Why, yes, yes, this is a growing Cult of Climastrology talking point. Will it obtain the stature of “sustainability”, “food security”, and other Warmists notions? Time will tell. Here’s Catherine Rampall (opinion writer)
The national security threat that Republicans are ignoring
When it comes to the 2016 Republican presidential primary, the candidates have found two big, fertile policy arenas in which to stake out territory: climate change and national security.
Specifically, presidential hopefuls are scrambling to show who is most aggressive on national security and who is most passive on climate change. The ideal candidate would, presumably, be able to claim both superlatives.
But this set of stances is incoherent as a policy platform. Actually it’s worse than incoherent. It’s an oxymoron.
That’s because climate change is a national security issue. You can’t credibly claim to be tough on national security and terrorism while simultaneously boasting how unconcerned you are about global warming.
Obviously, what comes next is “consensus”, that it’s all manmade, blah blah blah, the same old story that can be read time and time again. Now the CoC hysteria is being used to go after Republican presidential contenders. CNN went after Ted Cruz on this same issue on Wednesday.
But extreme weather — high temperatures, droughts, storms, floods — is politically destabilizing. It can lead to food and water shortages, mass migrations, destruction of infrastructure, disputes over refugees, pandemics. Sure, it doesn’t directly create armed conflict or militia groups, but it can generate the conditions under which these threats are more likely to emerge and thrive. Such prospects are scarier when you consider that many of the parts of the world most vulnerable to climate change are also areas with weak governance and civil unrest. Global warming is, if nothing else, a threat multiplier. (note: this is still from Wash Post piece)
Is climate, created by weather, a threat? Of course. It always has been. Especially during cooler periods. Holocene cool periods have seen much worse conditions for war, conflict, disease, starvation, and such than during the warm periods.
At the end of the day, though, if Warmists are so concerned, why have they not given up fossil fuels and gone “carbon neutral” in their own lives? Every little bit helps, ya know. Pick up a few pennies and you soon have real money.
Just as data is not the plural of anecdote, climate is not the plural of weather.
Are you confident in your claim?
Worse than WWII, Nagasaki, Hiroshima, ISIL, the Nanking massacre, the Holocaust, Ebola, Pol Pot, polio and Such in the warm 20th and 21st centuries? The Medieval Dark Ages occurred during the Medieval Warm Period. Even the worst of the Black Death occurred at the end of the brief MWP which “skeptics” claim was much warmer than now. The European Renaissance occurred during the depths of the Little Ice Age.
Maybe it’s more accurate to note that extreme climates (much colder than average or much warmer than average) stress human populations and civilizations possibly leading to increased conflict.
Its most likely because only 11 percent of responds in a Gallup poll state Climate change as an issue.
Liam thinks that the warmists have been in control of the Pentagon for the last 15 years.
Liam has “special knowledge” that the US military is unable to understand
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-pentagon-climate-change-how-climate-deniers-put-national-security-at-risk-20150212
Because House GOP reps know better than the Pentagon what to do (even though politicians are really most worried about holding on to their jobs for another 2 years)http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2014/06/24/house-votes-to-direct-the-pentagon-to-disregard-climate-change-assessments/
A recent study in The Lancet “Mortality Risk Attributable to High and Low Ambient Temperature: A Multi-Country Observational Study”, found that after studying data from 74 million deaths in 384 locations across 13 countries that cold kills 20 times more people than heat.
You truthers are very talented. You not only know the future but can now read minds as well.
The fact is that People are terrified of the Communist purging that is coming. People are horrified by the progressive left and their swift retaliation against anyone who disagrees with the “OFFICIAL MANTRA”.
The reason I Don’t publish my Bonafides is that I would most likely be without a job next week after the AGW GESTAPO got wind of my stance that AGW science is not settled and that the progressive movement is a communist movement.
Quoting a dozen Military men out of a 3 million manned army does not a consensus make. However name dropping is always an attention grabber.
