Bummer: ‘Climate Change’ Is The Missing Issue This Campaign Season

The UK Guardian has a sad that people aren’t really talking about Hotcoldwetdry and it has gone missing

The race for the White House is failing to grapple with the key issues of the day, especially the urgent need to combat climate change before atmospheric changes become irreversible, a slice of the American electorate believes.

As the primary election season turns toward a head-to-head between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, there is increasing anger and frustration over the nature of the contest. A Guardian call-out to online readers in the US asking them to reflect on the race so far was met by a barrage of criticism on the tone and substance of the world’s most important election – with the two main parties, individual candidates and the media all coming under heavy fire.

Well, good news: you won’t get more discussion of it, because Trump doesn’t care, and, really, if you’ve paid attention to Hillary over the years, she doesn’t care either. This is not an issue she’s spent much time on, nor something she paid attention to much while Secretary of State. She’s not calling for carbon taxes, eliminating fossil fuels, or most of the other foolishness from Warmists. Yes, she has it listed as an issue on her website, but, it almost seems to be there because liberals demand it, not because she’ll do anything. She generally ignores ‘climate change’ on the campaign trail, choosing to talk about other issues.

The Guardian asked readers to identify the “one issue that affects your life you wish the presidential candidates were discussing more”. Resoundingly, the largest group of participants pointed to climate change.

Of the 1,385 who responded to the call-out – from all 50 states – one in five expressed discontent at the relative silence from candidates around a subject that they believed to be of supreme and epochal importance. They noted that much of the Republican debate has either focused on blatant denial that climate change even exists or on how to unpick Barack Obama’s attempts to fight global warming, while on the Democratic side both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have raised the issue but have rarely pushed it to the top of the political agenda.

Sorry, Warmist snowflakes, no one really cares.

Vivid words and phrases were used to articulate the scale of the pending disaster that readers accused the presidential hopefuls of ignoring, such as “cataclysmic”, “running out of time”, “threat to human life”, “path towards destruction”, or in one particularly memorable remark: “slow-motion apocalypse”.

A reader from Alaska, a state acutely feeling the impact of climate change, used the word “Doomed!”, while an 18-year-old woman from Tennessee who asked to remain anonymous simply said: “Freaking global climate change.” Jennie Ratcliffe, 66, from North Carolina quibbled with the Guardian’s wording of the question, saying “this is far more than an ‘issue’ – it’s a crisis”.

In other words, they should all be heavily medicated.

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

23 Responses to “Bummer: ‘Climate Change’ Is The Missing Issue This Campaign Season”

  1. safetyguy says:

    Question to any warmest.

    Since the earth has been warming for hundreds of millions of years (most without humans), why do you think that even if we killed off every single human it would stop global warming now?

  2. drowningpuppies says:

    Gonna go out on a limb here, safetyguy.

    The answer you’d get is…

    Because fuck you, that’s why.

  3. Jim O'Neil says:

    “A reader from Alaska,… used the word “Doomed!”.”

    Hey, up here in Alaska is the end of the road, of course a lot of crazies find their way here!

    71° F., right here, right now, at my house in North Pole, Alaska. No not doomed but delighted.

  4. Jl says:

    It’s not an issue because people are told climate change causes…..well, everything. Apparently, it’s also causing people not to take issue with what is supposed to be an issue. Is there anything it can’t do?

  5. Jeffery says:


    One difference now compared to hundreds of millions of years ago, is that the current period of rapid warming is caused by humans burning fossil fuels. In addition, it’s the most significant warming during the entirety of human civilization.

  6. Hoagie says:

    What’s the correct temperature if it’s warming?

  7. Jeffery says:

    About 0.8C lower than now.

  8. drowningpuppies says:

    About 0.8C lower than now.

    –that little guy who exaggerates often likes to make up shit

    • John says:

      Cocker man why do you always say other men are “little”?
      Does that make you feel better about being yourself ?
      Are you some sort of “big guy”
      I mean you yourself sort of have, well, an old ladies type dog

  9. Hoagie says:

    So at any given time it’s 33 degrees F too warm? I realize that you think you know everything, Jeffery but how do you know what the exact temperature of the earth should be at any time at any place? Could it be 30 degrees less? Could it be 10 degrees more?

    • John says:

      Hoagie 7 billion people all over the globe have adapted themselves to the current climate
      For many ANY change is going to be difficult to adapt to, many humans are already living a marginal existence just trying to survive
      For you and Teach both of you are probably in the top 1% income of human beings (50000 dollars or more)
      So climate change will be much more easily delt with
      Not so for the 40% who must live on less than $2 per day
      Unless you are a total narcissist the lives of others should also be taken into what happens when the climate changes

  10. drowningpuppies says:

    Cocker man why do you always say other men are “little”?

