A 

CNN poll conducted in late April

 showed that 96% of Democrats favored taking aggressive action to slow the effects of climate change. And Democratic activists in recent weeks have sought to elevate the issue, urging candidates to make climate change a priority

The United Nations — which projects that temperatures will rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels by as early as 2030 — 

has warned

 that governments must take “rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society.”

    The science says:
“pre-industrial” means the harsh “Little Ice Age” (LIA). Scientists call the current warm period a “climate optimum,” because it is unambiguously improved, compared to the pre-industrial LIA.
Nobody knows just how much colder the Earth’s average temperature was during the LIA, but most estimates are about 1°C, so we’ve already seen about 2/3 of that “1.5 degrees Celsius” of warming — and it has been beneficial, rather than harmful. By 2030 we’re likely to see only another 0.1 to 0.2 °C, not 0.5 °C, but even another 0.5°C would be hardly noticeable.
Climate activists rarely mention how challenging it is to measure the tiny temperature differences which characterize “global warming.” This graph, contrasting different global temperature indices, illustrates the problem. Even for the last sixty years, estimates of “measured” warming vary by a factor of two! Earlier time periods are known with even less certainty, and projections for the future are most uncertain of all:

Global warming would have several devastating consequences. It would cause 

coastal cities

 to disappear under water, leaving hundreds of millions of people displaced and forced to migrate to dry areas. Some plants and animals 

would face extinction

, and 

drought

 would result in lower crop yields.

    The science says: that’s nonsense. There will be NO “devastating consequences” to manmade global warming. It has had NO detectable effect on sea-level trends, it has NOT caused plants and animals to go extinct, and it has NOT worsened droughts. Additionally, THOUSANDS of agricultural studies have proven that higher CO2 levels IMPROVE plants’ water efficiency and drought resistance, REDUCE damage to crops from droughts, and greatly INCREASE crop yields.
If you understand graphs, then it should be obvious that rising CO2 levels have not affected sea-level:

 

   That’s one of the highest-quality sea-level measurement records in the world, from a near-ideal central Pacific location, on an old, tectonically-stable island, with little or no vertical land motion, and a very typical sea-level trend.
Here’s what that very slight rise looks like on the ground. These are two photos of the Moana Surfrider Hotel, on Waikiki Beach, in Honolulu, taken nearly a century apart. Does it look like sea-level rise is a problem?

    The benefits of extra CO2
for crops have been known to science for over a century. It is so dramatically beneficial that commercial greenhouses use CO2 generators to elevate daytime CO2 levels to 3-4 times outdoor levels. The benefits are so great that way back in 1920 Scientific American called it “the precious air fertilizer.” From this photo, which accompanied the article, you can certainly see why:

The latest warning signs of a climate crisis include meteorologists recording 

July 2019 as the hottest month ever recorded

 on Earth and Greenland lost 12.5 billion tons of ice to melting on August 2, the largest single-day loss in recorded history.

CNN 

previously announced

 that the town hall audience will be drawn from Democratic and independent voters and stakeholders interested in the issue and no public tickets

will be available.

    In other words, CNN is stacking the audience with leftists, and making sure that no dissenters sneak in.