How can anybody take Bernie Sanders seriously?

Can we start this election over?

Bernie Sanders is the best candidate America has.

Lets me guess... You voted for Trudeau? Shame on you.

I hope he gets elected.

@sinistersoul: Rand Paul > Sanders

Lesser of Evil candidate we have. Only SANE one. Terrified if Clinton or Trump wins...

The richer they are the best candidate they are.

Poof! CNN's Jake Tapper disappears from Clinton Foundation website: Column (usatoday.com)

.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/05/20/clinton-foundation-tapper-journalists-website-scrub-column/27599203/

Truth. But then again, who isn't?

-Asks how people take Bernie Sanders seriously....
-People are taking Hillary Clinton for nominee seriously

How is he "a quack"? Because he thinks that climate change is the greatest threat to national security?

Considering that climate change if unstopped will eventually lead to mass disruption of the economies of many nations, which then leads to wars, famine, mass migrations, terrorism, etc... I'd say that climate change is definitely up there among national security threats.

But I guess I'm not a national security expert. On the other hand, the Pentagon is full of national security experts, and they said:

"Rising global temperatures, changing precipitation patterns, climbing sea levels, and more extreme weather events will intensify the challenges of global instability, hunger, poverty, and conflict. They will likely lead to food and water shortages, pandemic disease, disputes over refugees and resources, and destruction by natural disasters in regions across the globe"

They're probably quacks too. How can you take them seriously?

All these threats about global warming / climate change or whatever you want to call it have never come true. Snow was supposed to be a thing of the past 3 years ago. It's just an excuse for more government control in your lives.

Climate change is actually happening right now. In fact many scientists are saying that it's party to blame for some of the big storms we're experiencing lately.

In any case, on what basis do you dispute that climate change is happening? Are you a climate change expert? Polls of climate change experts have shown that around 97% agree that human caused climate change is real. Also, the charts of global temperatures clearly show the warming trend, and even non-experts can see it.

@willpayton: #'s have been shown to be manipulated and Accurate temperature recordings aren't really accurate until about 1950(?), 97% thing has been debunked. All future predictions have been false. Earth may be getting warmer but evidence that it's significantly caused by man is lacking and evidence that it's bad is lacking and evidence that we can do anything at all to stop it is lacking.

p.s that graph doesn't even go past 1 C, such the greatest threat.

Again, you're a climate change expert?

And no the 97% hasnt been debunked. There's actually been several studies that give around that number for the consensus of climate change experts agreeing that humans are causing the change.

@willpayton: Do I need to be? Listening to corporate sellouts rarely gets you anywhere.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/12/97-articles-refuting-97-consensus.html

You're claiming that the scientific consensus is false. If you have no expertise in the field then you have no basis to say that it's false. You also have no basis for knowing that the critics are right. If they make a claim, how do you know that that claim is valid? How do you know that that claim isnt wrong in some subtle way? Answer: You dont. If you chose to believe a critic when the consensus is overwhelmingly against that critic, you're just cherry-picking based on what you already believe.

As far as your links, how about you make an actual argument as to why the number isnt credible? Most of those "articles" in your link come from a few people, and googling them shows that they're biased and they dont represent any respected institutions. NASA says that number is valid.

I can find an equal number of course, actual credible ones, that agree that climate change is happening and it's man-made. Sources like NASA, the National Academies of Science, and all the other organizations listed here:

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Take a look at that link and tell me that all those institutions and the thousands of scientists that they represent are all wrong.

Come on people, climate change is as real as the sky is blue. Denying it is just ignorant at this point and only hurries along the planet's demise.

@willpayton: I never claimed anything wasn't happening. There's no real consensus, the Earth may be warming but the "Earths gunna die Ono gimme all ya monies" people are all wrong, none have ever been true.

Seventy-four year old man that wants to lift the prohibition on marijuana and wants to give kids free college . . . ?. . . Eh.

This is great. Haha.

@noone301994 said:

@precrisisbardock: Absolutely. He likes those memes so much though, I found some of my own.

