Sec State Kerry: Climate Change More Dangerous Than Terrorism

How did he get to NYC? Fossil fueled travel? Isn’t this the same guy who owns many cars and lots of McMansions? (video at link)

(Daily Caller) According to Secretary of State John Kerry, climate change is a more serious threat to America than terrorism. Kerry made the comments today at the Morgan Stanley Library in New York City during Climate Week.

Kerry: “And when you think about terrorism, which we think about a lot today; poverty, which is linked obviously to the levels of terror that we see in the world today; and, of course, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction – all of these are challenges that don’t know any borders. And that’s exactly what climate change is. Importantly, climate change, without being connected in that way to everybody’s daily thinking, in fact, ranks right up there with every single one of the rest of those challenges. You can make a powerful argument that it may be, in fact, the most serious challenge we face on the planet because it’s about the planet itself. And today, more than 97 percent of all the peer reviewed studies ever made confirm that.

PS: I enjoy how this supposedly Smart Liberal, and, remember, liberals are supposed to be smarter than us cavemen Conservatives, trots out the utterly debunked 97% consensus.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

13 Responses to “Sec State Kerry: Climate Change More Dangerous Than Terrorism”

  1. […] of State John Kerry took a fossil fueled flight to New York City, leaving the comfort of one of his many mansions, to warn the world that climate change is a bigger […]

  2. John says:

    I don’t think he owns anything that deserves to be called a McMansion
    Most people use that term to mean a newly built and rather ugly huge house
    Contrary to right wing misinformation Kerry owns a partial 50% interest in only one property the Beacon Hill Boston property. Assessed at about 7 million
    The rest are deeded to his wife
    Kerry did come from inherited wealth but has not shown much interest in increasing it
    Kerry does have a large carbon footprint but like Gore is helping to reduce the world’s carbon footprint which is of course more important than anyone’s individual footprint

  3. Blick says:

    jon carry hates war so he is not much interested in terrorism. jon loves the anti-war groups that he joined when he came back from Vietnam. ketchup-boy loves anti-war protesters. jon carry “served” (himself) in Vietnam; got the medals to prove it if he could just find them and his medical records.

    I would buy the argument: “Kerry does have a large carbon footprint but like Gore is helping to reduce the world’s carbon footprint which is of course more important than anyone’s individual footprint” IF he was reducing the carbon footprint of all the other areas of his life. But like Al Gore, jon carry does not appear to be reducing his other personal footprint nor his Department’s nor asking his employees to reduce their personal foot print. And yes, it takes everybody’s individual effort to reduce the world’s carbon footprint. Leadership by Example or you are not a leader. Hypocrites all.

  4. Jeffery says:

    Secretary Kerry is right. Global warming is greater long-term threat to civilization than is ISIS. For that matter, the Ebola outbreak has already killed more, and will kill more than ISIS. Income and wealth inequality is a greater long-term threat than ISIS.

    But if you ask most Americans, they’ll tell you they’re most afraid of ISIS, so for short-term political gain, bombing ISIS is a better target. And Obama is a pretty good politician.

    And you can’t bomb global warming or income inequality and show videos on TV.

  5. david7134 says:

    So you are interested in income inequality. So you have two corporations that are sheltering your wealth and you pay only the minimum amount of income tax and you clearly have more money than you need but are not dispersing it to the less fortunate. Great example big guy.

    As far as I can see any climate change that we may be having for whatever reason seems great. We have had better weather than ever. So we should following the ill-fated computer models of the liberals and all become little socialist. That doesn’t jive.

  6. Jeffery says:


    I co-founded two corporations and retain part ownership in one of them. I pay all the taxes I owe on all my income. No shelters, no nothing. But once again, you attack me instead of discussing the issues. We redistribute wealth up in the US, and we do it by several policies. We pass anti-union legislation, we place our middle class workers in direct competition with lower wage workers overseas, our Fed maintains a high unemployment policy (putting downward pressure on middle class pay), our legislators maintain a high unemployment policy (also putting downward pressure on pay), our tax system is becoming flatter (most state and local taxes are regressive, anyway), the minimum wage is stagnant… all these policies keep working class wages stagnant and send managerial class compensation ever higher.

