It is. Really. Not kidding. Bear with me. (Washington Times)
House Democrats yesterday were expected to block Republican efforts to strip a global-warming study from a bill setting intelligence policy, hours after top retired military officials lauded Democratic efforts to link climate change with national security.
House Republicans are gearing up for a floor showdown on the topic today after Democrats insisted that the intelligence bill keep a provision ordering a National Intelligence Estimate that would evaluate climate change as a security risk.
"This is an area that we may be vulnerable in terms of potential terrorists," said Rep. Silvestre Reyes, Texas Democrat and chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
"You mean a terrorist could impact global climate change?" asked Rep. David Dreier of California, the ranking Republican on the Rules Committee.
"We don’t know," Mr. Reyes responded, prompting Mr. Dreier to snap sarcastically: "Wow. That’s amazing."
The Web site of The Washington Times, washtimes.com, first reported last Thursday about the provision in the bill to draft a National Intelligence Estimate — a formal and authoritative report done by a broad section of the intelligence community — on the "anticipated geopolitical effects of global climate change."
I would highly recommend reading the whole story, a quick excerpt doesn’t do the trick.
Now, I mentioned this back on April 9th, and mostly poo poo’d it. In retrospect, let me reconsider the proposal.
Consider: first, as previously mentioned, it would be good for the intelligence and military communities to understand how climate can affect areas, and be prepared to fight in them. Climate change is happening in areas, though it is questionable how much, and whether it is global, or micro-climatic.
Second, an official study may backfire on the Democrats, as it shows that climate change is primarily caused by natural forces, not human actions.
If a study gives the military more information on how to fight under certain climate and weather conditions more effectively, great! I betcha George Washington and the Continental Army would have appreciated better ideas regarding the coming conditions prior to Valley Forge and fighting The Battle of Monmouth.
So, let them have their study. It may put to bed the idiocy of global warming as caused by Man once and for all. Just make sure it is one and done, otherwise, as Byron York writes
But soon (global warming) could be more than a ploy; it could be national policy. At the very least, it is now the position of the Democratic leadership in the House and Senate. (A similar National Intelligence Estimate measure is pending in the Senate.) And it comes just in time for coming campaigns: If global warming is a national security issue, then Democrats, contrary to their long-time image, can claim to be very, very tough on national security.
Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson’s Website, The Magical Rose Garden, stikNstein… has no mercy, Right Truth, The Pet Haven Blog, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, Leaning Straight Up, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
I wrote about this previously. I don’t have a problem with the study, I have a problem if funds are diverted from terrorism for the study. That question has not been answered, that I know about.
Sanctuary For Terrorists…
Sanctuary has taken on a new meaning today. In the past sanctuary was something a church might offer an individual in dire circumstances, but today we have not only churches offering sanctuary to large numbers of illegals, we have entire…
Teach said: Second, an official study may backfire on the Democrats, as it shows that climate change is primarily caused by natural forces, not human actions.
Could you please cite the scientific study or a major scientific organization that states this?
Teach said: I betcha George Washington and the Continental Army would have appreciated better ideas regarding the coming conditions prior to Valley Forge and fighting The Battle of Monmouth.
That’s weather…not climate.
Debbie, you are exactly right, there is tons of money for this already allocated.
Silke, would 17,000 scientists and climatologists be good enough for you? Probably not, as you are bound to the political IPCC doc. Say, do you ask Al Gore for proof for his movie, which I bet you watched religiously.
PSST: climate affects weather.
Teach, the issue of climate change as it applies to national security refers to the potential increased instability in already volatile regions (i.e. the Middle East, Africa, etc.) as well as a possible increase in tensions even in stable areas. Land loss, mass migrations, loss of natural resources, and increased demands on water may cause conflict in the future. It’s not about understanding the weather conditions of where your forces may fight. Weather has always been considered by commanders at all levels but the potential effect of climate change on national security is new.
I can’t believe you actually referred to the Oregon petition. I guess I should have been more specific. Do you have anything that isn’t almost ten years old and hasn’t already been thoroughly discredited?
And what happens if the NIE determines that climate change is minimal and not caused by Man? Will you deny it? Say it is politically motivate? Funded by the oil/coal lobby?
The climate is in continuous flux. The earth is a dynamic system. The Sun does its thing, allowing for cooler or warmer periods. Can you tell me what the Earths normal temperature should be?
Can you cite reports that aren’t politically motivated?
Teach, while the bill will undoubtedly examine the science of climate change the main purpose of the study is to assess the effects that climate change may have on national security. The bill directs a National Intelligence Estimate “on the anticipated geopolitical effects of global climate change and the implications of such effects on the national security of the United States.â€
Teach said: The Sun does its thing, allowing for cooler or warmer periods.
Why do you keep coming back to this? Yes the Sun plays a part but even the articles you cite on your own blog acknowledge the Sun is not the cause of the current warming trend. I know you have a problem with the IPCC but all your unsupported assertions don’t change the fact that their data comes from peer-reviewed studies by well respected climate scientists. If anything their assessment is a conservative one. (See this article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,2053519,00.html)
I recommend reading FAQ 1.1 and FAQ 2.1 where it states:
“The differences in radiative forcing estimates between the present day and the start of the industrial era for solar irradiance changes and volcanoes are both very small compared to the differences in radiative forcing estimated to have resulted from human activities. As a result, in today’s atmosphere, the radiative forcing from human activities is much more important for current and future climate change than the estimated radiative forcing from changes in natural processes.â€
Frequently Asked Questions:
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_FAQs.pdf
Full Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC Working Group 1:
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html