Sanders doubles down: ‘Climate change is directly related to the rise of global terrorism’


By Nick Gass

11/14/2015 09:23 PM EDT

Bernie Sanders stood by his remark from the last Democratic debate in which he called climate change the greatest threat to national security, a day after the deadliest attack on French soil since the end of World War II.

“Absolutely. In fact, climate change is directly related to the rise of global terrorism,” he said. “This is what the CIA says,” he went on to say, noting a struggle for limited resources like water and land.

During the October debate, Sanders explained it in a different context.

“The scientific community is telling us if we do not address the global crisis of climate change, transform our energy system away from fossil fuel to sustainable energy, the planet that we’re going to be leaving our kids and our grandchildren may well not be habitable,” he said.

Martin O’Malley has voiced similar concerns about climate change being the underlying cause of unrest in the region.

To view online (Subscription) :


Related Links:


50 Responses

    1. “Absolutely ridiculous.”

      The people who study the subject disagree. What reason do you have to doubt them?

      “The devastating civil war that began in Syria in March 2011 is the result of complex interrelated factors…. water and climatic conditions have played a direct role in the deterioration of Syria’s economic conditions.”×546.jpg

      1. Well here’s a guy who “studies” the subject. If those who make the “direct” connection of MMCC and a supposed drought, and then leap to Jihadists blowing innocent folks up because of it…I really do not know what to say. It’s just stupid…but if you say the same lie over and over again…blah blah.

        Please watch the Sat Summary, it’s only 5 minutes, and see the ACTUAL charts that show no major drought in either Syria or Nigeria, where both Obama and Kerry think MMCC contributed to the birth of Boco Haram.

        1. The devastating civil war that began in Syria in March 2011 is the result of complex interrelated factors. The focus of the conflict is regime change, but the triggers include a broad set of religious and sociopolitical factors, the erosion of the economic health of the country, a wave of political reform sweeping over the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) and Levant region, and challenges associated with climate variability and change and the availability and use of freshwater. As described here, water and climatic conditions have played a direct role in the deterioration of Syria’s economic conditions. There is a long history of conflicts over water in these regions because of the natural water scarcity, the early development of irrigated agriculture,

          Seems your “evidence” of direct links to MMCC is not supported by his opening statement. It might be one of MANY reasons, but water troubles have plagued the region since forever. Give us all a break with this insanity…You too Bernie.

          1. “There is a long history of conflicts over water in these regions because of the natural water scarcity”


            …and we’ve introduced an unnatural forcing on that supply of water.

            Did you think only other people were likely to be affected by your suicidal dishonesty?

            “Our results indicate that future reductions in Arctic sea ice cover could significantly reduce available water in the American west”


            “With California facing one of the most severe droughts on record, Governor Brown declared a drought State of Emergency in January”


              1. “Unless you’re a rich celebrity or golf course”

                Don’t even get me started!

                Republicans in the state legislature were blocking any attempts to even measure the amount of water that agribusiness uses until recently, even though they knew agriculture uses the vast majority of California’s water supply!

                From what I understand that has since changed. Hopefully, drip irrigation will follow!

                As it is right now, they’re just drilling ever deeper to find groundwater, pretending it’ll never run out.

                I’m hoping California doesn’t run into a wall, but things don’t look so good right now… we got a tiny bit of rain the other day, but now it’s dry as a bone again… :/

          1. “Is raw data never good enough to show ?”

            Is pretending you don’t have access to raw data all you ever need to do to make the findings of scientists go away?

            What kind of security threat might it cause to eliminate the glacial meltwater than billions of nuclear-armed people depend on for survival?

            What do you think?

            “the Hindu Kush–Karakoram–Himalayan glaciers are a source of water for the quarter of the global population that lives in south Asia… Ice cover is decreasing in this region, as for most glaciers in the world, as a result of global warming. Between 2003 and 2009, Himalayan glaciers lost an estimated 174 gigatonnes of water”


            1. From that same link above:

              Modelling of glacier retreat in the Himalayas is hindered by sparse data. Field, satellite and weather records confirm that 9% of the ice area present in the early 1970s had disappeared by the early 2000s (ref. 5). But there has been no comprehensive assessment of current regional mass balance — the difference between the accumulation of ice and its loss3.

              Same type of guessing has backfired in the Antarctica with NASA new study showing increasing ice mass to the tune of 80 billion tons per year. You can find it.

                1. There you go! That’s a valid study that contradicts the majority of studies on the subject!

                  Do you know what the lead author has to say about people who misrepresent its findings?

                  “The findings do not mean that Antarctica is not in trouble, Zwally notes. “I know some of the climate deniers will jump on this, and say this means we don’t have to worry as much as some people have been making out,” he says. “It should not take away from the concern about climate warming.” “


                  1. You notice he didn’t say Antarctica IS in trouble. No…it means that Antarctica isn’t losing ice as some Chicken Little scare mongers…LIKE YOU…would have us believe.

