Secretary of State John Kerry, always the diplomat, told a group of students and government leaders Sunday in Indonesia that climate change is "the world's most fearsome weapon of mass destruction."

In a sense, climate change can now be considered the world's largest weapon of mass destruction, perhaps even, the world's most fearsome weapon of mass destruction.

We simply don't have time to let a few loud interest groups hijack the climate conversation.

We should not allow a tiny minority of shoddy scientists and science and extreme ideologues to compete with scientific facts. Nor should we allow any room for those who think that the costs associated with doing the right thing outweigh the benefits.

Speaking in California on Friday, President Obama proposed a $1 billion taxpayer funded initiative to battle climate change affecting American communities. He said:

We have to be clear: A changing climate means that weather-related disasters like droughts, wildfires, storms, floods are potentially going to be costlier and they're going to be harsher.

For leftist politicians, the debate on climate change and what to do about it is over and they are putting our money where their mouths are. Sunday's news programs were buzzing around this topic.

ABC News correspondent Rebecca Jarvis spoke to George Stephanopoulos on ABC's This Week and said the economy is taking a pounding from these weather-related disasters -- people are losing income, it is costing more to heat homes, the airlines are losing millions of dollars over canceled flights, shoveling snow is getting expensive in Chicago and folks are staying indoors and away from restaurants and movie theaters.

Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti told This Week, "I think it's clear human beings have had an impact on creating the problem, but we have to solve it now." He expects drought to be the new "status quo" for Californians and is proposing changes in the local government to change how the community landscapes, as well as altering building codes. North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory agrees, saying instead of debating climate change from a left/right political perspective, the focus should be on a more tangible fight -- cleaning up the environment.

The real cost for this "war on climate" will well exceed Obama's proposed $1 billion in the long run. This will mean more and more government programs on a federal and local level, which in turn will mean more burden on the very economies and communities they are meant to help. These big government programs are music to Bill Nye's ears, as he told David Gregory on NBC's Meet the Press that big government is the fix for climate change. ("The Science Guy" touts himself as a "everything all at once" kind of guy.)

The debate took a different angle on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace when he asked, "When did global warming become climate change?" Kimberley Strassel of The Wall Street Journal responded, "It became climate change when you couldn't prove that there was much global warming anymore as the temperatures didn't change." She went on to say, "So, suddenly we had to have this catch all term [to mean] that any change in the weather somehow supported the theory."

Another panelist, Kirsten Powers of USA Today, blames the California drought not solely on the climate but also on the government that exacerbated the situation by protecting an endangered species of fish. As she points out, there is plenty of water that could be providing aid to local farmers but because of the Delta Smelt fish, the water is being diverted to the ocean in order to protect it because it is on the endangered species list.

The ever poignant George Will summed up the entire debate on Fox News quite succinctly as Wallace asked if he buys the president's assertion that climate change is causing these weather-related disasters:

"No. And neither does science. But I'm one of those who are called deniers. And the implication is that I deny climate change. It's impossible to state with clearer precision the opposite of my view, which is that, of course the climate is changing. It's always changing. That's what gave us the medieval warm period. That's what gave us, subsequent to that for centuries, the Little Ice Age. Of course it's changing. When a politician on a subject implicating science, hard science, economic science, social science says the debate is over, you may be sure of two things: The debate is raging and he's losing it. So I think frankly as a policy question, Chris, Holman Jenkins, Kim's colleague at The Wall Street Journal, put it perfectly: The only questions is, how much money are we going to spend? How much wealth are we going to forego creating in order to have zero discernible effect on the environment?