Staff Reports
Bernie Sanders recently dared to step into Joe Rogan’s territory and pronounce climate change as an existential threat to humanity. However, Bernie wasn’t quite prepared for a curveball thrown his way. Rogan introduced data from a rather unexpected source: the Washington Post. Now, let’s be clear here, the Washington Post isn’t exactly known for its conservative leanings. Yet, even they had to acknowledge some inconvenient truths about the Earth’s ever-changing climate.
For anyone paying attention in seventh-grade science class, it’s no secret that the planet’s temperature has always fluctuated. We’ve had ice ages and heat waves long before anyone worried about carbon emissions from their trusty pickup trucks. Ironically, the Washington Post dug into 485 million years of climate change and dared to reveal something eye-opening: we’re currently in a cooling period. Yes, you read that right — cooling. One might imagine the surprise of climate alarmists when faced with the facts of Earth’s long-term climate cycles.
But Bernie, as expected, tried to dodge the facts. Rather than engaging in an honest debate about the findings, he resorted to the age-old tactic of fear-mongering. Mentioning the ominous threat of extreme weather, Bernie probably hoped to stir up some anxiety. However, what he conveniently overlooked is that extreme weather has always been a part of Earth’s natural rhythm — Mother Nature at her unpredictable best. It’s fascinating how proponents of climate hysteria dismiss historical weather patterns unless it suits their narrative.
It’s also rather convenient for some people to ignore the financial incentives tied to climate change narratives. After all, nothing fills campaign coffers quite like promoting a global crisis. Indeed, Bernie and his like-minded friends never fail to capitalize on this topic. But as Joe Rogan deftly pointed out with that data, pushing the data under the rug doesn’t make it any less true. Sometimes, it takes an examination of hard science rather than emotional rhetoric to discover who’s genuinely engaged in an honest discussion.
Ultimately, one ought to question who is delivering value to the climate debate and who is simply bloviating for personal gain. Taking a step back and looking at the longer timeline, as Joe Rogan did with the Post’s data, one sees how the climate change narrative isn’t as one-sided as some would have us believe. Rather than succumbing to widespread panic, perhaps it’s time to assess climate discussions with a healthy dose of skepticism and a nod to historical data. The real challenge is identifying those who are invested in truth rather than sensationalism, and that’s a climate change conversation worth having.