    Oh, and the Earth continues to warm from CO2 we’re adding to the atmosphere.

  7. david7134 says:

    Well, I was told to incorporate but thought that the corporate structure was not appropriate as I felt it was better to pay more tax. Despite your assurances, the corporate structure does shelter income and raises the ability to formulate write offs.

    Now, I don’t care for Hitler and consider his economic approach closer to yours rather than mine but he did do something very smart. He asked the unions for all their demands and desires. He granted those desire and demands and the next day outlawed the unions. I can not think of anything that could be better. We have met the demands of the unions, all they do now is to interfere with employment and raise the cost of goods. They are past history and I can give many personal examples and examples from history to indicate how worthless they are.

    Now the economy. Look in the mirror and say, I am the reason for the bad economy. Congress has passed two major bills regarding financial institutions and as long as these bills are law, the economy will not return. Then we need to cut congressional spending by at least half, get rid of most regulations and most regulatory agencies. As an example, it is estimated that the government adds at least 40% to the cost of medical care for regulations that do nothing. If we eliminated the DEA and allowed people to purchase drugs like they do ASA then the cost of medical care would plumet. Then you cut taxes on everyone, especially the rice and you eliminate corporate taxes. The economy will take off and the middle class will be rolling. But we want, because of you and who you represent, so pat yourself on the back.

    Then there is your precious CO2. It is beyound clear that this concept is as crap. If you institute any of your agenda, you will kill the middle class.

  8. jl says:

    Ah, yes, the global warming that’s hiding….somewhere. Actually, there’s not one solid piece of evidence that the imaginary global warming has killed anyone. Or is it climate change that hasn’t killed anyone? So, contrary to what some say, ISIS is more dangerous.

  9. Jeffery says:

    Global warming is (a) greater long-term threat to civilization than is ISIS.

    Note I said ‘long-term’. We are uncertain how many people have been killed by global warming so far. It is certain that global warming will disrupt human civilization more than ISIS.

  10. david7134 says:

    Sorry, but nothing to support those claims. I really don’t see a problem with global warming if it is occurring. Then the more we find about your religion, the more there is to dislike. Such at the fact that humans are responsible for only a fraction of CO2 production. And our best efforts will hardly count for any reduction.

  11. Jeffery says:


    The INCREASE in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 in the past century is from humans burning fossil fuels. Note that atmospheric CO2 has been between 200 and 280 ppm for the past million years or so. During the glacial periods CO2 stays around 200 ppm – during interglacials, up to about 280 ppm. It’s now about 400 ppm. These is what we in the science business refer to as a FACTs. There’s no scientific debate as to where the extra CO2 originated. There’s no debate as to whether CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming.

    If humans stopped all CO2 emissions today, atmospheric CO2 would stop accumulating and would very slowly drop. The increased warming being caused would continue for many decades. Obviously, we will not stop all emissions suddenly, but we have a chance to slow them.

    Right-wing rebuttal: Robert Kennedy has a cell phone, therefore global warming is a hoax.

  12. david7134 says:

    Sorry Jeff, but you are wrong. A 40% rise in a trace gas is still a trace gas with little ability to warm anything. By the way, where are these concentrations taken? How does the gas get there? How do you differentiate between human and other forms of CO2? Why isn’t the temp going up with the concentration of CO2 increasing? And yes, if the nut jobs don’t make the effort to do as the preach then there is no issue.

  13. Jeffery says:


    This is old ground, and just more zombie lies.

    Atmospheric CO2 is measured at various places, for example, Mauna Loa. How is CO2 dispersed in the atmosphere? It’s a gas. Winds and diffusion. Transcontinental air masses.

    The “trace gas” canard (or cunard, according to conservatives) is silly. The greenhouse effect is real. You may be the last person to Deny it.

    Of course the Earth is warming – the land, the atmosphere and the oceans – and the large ice masses are melting.

Bad Behavior has blocked 10822 access attempts in the last 7 days.