Here’s an enjoyable and insightful clip from a Middle Eastern (Egyptian TV) perspective on the insanity of Cult of Climastrology and it’s demented push to make CAGW the number one security threat.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXodRLLkth4
It isn’t the “deniers” who are jeopardizing “global security” as Obama put it in his Coast Guard Academy speech, it’s you warmists. As you warmists get increasingly hysterical about an undetectable problem the rest of the world would really rather we deal with the detectable ones, thank you very much. You cultists may be able to impose your climate delusions on this country, but all you’re doing is convincing the rest of the world that America belongs in a rubber room.
Get ready for a global nuclear arms race. The Middle East isn’t the only hot spot. The retired Egyptian general sums up the global security consensus (unlike science where consensus has no role to play, here it does). Thanks to the Cult of Climastrology American is no longer dealing with reality. We’ve abandoned it for a fantasy threat, because fantasy threats are easier to deal with than real ones. They don’t shoot back.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-pentagon-climate-change-how-climate-deniers-put-national-security-at-risk-20150212
Anybody who thinks quoting a few General or Flag officers represents some sort of military consensus has no clue. Here’s how the military gains “consensus:”
http://news.yahoo.com/us-air-force-general-fired-10-treason-comments-224441453.html
As I said, I spent 20 years in this environment. This is how they enforce consensus on everything, including social engineering and CAGW.
Post’s comments were, as always, concerning the battle over the budget. As is this concern over global warming. These people could give a rat’s @$$ if it’s happening or not. If it’s the President’s priority than it will be their priority as that’s how to get a bigger slice of the pie.
Post first lectured the airmen on the importance of loyalty to the senior leadership, and toeing the party line. Hence the fact he declared failure to do so “treason.” This is standard. This is your consensus on CAGW. Post was fired simply because he got caught. He was just too blunt about the dire career consequences people will face for “disloyalty.”
Anybody who disputes this is simply not dealing with reality. Consequently, I expect the Cultists of Climastrology to dispute this.
From Muslims allies.
“America is getting weaker by the day under this president.”
“Global Climate change is the number one threat to their national security. IS HE INSANE!!”
“Your enemies no longer fear you and your allies no longer trust you.”
This is what the world is saying about a progressive America run by a progressive. Its the same thing they said about jimmy carter the last progressive in the rubber room.
sad….and scary.
This was a blatant attempt to politicize the intelligence community. These people are trained in various intelligence disciplines, or “Ints.” Such as COMINT, HUMINT, MASINT, IMINT, etc. There is no such thing as “CAGWINT.”
This makes about as much sense as reversing the roles and putting a meteorologist in an analyst’s chair and demanding he perform Hull-to-Emitter correlation.
But of course, once again the goal was political. Obama ordered Panetta to have the CIA commission this study. Then the fact that the CIA commissioned the study would be used to claim the IC was deeply concerned about CAGW. And of course no one at the CIA would have the training to dispute the findings of the study. Not that they would, given that the CIA has the same tools to gain “consensus” as does the military.
The main thing it would accomplish would be to put the IC’s authority behind a political agenda of the CAGW hysterics. Because the IC consists of exactly the wrong people to ask about climate science, but they play a huge role in providing for national security. So by misusing the IC’s authority on national security issues, Obama could falsely claim his domestic political agenda was a vital national security concern.
All this demonstrates is Climastrology cultists are gullible and easily played. And Obama knows how to play them.
The second survey[2][3][4] published on 11 October 2006, estimated 654,965 excess deaths related to the war, or 2.5% of the population, through the end of June 2006. Another survey put this figure at almost 1 million.
The left used this during the anti-Bush hey day to convince The world that American Soldiers had killed a million civilians just because they felt like it and America was evil.
Now the Lancet Reports more people die from cold and heat and the left ignores the report……lolololol.
A more rigorous recent study has put the number of excess deaths at about 400,000 (2003–2011) with 60% due to violence. See Hagopian et al., Mortality in Iraq Associated with the 2003–2011 War and Occupation: Findings from a National Cluster Sample Survey by the University Collaborative Iraq Mortality Study, PLOS Medicine 2013.
The conflict continues.
Rapid climate change due to anthropogenic causes is strongly supported by the scientific evidence, and is a threat to the well-being of future human generations.
Liam, it isn’t just the Egyptians.