EDIT:

Bernie Sanders:

- Voted in favor the confirming Lorretta Lynch, a woman who supports civil asset forfeiture (2015) (Rand voted Opposite)

- Voted against devolving local transportation responsibilities to state governments, instead he favored Washington D.C. bureaucrats to do that job (2014) (Rand voted Opposite)

- Voted in favor of an unlimited debt limit increase without spending cuts (2014) (Rand voted Opposite)

- Votes on bills he hasn't read (omnibus bill) (2014) (Rand voted Opposite)

- Voted against a bill that would stop the federal government from taking more U.S. land (Federal government owns 1 in 3 acres) (2014) (Rand voted Opposite)

- Voted in favor of an internet tax (2013) (Rand voted Opposite)

- Voted against reducing foreign aid to hostile countries (2013) (Rand voted Opposite)

- Voted against balancing the budget in 5 years (2013) (Rand voted Opposite)

- Voted in favor of raising taxes on 77% of Americans (Fiscal Cliff Deal)(2012) (Rand voted Opposite)

- Voted against prohibiting earmarks (2012) (Rand voted Opposite)

- Voted against the balanced budget amendment (2011) (Rand voted Opposite)

- Voted in favor of skipping the "read the bills rule" in Senate (2011) (Rand voted Opposite)

- Voted against stopping earmarks for 2 years (2010) (Before Rand was elected)

This is possibly the greatest post ever.

There is a consensus. The NASA link I provided explains this. All you have to do is read what the experts say. For example:

"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." - American Chemical Society

and

"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." - American Physical Society

@willpayton: Experts that get $$$ for that. Still every radical alarmist theory had been false

This is not a "radical alarmist theory", this is what the evidence shows.

Also, the fact that experts get paid for what they do doesnt invalidate their opinions, in fact they get paid because they know what they're talking about and their expertise is valuable. If you'd rather believe the opinion of some bum on the street, feel free.

He is probably the best candidate but how do we expect him to win against Trump? Trump is brainwashing the masses.

@willpayton: Evidence that never proves anything, like I said snow was supposed to not exist by 2013. Let them tax me because they can fix the problem via my money

@willpayton said:

@precrisisbardock said:

@willpayton said:

@precrisisbardock said:

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/11/14/sanders-climate-change-is-absolutely-the-greatest-threat-to-national-security/

Honestly, this guy is a quack. Yet all he gets is hype.

How is he "a quack"? Because he thinks that climate change is the greatest threat to national security?

Considering that climate change if unstopped will eventually lead to mass disruption of the economies of many nations, which then leads to wars, famine, mass migrations, terrorism, etc... I'd say that climate change is definitely up there among national security threats.

But I guess I'm not a national security expert. On the other hand, the Pentagon is full of national security experts, and they said:

"Rising global temperatures, changing precipitation patterns, climbing sea levels, and more extreme weather events will intensify the challenges of global instability, hunger, poverty, and conflict. They will likely lead to food and water shortages, pandemic disease, disputes over refugees and resources, and destruction by natural disasters in regions across the globe"

They're probably quacks too. How can you take them seriously?

All these threats about global warming / climate change or whatever you want to call it have never come true. Snow was supposed to be a thing of the past 3 years ago. It's just an excuse for more government control in your lives.

Climate change is actually happening right now. In fact many scientists are saying that it's party to blame for some of the big storms we're experiencing lately.

In any case, on what basis do you dispute that climate change is happening? Are you a climate change expert? Polls of climate change experts have shown that around 97% agree that human caused climate change is real. Also, the charts of global temperatures clearly show the warming trend, and even non-experts can see it.

Wait ... so how is a half a degree change in temperature over the course of a century the greatest threat to national security?

@johncena69swag said:

Wait ... so how is a half a degree change in temperature over the course of a century the greatest threat to national security?

That's the change so far. What people need to understand is that the change grows faster as time goes on because it creates a feedback-loop. Higher temperatures lead to less ice and less sea-water carbon absorption, and those things increase the temperatures. It becomes an exponential growth and at some point it cant be stopped. The greenhouse gases that are in the atmosphere stay there for a long time.

The other thing to keep in mind is that current predictions say that we might get up to 5° C more warming over the rest of the 21st century, and I've seen new reports that it might be more.

That may seem like a small change, but it's not. That kind of change is enough to melt glaciers and antarctic ice, create extreme weather all over the world, raise sea level by 1 to 4 meters, destroy parts of the ocean ecosystem, and much more. This all leads to cities being flooded, massive storms, crops and sea life dying, countries being destabilized, mass migrations, famine, wars, etc.

