CNN Has A Sad That People Are Talking About Terrorism, Not ‘Climate Change’

One is a real issue, the other is made up. Hey, here’s an idea for Warmists: destroying Islamic extremism, then you can get back to yammering on about future doom from tiny amounts of CO2

(Daily Caller) CNN White House correspondent Michelle Kosinski complained that “virtually every time” the White House has a foreign trip where “climate change” will be discussed, “terrorism” overshadows the event.

In a segment on “CNN Newsroom” with Carol Costello on Wednesday, while reporting from Ottawa, Canada, Kosinski provided an update about Obama’s call with Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan regarding the recent terrorist attack where 41 people were killed and 230 were hurt, before proceeding to complain about the news cycle.

Kosinski said, “It’s also interesting to think that virtually every time we go on one of these foreign trips where the White House wants to emphasize something else, I mean here, they really want to be focusing on North America and climate change. Again, terrorism has overshadowed some of those subjects.”

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

28 Responses to “CNN Has A Sad That People Are Talking About Terrorism, Not ‘Climate Change’”

  1. Hoagie says:

    That’s ridiculous! Discussing the deaths and maiming of innocent people by terrorists instead of talking about the all-important hoax that s AGW. Imagine that! Actually caring about real people instead of hypothesizing about theories. Don’t these rich, white leftists understand most people are too busy earning a living to care about ridiculous nonsense?

  2. drowningpuppies says:

    Maybe people are beginning to realize that if the world doesn’t get it’s shit together about destroying ISIS and the caliphate then it won’t really matter what the weather is doing.

    • John says:

      Oh contrarie my friend the cocker man
      In the USA you have more of a chance of being struck and killed by lightning than to die in a terrorist action
      How many people in your state have been killed by Islamic terrorists?

  3. John says:

    Teach care to post the percentage of gun deaths here in the USA caused by terrorists? Isn’t it like 1 out of a thousand ?
    And if it is that low why are you always trying to amplify their terroristic propaganda? Isn’t that just enabling the terrorists ?

  4. Jl says:

    John, hope you didn’t think too long on that one, though I’m sure you did. I can see and hear a thunderstorm coming, you fool, but no so terrorists, plus there’s about 100,000 of them per year in the US.

  5. captainfish says:

    Kosinski said, “It’s also interesting to think that virtually every time we go on one of these foreign trips where the White House wants to emphasize something else, I mean here, they really want to be focusing on North America and climate change. Again, terrorism has overshadowed some of those subjects.”

    How dare people die from terrorism while we are trying to burn fossil fuels in order to tell these terrorists that we care about them, that we love them, that we know what is best for them. We only want them to go back to living in a cave like everyone else so that no one can use any form of carbon whatsoever.

    We need to have a UN meeting in order to come to a treaty with these terrorists so that they can agree to carbon reductions in their bullets and bombs

  6. Liam Thomas says:

    Kosinski

    Interesting name there to be complaining that HER AGENDA AS A NEWS REPORTER IS BEING OVERSHADOWED BY N E W S!!!

  7. Thomas says:

    On the other hand I can’t think of any who died of global warming. 🙂

  8. Jeffery says:

    On the other hand I can’t think of any who died of global warming.

    Then you haven’t been paying attention.

  9. Hoagie says:

    Who died of global warming?

  10. david7134 says:

    AGW is a hoax. All you have to do to end the conversation with Jeff is to suggest the use of filters, even those that exist now and are being used. He will down play them and criticize the issue because the only way that liberals can think to stop CO2 production is by carbon trading, taxes and global government and the destruction of our country.

  11. Jeffery says:

    dave,

    You’re a hoax. Yes, talking about filters ends your conversing about global warming.

    Please describe the filters you have in mind. If you can invent a feasible filter system you’ll become a billionaire in a hurry.

    I’ve gone through the arithmetic at least twice but you seem incapable of learning.

    Burning one gallon of gasoline generates 18 lbs of CO2 (burning 1 mol of octane generates 8 mol CO2 and H2O). For an average car that means collecting 18 lbs of waste for every 20 miles driven (we can ignore the water, it precipitates). Are you going to set up a tailpipe freezer to make dry ice out of the CO2? Use a tailpipe sorbent for trapping CO2? Perhaps an algae canister to convert the CO2 into complex carbohydrates?

    Are you thinking bigger than point sources? Huge CO2 filters filtering our atmosphere and trapping CO2 (we have these, they’re called plants, and they can’t keep up with what we’re dumping).

    Please tell us about CO2 filters.

  12. david7134 says:

    See, I told you that Jeff could not handle anything other concept of handling CO2 other than destruction of our way of life. End of discussion.

  13. Deserttrek says:

    all of the child abusers who push the global warming lie are happy to see their mohammedan pals murdering people … less people, less global warming

  14. Jeffery says:

    dave,

    You smelly old liar. Tell us about your CO2 filters that will solve AGW.

  15. David7134 says:

    Jeff
    So one gallon of gas weighs 6 pounds but generates 18 pounds of CO2?? And yes I know of mold but this does not sound likely.

  16. John Glanton says:

    David,
    Most of the weight of CO2 is oxygen, which comes from the air when combusted with gas. The carbon comes from the gas and is about 1/4 the mass of CO2.

  17. Jeffery says:

    dave,

    To simplify the math I made the convenient assumption that octane (C8H18) was the only component, which is obviously not true, but doesn’t affect the calculations. Gasoline is a mixture of hydrocarbons including various octanes and other C4-C10 alkanes and cycloalkanes (e.g., toluene deriviatives).