The South Koreans are still incensed about this administrations feeble and ineffectual response after the North Koreans sank the Cheonan in 2010.
If you recall Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton responded by issuing strongly worded statements about how the “international community” would not allow this atrocity to go unpunished. The international community, of course, being just as real as CAGW, unicorns, and the tooth fairy. Everyone who wasn’t born yesterday knew immediately that the attack would go unpunished. Which is what happened. The UN Security Council issued a condemnation of the attack that was essentially drafted by Beijing as it refused to identify the North Koreans as the aggressors.
The Japanese are appalled that the US is backing down from China as the Chinese become increasingly belligerent over the Senkaku islands (between Okinawa and Taiwan). No one claimed those islands until Japan in the late 19th century. They weren’t thought to be worth anything. Now that possessing them would be advantageous in terms of claiming territorial waters/EEZs (especially because there may be rich mineral deposits and oil reserves within any potential EEZ) China is confronting Japan over them. And the US under Obama is shrinking from that confrontation, just as it shrank from China after the attack on the Cheonan (and backed down after the NORKs shelled Yeonpyeong island later in 2010, killing several South Koreans).
Recall that the Chinese announced an Air Defense Information Zone (ADIZ) over the Senkakus. The Japanese confronted them by refusing to acknowledge it’s existence. To do so would essentially mean to acknowledge their territorial claims. Which is exactly what the US did.
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/120213-681327-obama-tells-airlines-to-obey-china-defense-zone.htm
The Japanese are right. But as Obama demonstrated in 2011 in Iraq, abandoning our allies in the field and pretending there isn’t an ongoing conflict is his favorite military “tactic.”
Speaking of which, after Obama demonstrated he won’t confront China we can expect a similar ADIZ over he entire South China Sea. The Chinese are building artificial islands in the Spratleys and are arming them. They’re also constructing airfields. Whether they will permanently base aircraft there I don’t know. But they certainly intend to deploy aircraft to those islands to enforce their claims.
Nations surrounding the South China Sea are screaming for the US to assert itself. What does Obama do? “Pivot” to global warming as the most important national security threat to the US. Dealing with Moscow, Beijing, Tehran, and non-state actors like ISIS is hard, and dealing with them effectively is dangerous. It is just so, so much easier and safer to deal with a fictional national security threat like CAGW. And attack Republicans.
This is the equivalent of looking for your car keys in a well lit open square when you know you heard them fall out of your jacket pocket when you were walking through a dark alley. Because the dark alley is scary, and there could be dangerous people there.
It’s deranged, but it’s the derangement wrought by the global warming hysterics.
Fixed it for you, Zachriel. You really need to stop making unsupportable assertions based upon junk science.
Catastrophic Anthopenic Global Warming as a national security threat is nothing more that a shiny object Obama needs to distract the uninformed public from real and immediate threats to our national security.
But if it makes you feel better, Zachriel, Obama’s vaunted nuclear deal means it’s less likely there will be future generations to be threatened by CAGW.
Iran’s nuclear program is clearly designed to build weapons on a massive industrial scale. And Obama’s willful tunnel vision, his insistence on decoupling the nuclear issue from Iran’s other multiple felonies such as terrorism and missile development constitutes aiding and abetting the enemy.
Perhaps your not an incompetent speaker of the English language. Barack Obama certainly is; he thinks the US built an intercontinental railroad in the late 19th century. Let’s use the word intercontinental appropriately. As in intercontinental ballistic missile. I’m convinced Barack Obama thinks Iran is building ICBMs to threaten Israel, although a glance at the map would convince a sane, reasonably intelligent person that since Israel and Iran are on the same continent that can’t possibly be the Ayatollahs’ intent.
But look! Over there! Shiny object.
What is the ideal global climate, Jeffery, for preventing conflict?
Establish a baseline or else your theorizing means nothing.