And as far as why it's a matter of national security, I already posted a link that talks about the Pentagon's position on it. Why dont you read that? And that's just the DoD's take on it. There's also the impact climate change will have on our economy and the world economy, which most certainly affects our national security.

I think the problem here is people don't care since it won't matter in our life time, nesscarily

It's a problem of being short sighted.

Ok, I'm on board.

@willpayton: you provided 2 graphs... but they are without citings. the second one also i just a collection of models, which so far have been 100% wrong in actually predicting global tempurature changes. here are 2 graphs i found, that have stats cited.

Bernie is a cute quirky old man, trump and hilary are sith lords

"Over and over, history, theory, logic, and current events in Venezuela, Cuba & North Korea have proven that Socialism cannot (and will not) ever deliver on its promises. The exceptionally horrific 20th century laid hundreds of millions of people into their graves who suffered under the horrible ideas of Socialism. However, memories fade. That's part of the human experience. People have a tendency to reproduce past mistakes.

A new movement tried to throw the word "Democratic" in front of Socialism in an attempt to re-brand it from its deadly past (and present). How ironic that the champion of so-called "Democratic Socialism" is now seeking to undermine democracy in his quest for power."...Ron Paul.

Care to site your source for the claim that the models have been "100% wrong"?

My claims are based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which is the UN scientific body that studies climate change and the scientific evidence. And according to them the models do concur with the data. In the 2001 Third Assessment they had this graph showing the correlation between the models and the historical data:

and these charts covering a longer time range

In the latest assessment (5th assessment) they said this:

"The long-term climate model simulations show a trend in global-mean surface temperature from 1951 to 2012 that agrees with the observed trend (very high confidence)."

And if you want charts from the 5th assessment, here's one for you comparing historical data with model data:

@willpayton: well there's an issue, the cited source is obviously bias, being a panel dedicated to the existence of climate change.

tbh i don't really want to debate you on climate change. climate change at this point has reached the peak of pseudo-science. it's un testable, and has been reactively changed to fit different narritives(going from global cooling, to global warming, and then back, and then to just "climate change").

whether it is true or not? scientifically we don't know. we don't know what will happen in the future. and like i said, it's impossible to experiment on and hypothesis so far have incorrect.

to respond to your question, image 1 & 2 are the incorrect models i was reffering to.

Image 3 is a response to your graphs created by the IPCC, showing some issues with the data provided

@cooldes said:

@willpayton: well there's an issue, the cited source is obviously bias, being a panel dedicated to the existence of climate change.

tbh i don't really want to debate you on climate change. climate change at this point has reached the peak of pseudo-science. it's un testable, and has been reactively changed to fit different narritives(going from global cooling, to global warming, and then back, and then to just "climate change").

whether it is true or not? scientifically we don't know. we don't know what will happen in the future. and like i said, it's impossible to experiment on and hypothesis so far have incorrect.

to respond to your question, image 1 & 2 are the incorrect models i was reffering to.

Image 3 is a response to your graphs created by the IPCC, showing some issues with the data provided

What is the source of your first 2 graphs?

You cant dismiss the findings of the IPCC by saying that they are biased because they study climate change. That's not bias, that's them studying the thing they're experts in. If you decide you're going to ignore the opinion of experts in a field, then you're saying that expertise is not needed, that the subject is so easy to understand that even a non-expert who hasnt looked at the data can make an informed decision. But, that is just not the case. World climate is very complicated and the amount and types of data supporting climate change are many. And I'm not going to pretend that I know all of it, but from what I've seen the evidence is pretty incontrovertible. You cant just dismiss it by saying "oh I dont want to believe the experts" because then your options are either 1) you yourself are an expert and you can tell me why the consensus of all the other experts is wrong, or 2) you're just believing what you already believe, and cherry-picking data to support it.

In fact your graph #3 (the animated gif) actually shows the problems with Dr John Christy's (a well-known climate change skeptic) chart. It also shows how the climate change models agree with the data. Your own graph gif says things like "global surface temperatures are rising as models predicted" and "oceans are heating as fast as predicted". This is from the chart that YOU posted.

