Hillary Clinton is making headlines this week and each one is sure to headline the other. Her latest headline is treating climate change as a catastrophic event and warns that we should treat the latest The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report as a call to arms. She’s giving us just a decade to get our weather under control.

Except, we don’t have any control over Mother Nature and we cannot control the weather. Maybe we can influence things here or there, but we live on an ever-evolving planet in a galaxy beyond galaxies, and we can’t even explain how we got here.

Trending: BREAKING: Obama Just Endorsed Grandson Of A Terrorist And Soros-Supported Candidate Running Against Duncan Hunter

However, the odd part of Hillary’s message is the “call to arms” bit and that’s what’s throwing people off.

take our poll - story continues below

Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.?

  • Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to 100PercentFedUp.com updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Is Clinton suggesting that countries go to war with anyone not participating in what the IPCC report suggests?

“Leaders around the world should treat the new @IPCC_CH report as a call to arms.

We have barely 10 years to ward off catastrophic warming with destabilizing effects for all of us.

Our children and grandchildren deserve action, and action now.”

The Washington Post reported on this, stating the following:

“The world stands on the brink of failure when it comes to holding global warming to moderate levels, and nations will need to take “unprecedented” actions to cut their carbon emissions over the next decade, according to a landmark report by the top scientific body studying climate change.

With global emissions showing few signs of slowing and the United States — the world’s second-largest emitter of carbon dioxide — rolling back a suite of Obama-era climate measures, the prospects for meeting the most ambitious goals of the 2015 Paris agreement look increasingly slim. To avoid racing past warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) over preindustrial levels would require a “rapid and far-reaching” transformation of human civilization at a magnitude that has never happened before, the group found.

“There is no documented historic precedent” for the sweeping change to energy, transportation and other systems required to reach 1.5 degrees Celsius, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) wrote in a report requested as part of the 2015 Paris climate agreement.

At the same time, however, the report is being received with hope in some quarters because it affirms that 1.5 degrees Celsius is still possible — if emissions stopped today, for instance, the planet would not reach that temperature. It is also likely to galvanize even stronger climate action by focusing on 1.5 degrees Celsius, rather than 2 degrees, as a target that the world cannot afford to miss.

“Frankly, we’ve delivered a message to the governments,” said Jim Skea, a co-chair of the IPCC panel and professor at Imperial College London, at a press event following the document’s release. “It’s now their responsibility … to decide whether they can act on it.” He added, “What we’ve done is said what the world needs to do.”

Clinton’s fellow Democrat, Al Gore, who also chimed in and he’s always criticized for his take on the weather/climate. He made a statement and posted it on social media.

The Washington Times stated: “The report will encourage the development of new technologies, which is important,” Mr. Gore said in a statement. “However, time is running out, so we must capitalize and build on the solutions available today.”

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Special Report called for achieving “net zero emissions” by 2050 to limit the rise in global temperatures to 1.5 degrees Celsius, or 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, from pre-industrial levels.

“The next few years are probably the most important in our history,” said Debra Roberts, co-chairwoman of IPCC Working Group II, in a statement.

Such a goal would require trillions of dollars to achieve “‘rapid and far-reaching’ transitions in land, energy, industry, buildings, transport, and cities,” including using unproven technologies to remove carbon dioxide from the air.”

Now what?

What should every country do to remove the excess amount of carbon dioxide from the air?

Will there be a third world war in which countries battle over weather protection and climate change?

We should all be mindful of our footprint.

However, I think the bizarre part of all this is that Hillary Clinton sounds like she’s warning countries, or warning us, that everyone should prepare for war and destroy any country who is not willing to reduce their levels of carbon dioxide.

We might be headed for the apocalypse and this smells like napalm in the morning.


Join The Conversation. Leave a Comment.