Steve57,
Over the course of the Holocene period (last 10K years or so) the mean (average) global surface temperature has been quite stable! The rising temperature of the very early Holocene stabilized about 10K years ago and varied little over the next 4000 years. Started about 6000 years ago the temperature started to drop steadily, dipping almost 0.5C below what’s call the climatic optimum – that stable climate of the early Holocene. The so-called Medieval Warm Period was a blip on that decreasing trend, likely of no more than a 0.2C increase. The so-called Little Ice Age was a blip in the opposite direction, now a drop of 0.2C. How long would that slow downward trend in the mean global surface temperature have lasted? Don’t know. Maybe another 0.5C drop in 10,000 years, maybe drifting up a little. However, it’s unlikely, that without a compelling explanation, that the Earth would jump 1C over the past 100 years with no reason to expect that increased rise not to stop.
So I would suggest that human actions not change the Earth’s mean global temperature by more than 1C from the early and mid Holocene. Why? Because all of human society and civilization evolved during the Holocene.
N.B. – Climate is not the only reason humans have conflict. My point was that Mr. Teach’s claim that cold causes more conflicts than warmth is not supported by evidence.
Be happy to support our claim. You might start with the basic physics. The Earth acts as a gray body, and without the greenhouse effect, the surface would be a chilly ≈-18°C rather than the balmy ≈+15°C that it is.
Of course the political right in Iran wants nuclear weapons. When major U.S. politicians publicly chant “Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran”, it sort of makes some Iranians think a deterrent would be something worth having.
The U.S. has nuclear weapons, so there’s no intrinsic reason, short of an agreement otherwise, that other countries shouldn’t also acquire nuclear weapons. The atomic bomb is essentially 1940s technology, so there’s no intrinsic barrier to acquiring them. The only solution, short of all-out war, is to convince the Iranians that it is not in their best interest to acquire nuclear weapons. The Iranians have indicated they will be satisfied with an extension of their breakout capability.
While there’s no ideal climate, rapid climate change can be disruptive to highly concentrated human populations. As the rapidity of current climate change is anthropogenic, it’s something that is a avoidable.
This was about Lancet not any other group and how the left used Lancet non stop to denigrate the war in Iraq. But a similar study showing more deaths occur from cold then heat is ignored by the same leftist crowd….
Funny how that works.
Neither is your claim that its caused by warming. You should realize cause and effect are not found in either position. Statistically more deaths happen when its cold but what is the cause and to what effect? Yet perhaps more violent deaths occur when its warm. What is the cause and what is the effect. Does one automatically mean the other….and for the dead what difference does it make if they freeze to death, get killed while sleeping under their bear rug or get murdered while swimming or going to a Mini Mart for a cool soda?
Because its warm outside and the murder rate goes up could mean a 1000 different things…perhaps when its 40 below zero you dont have the drug dealers hanging at the street corner to be plugged…Or drive by shootings are pretty difficult when you car can only go 5 mph and then most likely get stuck. Yet does that mean cold prevents violent crimes? Most likely no because the crimes might shift indoors to domestic violence crimes.
In other words attempting to prove cause and effect is like proving life exists on other planets….It might or it might not but simply because other planets have been discovered does not have a cause and effect relationship.
Not if you agree with the peer reviewed study that just concluded that we cannot stop the 2 degree rise in temperature even if we halt fossil fuel use today. Princeton University….et. al. According to them we need even less CO2 in the air then what we presently have and right now we have enough co2 in the air to heat the planet for 100 years.
Hence your position is that of a failed hypothesis. If Princeton is right then of course the planet is going to warm by 20 degrees in 100 years….making this all moot.
Classic progressive thinking.
Notice the Date…long before bomb, bomb, bomb Iran became a satirical muse.
By ELAINE SCIOLINO
Published: July 17, 1999
TEHERAN, Iran, July 16— At Friday Prayers here at noon today, the United States was presented as the all-powerful hidden hand behind Iran’s worst civil unrest in two decades.
In a docudrama on television a few hours later that included clips of Jimmy Carter and Sam Donaldson, America was presented as an inept, pagan military giant that could not even rescue its own hostages in 1980 because God was on the other side.
YouTube with Matt Laurer in 2007 before bomb Iran…..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86CKboMmZXc
tens of thousands of Iranians chanting death the the USA.
68 percent of Iranians dont want the bomb….29 percent do. Yet A nation that prays for the death of America and Israel we somehow dont understand.
