ISIS happens to be the current manifestation of said irrationalism.

They are not blaming their problems on the civilized world. They have a committed goal to rid the earth of its non-Muslim population.

129 deaths in this most recent attack - and the number will likely increase - does not constitute a laughable action.

I tend to think that ranking is a means of prioritization. I focus my personal resources first on things that I view as more important, and walk down the list until I have no remaining resources. Of course I can't print money as our Federal government does, so perhaps it really isn't important to prioritize threats and deal first with those deemed to be most important. We can do it all! Increase our balance sheet, Ms. Yellen.

I agree with your comments on CO2. A while back - circa 1970s - it was "the coming ice age". Then it became global warming. Since the "experts" can't seem to decide whether the long term trend is warming or cooling, it has become climate change. Probably a more accurate term, as this earth's climate has been changing since before the point in time that man inhabited it. What will we do - cower and rely on our benevolent government to keep us safe? Hardly. We will do what we've always done - adapt our living to areas more friendly to comfortable life, crop growth, etc.

Back to the original line of thought. ISIS is here and now. Not recognizing it as an imperative that must be dealt with NOW would be a grave mistake, and would only lead to more tragedies like the one just experienced by France.

Actually it is not ISIS, it is the descent into irrationalism of all types.

Anthropogenic climate change is 10% science and 90% politics. It is a powerful political tool for those that wish to impose a dictatorial rule but it is of limited scientific value. To the extent that it poses a real threat to our ecosystem the "solutions" proposed by our political masters will only aggravate the problem by destroying the technology base that can be used to address it. Politicians are notoriously illiterate when it comes to science but they do recognize a potential weapon when they see one. AGW provides them with such a weapon but like a child with a gun they have no idea how to use it.

IMHO, Bernie is a way bigger threat to America than ISIS but ISIS is a huge threat.

Lucky has a good point about the climate change scam. :) When 90% of the CO2 (still not a poison) emitted, is generated from natural sources that would not stop even if all the living creatures on earth were dead, it is hard for me to understand how anyone could believe in the hoax. Even if we quit burning all fossil fuel and went back to horse & buggy we would not have an impact on the climate. There would be more horses, (methane gas) and all heat would have to come from wood so we would still be pumping CO2.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_F9X...

That is insane.

I think that this is what Bernie meant:

The Islamists are fossils from the 7th century. Human industrial activity digs, pumps or otherwise disturbs various fossil layers of the Earth. When the Islamic layer is disturbed, it ejects a stream of morons with terrorists interspersed in it. Thus, human industrial activity releases fossilized terrorists.

I am not sure you can medicate stupid lol

Circuit Guy is correct !
possibly even Sanders but for the wrong reason.

1. Ranking is of no use in decision making, except possibly for presenting a recommendation to politicians.

2. While the idea of human caused climate change via CO2 is a scam, there is evidence that the earth is cooling, this would be a disaster for food crop production. Consider the great grain growing areas of the central US and Ukraine. With warmer weather crop growing can move north, but with colder weather the Gulf of Mexico and the Black Sea are barriers to a move south. Disaster can be averted by more energy production such as nuclear, and halting facile CO2 restrictions, greater use of coal will produce more plant food.

The idea that threats can be ranked from greatest to least is questionable for me.

If we have to rank them, I rank climate change as a greater threat than ISIS. (I do not understand Sanders claim that they're related. They seem like separate problems to me.) I rank ISIS low because I don't think they can do much. I can't imagine them being as deadly as automobiles are, but they're evil is so ghastly. All they can do is try to goad people into over-reacting with their horrific crimes.

I think they're a bunch of lowlifes clinging to power by blaming their problems on the civilized world. They want to pretend like they're at "war" with the civilized world, which is laughable, but some people are happy to go along with that narrative.

The question was whether Sanders still believes the greatest threat is climate change, and he reaffirmed that. He even went so far as to say that climate change fostered the growth of ISIS.

Really? After the events in Paris, it's hard to disagree that ISIS is THE clear and present danger today. Methinks Bernie forgot to take his meds.

The question asks him to compare two unrelated things (despite his claim that they're related), which I think is unfair. I think many things, including climate change, are bigger threats than ISIS. I don't understand his saying they're directly related.

It seems to me that he mistakenly accepted the premise of the question that threats can be put on a clear scale of importance.