The reelection campaign for Bernie Sanders spent more than $400,000 to travel on private jets during the
midterm elections, Federal Election Commission filings show.

The Washington Free Beacon first reportedon Sanders’s use of private jets in 2017 after he disclosed a
payment of just under $40,000 to Apollo Jets, a New York-based company “dedicated to providing a luxury
flight experience.” The campaign stepped up its use of private planes in the campaign’s final weeks, spending
$297,685 with Apollo Jets for a nine-state tour at the beginning of October.

The campaign’s latest filing, submitted to the FEC late last week, shows an additional $6,772.50 payment to
Apollo Jets on October 30, bringing Sanders’s total spending on private air travel to $403,024 for the midterm cycle.

Sanders’s extensive use of private jets on the campaign flies in the face of his rhetoric on climate change, which
he views as the “single greatest threat facing our planet.” The transportation industry is viewed by many, including
Sanders, as a major environmental culprit, given the volume of emissions produced by aviation.

The Sanders campaign has acknowledged the negative impact his use of private planes has on the climate, but
defended it by pointing to its purchase of carbon credits to “balance out the emissions produced on this trip.”

“The campaign purchased carbon offsets from Native Energy to support renewable energy projects and invest in
carbon reduction projects to balance out the emissions produced on this trip,” said spokeswoman Arianna Jones
in an email on the $297,685 in private plane spending.

The campaign’s latest filing indeed shows that it gave $4,980 on November 2 to Native Energy, a company that sells
carbon offsets to corporations and campaigns.

It is unclear, however, whether the $4,980 purchase from Native Energy is intended to counter all the emissions
produced throughout the course of the campaign.

Native Energy did not respond to an inquiry on whether it worked with the Sanders campaign to determine the amount
of carbon offsets it believes the campaign would need to purchase to be carbon-neutral. A calculator on the company’s
website does not allow for users to specify that their travel was carried out on a private jet, which is significantly worse
for the environment given the limited capacity of those flights.

The Sanders campaign spent at least an additional $143,492.81 to travel using commercial airlines, according to FEC
filings.

The Free Beacon was unable to determine whether the $4,980 payment to Native Energy was intended to offset this
travel as well.

The Sanders campaign did not respond to follow-up inquiries on the campaign’s carbon footprint.

So, here's the Liberal Climate Change logic: Climate Change will kill the planet. It's the biggest concern of our lives right now.

BUT, instead of Bernie halting his private jet excursions and using, say, technology to do whatever he does in lieu of traveling, he buys carbon credits to "offset" his flights.

If Bernie were to change his lifestyle to match the one he wants the rest of us to live, the offsets would not be needed. We would have HIS carbon emission reduction as well as the reduction created by whomever that exchange purchases the credits from.

We could have DOUBLE the emissions reduction, but instead we get HALF that amount, because Climate Change taxes, exchanges and any other "solution" that involves paying into the globalist kitty are SCAMs.

When the people who keep telling us Climate Change is a crisis start living their own lives as if it's a crisis, maybe then I'll believe it's a crisis.


BERNIE SANDERS SPENDS THOUSANDS MORE ON PRIVATE JET TRAVEL

I never took the position that the climate is only changing because of our influence.

I think that the science can say for certain that man is influencing climate change. Again, not the sole cause but one of a number of causes. Moreover I have yet to see any scientists put forth the idea that all climate change in the past 100 years has only mankind to blame. So while your argument is correct, you are arguing against a point that I don't think anyone was every making.

I was explaining the basis for my current position which is why I stated that my statements were generalities. But since you bring up this specific one I will point out that there is evidence that man has significantly affected the climate, not just a percent or two. I will throw this link out as an example though I am sure there are probably other studies with varying estimates. Overall, most I have seen are in agreement that mankind is responsible for a significant amount.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/three-quarters-of-climate/


I wasn't speculating. I was listing the reasons I came to doubt the arguments of the climate change skeptics. Now by saying that the climate change deniers/skeptics are making faulty arguments and therefore not trustworthy/reliable I am not automatically saying that the opposite is true. So for example if you and I debated an issue and I was found to be lying/ignorant/misleading, that doesn't mean you are right by default, it would only mean that my arguments were not accurate/trustworthy.