    I don’t, just little jeffy.

    You I call retarded.

    But thanks for asking.

  11. o0Nighthawk0o says:

    All you deniers have to remember that the science is settled. Even though all these doom and gloom reports contain the qualifiers of “maybe”, “could possibly”, and “might happen” someday in the distant future. But hey, the science is settled right?

  12. Hoagie says:

    These were settled science in 1970:

    “We have about five more years at the outside to do something.”
    • Kenneth Watt, ecologist

    “Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
    • George Wald, Harvard Biologist

    “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.”
    • Barry Commoner, Washington University biologist

    “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.” • New York Times editorial, the day after the first Earth Day

    “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
    • Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

    “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”
    • Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

    “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.”
    • Denis Hayes, chief organizer for Earth Day

    “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”
    • Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University, 1970

    “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”
    • Life Magazine, January 1970

    “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”
    • Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

    “Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.”
    • Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

    “We are prospecting for the very last of our resources and using up the nonrenewable things many times faster than we are finding new ones.”
    • Martin Litton, Sierra Club director

    “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’”
    • Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

    “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”
    • Sen. Gaylord Nelson, 1975

    “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”
    • Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

    Morons then morons Today.

  13. Jeffery says:

    The Earth continues to warm, in fact, an incredible 0.8C over the past century or so. This rapid warming is unprecedented in the Holocene. The evidence is overwhelming that the primary cause is an unprecedented increase (for at least 1 million years) in atmospheric CO2, proven to be from humans burning fossil fuels.

    Denying the clear evidence is wrong. The question is what, if anything, should we do about it.

  14. drowningpuppies says:

    The Earth continues to warm…

    –that little guy who exaggerates often

    The only statement in his little diatribe that can be proven.
    The rest not.

  15. safetyguy says:


    I have a little physics experiment for you to do. You’ll need a say, 50lb block of ice, a scale and a watch.

    Put the ice on the scale and set it in the sin. Now, time how long it takes the 1st 10 lbs to melt, then the 2nd 10 labs to melt and continue to the last 10 lbs.

    When you compare the times, you’ll see the flaw in your argument.

    Have a nice day and thanks for playing.

  16. Jeffery says:


    Nonsense. But thanks for playing.

  17. safetyguy says:

    Sorry Jeffy, but you can’t dismiss physics. You can argue who is lying for the money, but physics is an absolute. The smaller that block of ice is, the faster it will melt.

    You should have taken physics in college, instead of white privilege, social justice and women’s studies.

  18. Jeffery says:


    If you had a point to make you’d probably have made it by now, rather than just repeating some pseudoscientific gobbledygook.

    At a set temperature above 0C, in direct sunlight, the proportional volume of ice remaining with time follows what sort of decay curve? 0 order, 1st order, 2nd order? That’s what you’re trying to use to falsify the theory of man-made global warming?

    What does your “thought experiment” demonstrate? How does it in any way (weigh?), shape or form negate the statements I typed:

    The Earth continues to warm, in fact, an incredible 0.8C over the past century or so. This rapid warming is unprecedented in the Holocene. The evidence is overwhelming that the primary cause is an unprecedented increase (for at least 1 million years) in atmospheric CO2, proven to be from humans burning fossil fuels.

    In fact, independent of how a 50 lb block of ice melts in the Sun, the Earth continues to warm rapidly from CO2 we’ve added to the atmosphere.

    If you have a point to make, I suggest you make it.

    But thanks for playing, but you’ve been Gonged!

  19. Jeffery says:


    Found your experiment online. Ice mass vs time over many different conditions. They started with a 2L block of ice. There are many science fair projects doing the same type of study with ice cubes.

    Now, make your eureka! point, please.

    The floor is yours.



  20. david7134 says:

    Note that Jeff proved your point as to his lack of knowledge of anything. He sites science fair experiments with ice cubes, not understanding the difference in surface area between a large block of ice a multiple ice cubes. He did the same thing in talking about “burning” gas with an internal combustion engine, again not understanding that the engine is powered by explosions of gas and not the burning, big difference in his claim of CO2 output, but he does not get it.

    Global warming is a hoax.

  21. Jeffery says:


    You smelly old man. You are wrong again, as always.

Bad Behavior has blocked 9622 access attempts in the last 7 days.