]

> Earlier this year, Scientific American lamented that while 87 percent of scientists believe that “climate change is mostly due to human activity,” only 50 percent of Americans agree, with the differences falling along ideological lines...

Question: How many of those 87 percent receive government funding and how many would take that same stance if they didn't receive it?

[bray]

She accepted the premise which is a mistake. It is time to take that fraud down since there is no proof and then go into her argument.

Pray America is waking

[vbmoneyspender]

Why use the language of the left? Why accept their terminology of ‘climate change’? The first question should be: Is Global Warming occurring? The best evidence to date suggests that it is not - at least for the past 15 to 20 years. That answer moots every other question posed in this article.

[jimjohn]

Win or Lose - even if she’s not your candidate, I gotta admit:

Carly NAILS IT.

This is the nicest way to answer global warming issues. I of course would be more direct. But again, this is a GOOD answer by Carly, and the other GOP candidates should adopt it.

[be-baw]

That was one of the best retorts to the climate change hysteria that I’ve ever seen. Succinct with a healthy dose of common sense.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: I think the very first question is: "Is the climate really changing?"

Of course it is. The Climate is and has and will ALWAYS change.

The question is this -- can PUNY HUMANS really affect it at all?

Notice, the term used to be GLOBAL WARMING. That was the term used the 90's and the early 2000's until people began to notice that the earth is actually cooling, hence, the shift in the use of phrases -- the catch-all -- CLIMATE CHANGE.

In the 1970's the buzz phrase was actually GLOBAL COOLING or the NEW ICE AGE.

[DH]

“The short version of Fiorina’s argument is this: If the scientific consensus is that man-made climate change is real, there is also consensus that America, acting alone, cannot stop it. “

IF???? The mention of the word “if” in the above statement and the phrase citing “America, acting alone, cannot stop it” indicate to me that she BELIEVES in climate change.

If she did not, she would have stated that climate change was nothing other than a political and scientific farce.

That worries me.

[MrB]

I like that Cruz stated something I’ve been asserting all along -

whether the globe is facing destruction through cooling or warming or change,

the left’s solutions are always the same - more government control over our lives.

[gogeo]

Succinct.

[Colonel_Flagg]

How does Carly address the left on the DREAM act?

“I’m with you guys”.

[RayChuang88]

That’s why the Kyoto Protocol signed in 1997 was doomed to failure: China and India should have been subject to its regulations right from the start, which would have forced these two countries to aggressively clean up their coal-fired power plants and switch to far cleaner burning natural gas for their new power plants. And that would have meant by 2015 China’s cities would enjoy far cleaner air because the emission from coal-fired plants would be severely limited and other power plants would burn natural gas, which is very easy to clean up emissions.

[MrB]

When the left’s solutions don’t just happen to line up with their overall agenda,

then we’ll start to listen to them about whatever crisis they’re pushing as an excuse.

[longfellow]

Once al bore’s scientists starting fixing the tests it was no longer science it’s an agenda.

[FroggyTheGremlim]

I think the very first question is: "Is the climate really changing?"

Here in Pittsburgh some winters are colder, some are warmer, some summers are warmer, some are cooler; some springs are wetter, some autumns are drier, but all-in-all, it's the same climate it has been during my 71-year lifetime.

To be sure, the air and waters are cleaner, but that's not climate change.

[Hostage]

Uh no.

The premise of David French’s essay is flawed and dangerous. It promotes the bizarre and Lysenko-like notion that Science is settled by consensus, by convincing people to ‘vote’ on scientific truth.

If people were truly informed, they would castigate such arguments into the dens of opium addicts to be parlayed among the Geisha consumers, never to see the light of the public square.

In other words, politicians have no place infringing on science and climate change history nor should they be allowed to promote scientific cranks for political purposes.

Read the consequences of allowing this to be chatter fare for the Fiorina’s of the day:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lysenkoism