    Burning gasoline generates gigatons of CO2. Burning coal and natural gas generate gigatons of CO2 each year. “Filters” are an obvious easy answer. But have yet to made practical on the immense scale required.

    Roughly double or triple the amount of coal, crude oil and natural gas extracted each year find a way to practically and safely dispose of it. That’s the challenge.

    If you could solve that challenge you would win the Nobel Prize, be rewarded with riches and go down in history alongside Gandhi, Edison, Newton and Jesus. You would have saved the world.

    So no, CO2 removal and storage (CCS or carbon capture and storage) has not lagged because climate scientists are communists who wish to rule the world. It’s that it is a difficult and expensive engineering challenge, adding 25-40% cost to gasoline and to electricity generation. And of course the whole operation would be subject to rigorous regulation. How to store safely, where to store etc. Louisiana is rapidly going down the tubes under Republican Jindal, let’s convert CO2 to stable carbonates and bury the state 100 feet deep in the stuff.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage

    Gee, a modest tax on carbon pollution doesn’t seem so bad now, does it. Reducing the production of the pollutants using market forces (cap and trade) was an old Republican idea at one time (c 2008) that is now anathema to the new Republicans. Curiouser and curiouser.

    So dave, your repeated claim that we can just filter the stuff out of the air, but we refuse because communists want to rule the world is just not true. Unless you’re willing to discuss this like grown-ups, I suggest you retire this canard from your lineup.

  18. david7134 says:

    John,
    I appreciate that information that I already knew. But, you felt compelled to say something, so fine. Now, the formula is much more complex than what is being represented. O2 is a very small part of air, with most being nitrogen. And an internal combustion engine does not “burn” gas, it is a controlled explosion. So, get back to the drawing board.

    Jeff,
    You made my point and don’t have the intelligence to understand what you did. You should now do calculations as to how a tax is going to cause a massive reduction in CO2, something that your fellow religious peers have even said will not work.

  19. Jeffery says:

    dave,

    I felt sorry for you at first, but you came back as the arrogant, ignorant dick you’ve always been. You’re a smelly old liar.

    Can you please stick to one lie at a time? Please explain how your CO2 filters will stop global warming.

    Pathetic, ignorant white supremacist.

  20. drowningpuppies says:

    Can you please stick to one lie at a time?

    — that little guy who exaggerates often perhaps can explain how a trace gas measured at 4 parts per 10,000 controls the earth’s climate

    Even Mikey Mann can’t “tease” the answer from the data.

  21. Jeffery says:

    The little white puppy who doesn’t understand the most basic of physics now wants to be taught! How cute.

    Anyway angry little puppy, read this and learn. It’s from the American Institute of Physics so your kind will not find them trustworthy, but tough. It’s a long discussion with direct links to more thorough discussions of specific topics. Do you figure the AIP is lying to you to effect the communist takeover of the planet?

    Tyndall set out to find whether there was in fact any gas in the atmosphere that could trap heat rays. In 1859, his careful laboratory work identified several gases that did just that. The most important was simple water vapor (H2O). Also effective was carbon dioxide (CO2), although in the atmosphere the gas is only a few parts in ten thousand. Just as a sheet of paper will block more light than an entire pool of clear water, so the trace of CO2 altered the balance of heat radiation through the entire atmosphere.

    https://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

    Why focus on that rare gas rather than water vapor, which was far more abundant? Because the level of water vapor in the atmosphere fluctuated daily, whereas the level of CO2 was set over a geological timescale by emissions from volcanoes. If the emissions changed, the alteration in the CO2 greenhouse effect would only slightly change the global temperature—but that would almost instantly change the average amount of water vapor in the air, which would bring further change through its own greenhouse effect. Thus the level of CO2 acted as a regulator of water vapor, and ultimately determined the planet’s long-term equilibrium temperature.

    If you’re basing your Denialism on the physics of the interactions of infrared radiation with CO2, you’re in for a rough ride.

  22. drowningpuppies says:

    you’re in for a rough ride.

    –the little guy who exaggerates often still cannot answer a simple question

    Tyndall’s lab experiment didn’t answer it but an assumption was made by the writer of the article.

    Ex falso quodlibet.

    Cowboy up, little guy.

  23. Jeffery says:

    OK, little angry white puppy. You didn’t read it. Stay ignorant. It suits you. Woof! Woof!

    Come back if you have something significant.

  24. drowningpuppies says:

    Come back if you have something significant.

    So the little guy cannot answer the question.
    That’s okay because it hasn’t been proven.
    Go ask Mikey.

  25. Dana says:

    John wrote:

    Teach care to post the percentage of gun deaths here in the USA caused by terrorists? Isn’t it like 1 out of a thousand ?

    Have you complained that the media are all over a disaster like an airplane crash which kills a couple hundred people, yet almost totally ignore automobile accidents, which, collectively, kill tens of thousands? After all, flying really is the safest way to travel!

    And if it is that low why are you always trying to amplify their terroristic propaganda? Isn’t that just enabling the terrorists?

    Maybe it’s because we could actually do something about terrorism, if we had leadership which would admit the truth about terrorism and take action.

  26. David7134 says:

    Jeff,
    Your hate is very evident today. It is doing more than anything to turn people away for age and your communist dream.

Bad Behavior has blocked 5164 access attempts in the last 7 days.