I am not against getting into an actual detailed debate but I am a little hesitant for a number of reasons.
-It is very time consuming to really get into the weeds of climate science. By that I mean unless you or I are truly scientists of fields related to climate we are at a certain point relying on summaries and paraphrasing of what results mean.
-I am not sure what weight reports will carry here in this political hotbed. I worry the discussion would devolve over claims that all these various sources we might cite are "biased" and therefore not trustworthy. I am not trying to say you would be guilty of this but I have noticed that where it comes along political lines, the climate change deniers often seem to find a way of justifying ignoring data that goes against their positions.


Not all skeptics are the most extreme skeptics so of course my #1 comment would not necessarily apply. What I stated were real observations I made of arguments from the side of skeptics. I understand that these might not have been your specific positions.

My point was that the arguments did not seem to have a fact finding aim and instead an agenda. Science with an agenda has a lot of issues.

I think this would be a point we can be closer on. Yes the question becomes a difficult one to study because we are no in an enclosed environment where we can simply add or decrease a greenhouse gas by a specific amount and watch for a reaction without any other influences. However just because it becomes more difficult doesn't mean it is impossible either. We are able to look at the increase in greenhouse gasses from humans over the last 150 years and compare that to temperatures over that time period to see how they compare though. They can then look at records for other things like natural earth based influences as well as solar influences and look for patterns to see if they also could explain the climate changes. Obviously there is a certain amount of estimation that goes so of course there is going to be some margin of error in the estimates. I wouldn't trust anyone who would say "science proves 51% of warming is anthropogenic, not 50 or 52, just 51. "  So where I would disagree is that I don't think it is merely speculating, I think they can give a fairly educated answer even though they could be off by a fair amount.

Unless my understanding of the information about glacier size changes is incorrect I think the rate of change since the last 150 years or so has been different than the time period before humans really started churning out CO2 and other chemicals. It isn't a smoking gun per se but it appears to be a fairly strong correlation to man. Possible coincidence? Sure, but combined with a lot of other correlations pointing to the same factor it becomes less chance that it is a coincidence in my opinion.

This climate change argument has validity but without knowing how much we are really contributing to climate change, we can only speculate how much of it is true and what part of it is true. I believe that all of the hysteria around it is just that. The data is being used to try and convince everyone that what is happening is going to affect us in 5 years, 10 years, 50 years, 100 years. And if we don’t do anything now, we are all going to die!!!!     Let’s face it, the experts that said our cities will be under water already, and that people are going to start dying due to climate change have egg on their faces now. If the data ever becomes available that shows it is going to be 10k years before what we are doing now will affect the earth then how do you think people will react? Since no one really knows, believe what you want. But I would bet my feelings are more realistic than the hysteria. So far, my feelings and thoughts have been correct.

BTW, I would look into solar activity. I believe that the greatest effects on our climate has more to do with solar activity which includes the effects on our gravity that the sun has. JMHO


I did find one article today that said solar activity was studied however the influence over the past century or so (can't remember specific time period mentioned) was not a significant factor in climate change.

What you point out is the problem when people make extreme examples. Some guy says out cities will be underwater but maybe most the others say we will have a 6 inch rise in sea levels. We all see that the big dramatic prediction didn't happen and therefore think the scientists are all wrong even though the other quite guys making smaller, less dramatic predictions might have had their predictions come true. This is a problem with the way the human brain works though. This is where it is hard for the average non-science person to sift through everything. A lot of what we get from the media gives us those big dramatic predictions and most people don't have time to really dive into the weeds so we get swept up into alarmists or deniers positions.

Did you read the article I posted a few posts back? All of these proponents are some of the biggest polluters and they don’t want to get rid of their lifestyle. But they want to take your money from you and force you to cut back. Looks like France’s Socialism is taking hold here.

A lot of the things you stated here are very inaccurate. And if you want to deny the facts and ignore the truth that I stated that is your perogative. The link you provided makes my case even stronger. It relies on computer models. Not using comparative data which is the true scientific measure for the environment. Computer models are programmed by humans which program them to interpret the data they input in a very specific way and are suspect and extremely biased. And once again the computer models are nothing more than speculation. Speculation = Guessing. The reason they use computer models in the first place is because they don’t have enough data to do a comparative analysis.

If you want to continue to believe the speculation with no scientific data to back it up then go ahead. This whole subject is a lie. I presented you with facts and you come back with you don’t want to believe them. It might be in 50 years or so we might finally find out the truth. Until then I am going to stay on the side of science and will believe the findings when we finally have enough real data (Not make believe computer models). Good luck with your beliefs.