From Pew Research:
Unfavorable views of Iran are especially widespread in Israel and much of Western Europe, where at least eight-in-ten in most countries surveyed have a negative opinion of Iran. In the U.S., roughly seven-in-ten express an unfavorable view of Iran.
Majorities in many predominantly Muslim nations surveyed also see Iran in a negative light, including countries such as Jordan (81% unfavorable), Egypt (78%), Turkey (68%), Lebanon (60%) and the Palestinian territories (55%). Only in Pakistan (69%) and Indonesia (55%) do majorities express a favorable opinion of Iran.
But by all means blame all this chit on America. After all pretty much everything thats ever happened ever is the USA’s fault……..so sayeth the Progressives….so sayeth us all…..amen and amen.
While the Lancet study had methodological problems, more recent studies have confirmed the low end of their original estimate.
You’re only looking at direct deaths. Droughts, for instance, can cause severe societal disruption, leading to conflict and widespread suffering.
Some damage to the climate is probably inevitable, but that is no reason to continue to cause even more damage.
You do realize that the U.S. was complicit in overthrowing a democratically elected Iranian government in 1953 in order to prevent nationalization of the oil industry there?
Now, try to respond to the points actually raised.
1. The political right in Iran argues that a nuclear weapon would prevent foreign meddling, something they have experienced frequently in modern history. This doesn’t mean they are right, or that it is their best choice, only that it is an argument that has currency among many patriotic Iranians.
2. Most any reasonably advanced country can develop the technology to produce a nuclear weapon, so the only reasonable option is to have international agreements to limit their spread.
Thank you, Zachriel. Thank you for proving you have zero evidence for your claim about rapid climate change. You would have started with that if you had any. Instead you start, and end, with “basic physics.” which supports my claim, not yours.
I can’t take anyone who thinks there is a “political right” in Iran at all seriously. This idea that there are factions that are at odds with each other within the government over their nuclear programs is delusional.
But this:
This is beyond delusional. As if Iran is just another country, like Denmark.
Are you trying not to be taken seriously, Zachriel?
Jeffery, I appreciate the response.
The compelling explanation that the temperature would jump 1dg C over the past century is that is that the century on century temperature changes throughout the Holocene have a natural standard deviation of approximately that value.
http://multi-science.atypon.com/doi/abs/10.1260/0958-305X.26.3.417
The abstract:
So while it’s reasonable to believe human activity played some role, it’s impossible as of yet to distinguish it from the natural background noise.
Waving your hands doesn’t constitute a convincing argument.
On the other hand, starting with the basic physics is a valid approach. The Earth acts as a gray body. Without the greenhouse effect, the surface would be frozen. Once you understand this point, we can proceed to the effects of an increase in the greenhouse effect.
Of course there’s a political right in Iran. The ruling Alliance of Builders of Islamic Iran party is right wing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_of_Builders_of_Islamic_Iran
Iran isn’t Denmark, but is an independent country, a country with a history of internal interference by the West. Do you think Iranians believe they should be under the authority of the U.S.? Do you think they should be under the authority of the U.S?
There’s always a new paper that is disseminated in the right wing echo chamber, only to be later misplaced and forgotten. Energy & Environment is the same journal, with a negligible impact factor, that published a paper saying CO2 was at 400 ppm in the 19th century!
In any case, if you read the paper, the results are based on a single core site. Also, the samples were a century apart, so the measurement error is too large to draw the stated conclusion.
Start with the basic physics. The Earth acts as a grey body. If we increase the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, it will lead to increased heat in the surface system (lower atmosphere, hydrosphere, cryosphere). This increased heat will lead to increased water vapor in the atmosphere, amplifying the warming. This latter effect is called climate sensitivity, which based on several empirical measures is about 2-4°C.
Thank you for answering my question, Zachriel. Clearly you are trying not to be taken seriously.
Again, there is no evidence that there will be any rapid warming.
And, thanks for the wikipedia entry on Iran.
Mission accomplished.
Aww geez (face palm).
We pointed to several lines of evidence. Waving your hands still doesn’t constitute a convincing argument.
“A single site on earth can {not} clearly track changes in global temperatures to a reasonable degree.”