So, yes, the models have been good so far in describing climate change. And there's enough evidence to say that yes, we know scientifically more or less what's going on. In fact if the models were not good at all as you're saying, the first to point that out would be scientists. I really think you dont understand how science works at all. Laymen seem to believe that scientists pick some pet ideas and then all the other scientists just go along with it for the fun of it. But the reality is that in science you make your name by finding new knowledge and disproving things. That's how you publish and that's how you earn awards. You dont get anything by saying "yeah I agree with everyone else".

@willpayton: how can you believe that? that's like saying a priest has no bias in believing the bible. their work depends on the existence of climate change, so they would be bias toward proving it's existence.

and sorry to ignore you points, but as i said i really don't want to debate on climate change. i don't believe in or against it. i can't prove it exists as a result of human activity or not, no one can. to say it is is psuedo-science. there is no real consensus, and as you said the scientific community thrives on disproving things, not blindly saying yes. while politics thrives on blindly saying yes. and only 1 half of our political spectrum agrees... while the half that wants less government doesn't.

anyway, what i'm saying is climate change could in fact be a product of human cause. it also could not. even if correlation were found, it does not prove causation, and to say otherwise is... you guessed it: psuedo-science.

there is no way to prove this stuff. we can't fill the atmosphere with co2 to test it, and at the same time use a control group, and at the same time reduce the co2 levels, to know if there is a relationship.

Yes there is. I already gave evidence to prove this.

You keep saying this, but at the same time you dont know what the evidence is nor are you trained in science (I'm taking a guess here). You're basically saying that the scientists that believe in man-made climate change are idiots. I mean, they must be, because in spite of having degrees in the subject, spending their entire lives studying it, and actually doing research to gather data... you know more about it than they do.

there is no consensus dude. by definition of consensus, you'd need generally all of scientists to agree, but there are many many many who either don't agree or are totally against it.

and to your second statement. all you are doing is speculating. there are Flat-Earth scientists who have much evidence and even more than climate change, they have experiment data that supports their hypothesis. just because they have so much "evidence" and they spend their lives trying to prove something... doesn't mean they are correct.

also, i'm not sure if you know how to read or not but you just said that i believe to know more (or anything) than scientists do about climate change, but this is what i have actually said:

"i don't believe in or against it."
"i can't prove it exists as a result of human activity or not"
"what i'm saying is climate change could in fact be a product of human cause. it also could not. even if correlation were found, it does not prove causation"

^none of this says i know anything about climate change at all, it especially doesn't say i claim to know more than anyone one else.

@cooldes: @willpayton: To be fair, the fact is the earth is heating up. The theories that surround the cause are currently up for debate since there isn't conclusive evidence that man is the sole cause or even the main one. There is evidence that supports the theory that the climate is changing due to mankind, but these are mathematical models that try and develop an understanding how how we as humans are possibly causing or supporting climate change.

The fact that the climate is changing cannot be disputed by anyone that is remotely educated on the matter. however the source of the climate change is still a widely debated topic even within science. Specifically, exactly how much is humanity contributing to climate change? Is it a natural phenomenon that is being supported by immense amount of chemicals being released into our atmosphere sort of replicating the green house effects that are witnessed on Venus? Or is our influence on the planet not quite so significant that we are not the sole reason of climate change?

From wikipedia:

Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.^[1]

Scientific consensus requires the general agreement of the community, not "generally all scientists". The scientific consensus is that anthropomorphic climate change is happening. Again, I already posted links to show all the scientific organizations that agree with this. I really dont understand why you keep arguing this. NASA's website even has a page called "Scientific consensus: Earth's climate is warming" that I linked to that mentions some of the organizations that agree with this and quotes them on it.

I was not talking about your statements of belief. I was talking about your statements of fact. For example, you said that no one can prove it's happening, that it's not testable, that models are 100% wrong, and many other things like that.

The fact is that if there are problems with the models or the hypotheses that are being proposed, the climate scientists would be the first to look for them and find them. Scientific papers are always peer-reviewed in order to find problems with them. I guarantee you that those doing the peer-reviews are more aware of possible problems with the science than you are. And like I said, if the consensus is that this is happening, then it's in scientists interest to find evidence to disprove it. That is how science works.