Here is where we either have to agree to disagree or get into detailed debate. You say the things I stated are very inaccurate and I say the things you stated are very inaccurate.

I don't believe computer models are just speculation. They have some limitations to them of course, for example they can't predict solar activity) but they represent a different method to run simulated tests on certain variables. It allows them to run tests on predictions on the future and simulate things they would never be able to (physically and/or ethically) to the actual climate. Yes, if the program is not written well then the data will obviously not be reliable but I think with time they have improved the reliability of the computer models. It certainly isn't someone just speculating. I think you have been misled about the reliability of computer models in testing.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/jul/31/climate-models-are-even-more-accurate-than-you-thought
https://www.ucsusa.org/publications/ask/2013/climate-modeling.html#.XBNebS2ZOr8

You didn't present me with facts any more than I presented facts to you. You presented me a number of claims which as I said may indeed be true to varying degrees but you haven't really established any facts.  It isn't about what I want to believe, desire is irrelevant. I would desire that we not be able to affect the climate but that doesn't mean it is true or not.

Good luck with your beliefs.

Awwwww did my comment wishing you good luck with your beliefs get you butt hurt?

If you truly wanted to know the truth you would research this beyond the first 40-50 pages of Google.

The earth was hotter during the roman periods than it was today, and was even hotter in multiple eras in The past.  The earth simply goes through various temperature phases,  heating up and cooling down,  due to numerous factors like solar activity,  core activity, etc. The only exception to this is cataclysmic events like asteroidal strikes significant enough to influence temperature.

The real issue is that they are destroying flora that covert CO2 into oxygen. I have shown NASA thermal analysis in my presentations demonstrating What happens to atmospheric carbon conditions during farming seasons, and it reveals that by simply planting more plants and trees and not cutting them down,   the earth can naturally regulate the excess co2 levels and even fix the world "greenhouse gas" problem within 10-20 years.

If there is a human problem, its simply that there are too many people on the planet, thanks to modern technology,  specifically petroleum based technology. Technology allows for people to live longer, which is why the world is over populated and its resources, habitats and ecosystems are consumed and destroyed.

time for "the snap"

The earth was hotter during the roman periods than it was today, and was even hotter in multiple eras in The past.  The earth simply goes through various temperature phases,  heating up and cooling down,  due to numerous factors like solar activity,  core activity, etc. The only exception to this is cataclysmic events like asteroidal strikes significant enough to influence temperature.

The real issue is that they are destroying flora that covert CO2 into oxygen. I have shown NASA thermal analysis in my presentations demonstrating What happens to atmospheric carbon conditions during farming seasons, and it reveals that by simply planting more plants and trees and not cutting them down,   the earth can naturally regulate the excess co2 levels and even fix the world "greenhouse gas" problem within 10-20 years.

If there is a human problem, its simply that there are too many people on the planet, thanks to modern technology,  specifically petroleum based technology. Technology allows for people to live longer, which is why the world is over populated and its resources, habitats and ecosystems are consumed and destroyed.

There was an axiom put forth on Tucker Carlson's show this week by a guest:

"When Climate Change zealots and people who have to pay for gasoline clash over energy policies, those who pay for gasoline will always win."

Hey Q, do you have something like a PowerPoint presentation I can look at? Or some other sort of thing you wouldn’t mind sharing? I would be interested in seeing your data. Thanks!

The Roman Warm Period, or Roman Climatic Optimum, has been proposed as a period of unusually warm weather in Europe and the North Atlantic that ran from approximately 250 BC to AD 400.[1]

Theophrastus (371 – c. 287 BC) wrote that date trees could grow in Greece if they were planted, but that they could not set fruit there. That is the case today, which suggests that southern Aegean mean summer temperatures in the 4th and 5th centuries BC were within a degree of modern temperatures. That and other literary fragments from the time confirm that the Greek climate then was basically the same as it was around AD 2000. Dendrochronological evidence from wood found at the Parthenon shows variability of climate in the 5th century BC that resembles the modern pattern of variation.[2]

Tree rings from Italy in the late 3rd century BC indicate a period of mild conditions in the area at the time that Hannibal crossed the Alps with elephants.[3]

Cooling at the end of the period in southwestern Florida may have been due to a reduction in solar radiation reaching the Earth, which may have triggered a change in atmospheric circulation patterns.[4]

The phrase "Roman Warm Period" appears in a 1995 doctoral thesis.[5] It was popularized by an article published in Nature in 1999.[6]