                  2. Of course he’s gonna say that. He, like you, are in the AGW camp..and very very faithful. Let me ask you, CB…friend me on FB, btw….how much cherry-picking data would you need before you will admit there is not a crisis situation going on here; and that like so many of us believe, the human fingerprints on climate change are not so pronounced..that it is more Ocean currents, Sun and natural weather variability…something your side says is all a part of CC, but that humans are principally to blame? That’s a tortured sentence I know, but it seems there continues to be a veritable flood of new data all the time that pokes holes in the AGW argument. Will you at least concede this?

                    1. This chart completely goes against Zwally’s study, and shows the incredible complexity of studying the Antarctic and so many other aspects of CC. THAT is my point. Not that CC doesn’t exist, only that his study, as you yourself said, contradicts others. This chart above is useless if you accept that ice sheets in Antarctica have gown in altitude. That, in and of itself, would prove that ice mass is growing.

                      I’m a simple person. If it snows in my yard and the edges start melting, but snow and ice come again and build up in the interior of my my yard, and I do a few simple calculations….seems to me the ice mass in my yard has increased.

                      And I do trust Zwally, CB. He was honest to put out this incredible study that others have railed wondering how it managed to even get through peer review!..but being that he also painfully knows that we who put a lesser role on human impact in CC will use it to our advantage…THAT is why he attempts to minimize its impact and makes it curious and quite humorous.

                      And please answer my question


                      GRACE has difficulty telling magmatic mass changes, versus ice mass changes. That is the GIA problem. The folks at U of Colorado tell us: “GIA uncertainty is at least 50 percent.”

                      “What is Global Isostatic Adjustment (GIA) and why do you correct for it?”

                      …and GRACE has difficulty ascertaining its own position, above, which skews what it thinks of, as mass change, below. That is the Terrestrial Reference Frame problem. Blewitt shows us what the 1CM orbital determination accuracy looks like, in terms of error-induced apparent sea-level change.

                      Blewitt, Geoff, et al. 2010 “Geodetic observations and global reference frame contributions to understanding sea-level rise and variability.” Understanding Sea-Level Rise and Variability. London: Wiley-Blackwell


                  3. ❝Do you know what the lead author has to say …❞

                    Lead Author Zwally: ❝…Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,…❞

                    I’d have been happy if Antarctica just stopped contributing to sea-level rise now, but this is sooooo much better. This shows that Antarctica had stopped contributing in 1992, many years ago…

                    ❝… the Antarctic ice sheet [actually] showed a net gain of 112 billion tons [Gt] of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to [an increase of only] 82 billion tons [Gt] of ice per year between 2003 and 2008. … ❝Our main disagreement is for East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica – there, we see an ice gain that exceeds the losses in the other areas.❞


                    ”Mass changes of the Antarctic ice sheet … Satellite (ICESat) data (2003–08) show mass gains from snow accumulation exceeded discharge losses by 82 ± 25 Gt a–1, reducing global sea-level rise by 0.23 mm a–1. European Remote-sensing Satellite (ERS) data (1992–2001) give a similar gain of 112 ± 61 Gt a–1. …”

                    Zwally, H. Jay, et al. 2015 “Mass gains of the Antarctic ice sheet exceed losses.” Journal of Glaciology



              1. “NASA new study showing increasing ice mass to the tune of 80 billion tons per year. You can find it.”

                You should find it.

                …if you want anyone to believe you.

                Do you not care if anyone believes you?

                “The continent of Antarctica has been losing about 134 billion metric tons of ice per year since 2002, while the Greenland ice sheet has been losing an estimated 287 billion metric tons per year.”


              2. It is not actually necessary to measure the rate of glacier retreat; it is enough to measure how much water flows down the mountains. Less ice+ less water.

                As for Antarctica, using one or two years of ice increase to “prove” there is no warming is the same as confusing weather with climate. The overall trend for temperatures is relentlessly upwards. The overall trend in arctic ice (both poles) is relentlessly down.

                1. The Antarctic study is by no means 1 or 2 years, Elizabeth. If you read it, I am sure you know this. And I certainly didn’t use the figures to prove there is no global warming. What the long-term study DOES suggest…in fact PROVES…is that ice has increased substantially over the past few decades in Antarctica, and will continue for some time. The authors were questioning where the sea-level rise of 2.3 millimeters, or whatever, is coming from since it is not from there.

                  My whole point in all of this is to point out that the alarmist catastrophe almost guaranteed by many of these folks is not happening at all. Indeed, it seems they might be manufacturing it, as it is now coming clear without doubt that vast adjustments were made in data to show big increases in global temps where they were not occurring.

                  1. I’m sure you must have come across the term cherry-picking. Among others, I read this article: As I read it, there is quite definitely evidence that “ice has increased substantially over the past few decades” – in some areas. I found this section quite telling:

                    “The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level
                    rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” Zwally said. “But
                    this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level
                    rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming
                    from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise
                    that is not accounted for.”

