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.