                    “The new study highlights the difficulties of measuring the small
                    changes in ice height happening in East Antarctica,” said Ben Smith, a
                    glaciologist with the University of Washington in Seattle who was not
                    involved in Zwally’s study.

                    All these studies are part of the larger whole, and need to be viewed in context.
                    Read more at:

        2. ❝What’s really interesting about all this is, this is just so easy to disprove.❞
          ❝There’s no drought here … so you cannot blame drought in Nigeria for the rise of Boko Haram.❞
          – Joe Bastardi

          “At the 2:34 mark, Joe shows a precipitation chart for western Africa which clearly depicts how rainfall has in fact been above average over the past 15 years, and thus drought cannot be cited as a reason for the Boko Haram terror group. Bastardi says: ❝There’s no drought here. And so you cannot blame drought in Nigeria for the rise of Boko Haram.❞ … it’s been too wet in Nigeria, and not too dry. Indeed there are number of scientific papers showing that the Sahara region has been getting greener over the past 30 years. …the drought has hit part of Turkey, but that most of Syria has had normal precipitation, … ‘drought’ is the normal climate condition there.”

        1. “Only science impaired liberals like yourself CB beleive that a tax can change the weather.”

          Nothing was said about taxes or weather, Klem.

          Greenhouse gasses are changing the climate.

          Do greenhouse gasses warm the planet?

          What do you think?

          “Without greenhouse gases, Earth would be a frozen -18 degrees Celsius (0 degrees Fahrenheit).”

      2. The graph you show requires a lot of adjustments to be made to the scattered land based thermometers that they are based on. Continued adjustments that make past temperatures colder and recent temperature warmer. At the same time the satellite data that covers the entire planet is ignored by NOAA and shows no significant warming since the large El Nino in 1998. Why use land based highly adjusted data, when there is a much more robust data set available?
        And finally, do you think there would be peace in the middle east if the climate were static and unchanging? You think that makes any difference at all to radicals?

      3. The people who study the subject disagree. What reason do you have to doubt them?

        Because they’re cherry-picking data and ignoring the big picture, that’s why.

        How convenient you ignore the explosion in the region’s birth rate and instead blame it on climate change instead of increased competition for resources and water solely as the result of massive population growth. Syria’s population has nearly quadrupled since 1960.

      4. That is in fact false data. Whats more, none of the effects that go along with that false date, have manifested. Appropriate where 100% of the models have cooled through anything that could be remotely defined as a lower confidence bound….. therefore, barrypolesmoking liberals are going to get pounded next year.

  1. if I take a timeline i think i can go back to the aftermath of the 1st world war and the carving up of the middle east as a starting point for todays troubles.

  2. Bernie, you are a bigger fool than we all thought.
    Anyway, invoking the CIA seems quite odd for someone who felt they couldn’t be trusted on Iraq.
    Go figure….

  3. The clijmate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans and has been going on for eons. So what Mr. Sanders is saying is that the violence is caused by the sun and the oceans. So how do we get rid of the sun and the oceans that are causing the problem?

  4. Sanders is nuts of course. When we get honest research results out of Government controlled institutions, we will then get a truthful idea where we stand. Currently if a Government/University scientist goes against the far-left dogma, he or she will lose their grant funding. That is a sure sign there is something dreadfully wrong with scientific honesty in climate research. Research that is done with preconceived outcomes is not research, it is political agenda, and that is the state of climate research being done today – the results are cooked in from the start.

  5. What’s
    the America hating tow the line Democrat Party to do? Those tyranny worshiping
    fools have a serious dilemma on their hands. Not that the puppets know it, but.
    One choice just so happens to be a “TREASONOUS TRAITOR & an ESPIONAGE
    agent” with a life long (documentable) history of criminal activity. And the
    other is a “SELF PROCLAIMED SOCIALIST”, and proud of that fact. Along with a
    record that backs that confession. And that’s the best you got too offer? Neither
    of them will “honor” an oath that is required for the position they seek.
    Neither ever has “honored” the oath they made previously…why would they do so
    now? As for the baby batter stain that calls them selves a Democrat. A
    Progressive. Or a Liberal. They ALL nurture the same communist philosophies.
    Just the titles are different… so that the ignorant detriment to America
    demographic can choose what label sounds better on them when the wind shifts.
    However, ALL worship the same communist philosophies none the less. The only
    real difference is that some of those Pawns of Satin are proud of their
    philosophy. And the other is simply too ignorant to know what they are
    nurturing. They are what I refer to as “the demographic of the CRIS inflicted,
    dog named Stay mentality moron.” (Cranium Rectum Inversion Syndrome)

  6. Won’t transforming our energy system away from fossil fuels reduce the transfer of wealth from evil capitalist countries like the U.S. to Islamic countries in the Middle East, thus ruining their economic base and creating millions more poor people in those countries?
    This will only increase the unrest in the region and lead to more terrorists. Therefore the War on Global Warming will actually increase threats to our national security.

Leave a Reply