If you go to the doctor and he/she tells you to quit smoking and lose some weight, and the doc smells like smoke and could clearly lose a few pounds, do you plan on listening?
Progressive veterans frame climate change as national security issue
Self-described “ass-kicking, motorcycle-riding, Texas Democrat” MJ Hegar, a candidate for Texas’ deep-red 31st District, has a novel approach to environmental politics: she doesn’t care if her supporters believe in man-made climate change, but says it’s hard to deny the corrupting effects of petroleum dependence on American foreign policy.
“Our dependence on foreign oil is just so damaging to our country on so many levels,” Hegar told ABC News in a June interview. “I respect other people’s freedom to be discerning and to make their own decisions. But they can’t deny that the U.S. military pays the price for our dependence on foreign oil – that our diplomacy and foreign policy is complicated by our dependence.”
Hegar is one of a number of progressive veterans running for Congress who have made climate change action a key part of their platforms.
“I don’t think another country, or another entity, like OPEC, should be able to have such an impact on our economy,” she said.
OK, so, then let us drill on our own soil, person who uses lots of fossil fuels for her motorcycle, and lots traveling around campaigning. Anyhow, she cares so much that there’s nothing on her issues page at her campaign website (which needs to reduce the number of scripts used).
Maura Sullivan, a former U.S. Marine officer in the Iraq War and Department of Veterans Affairs official in the Obama administration, is the Democratic candidate for New Hampshire’s 1st Congressional District. Sullivan describes her growing worry over numerous environmental threats to national security, from displaced refugees in developing countries, to rising sea levels that could damage billions of dollars of U.S. military equipment.
“We face the potential for water shortage and famine — something we’ve seen the United States military respond to around the globe,” she told ABC News. “Our ability to respond to these crises is also significantly impaired by the threat of climate change itself. We’ve got billions of dollars of coastal assets, bases, that rising sea levels threaten.”
We saw this happen all the way back in the 1930’s. Did fossil fuels cause that? She does have a short blurb on ‘climate change’ and makes the unscientific link between clean air and water to ‘climate change.’ She also wants to institute Single Payer and make it much more difficult for law abiding gun owners.
Like Hegar, Sullivan saw the devastating effects of oil dependency firsthand during her time in the military — in particular, while serving as an operations and logistics officer in Iraq. She pointed out that over 3,000 American service members were killed in fuel supply convoys between 2003 and 2007 in Iraq and Afghanistan.
“A part of that is just purely caused by a dependence on oil. And, if we had a stored a replenishable energy source … there would simply be need for fewer convoys, and that saves thousands of American lives,” Sullivan said.
I don’t think tanks, Humvees, Bradleys, etc and so on will run on sunlight and unicorn farts. Or, is she claiming that these were wars for oil?
In Wisconsin, Randy “Ironstache” Bryce is the candidate vying for House Speaker Paul Ryan’s old seat in the 1st Congressional District. If he wins, he would flip the southeastern district blue after two decades of conservative control. He faces Bryan Steil, an attorney and former staffer for Ryan, whose website does not include any mention of climate change.
Bryce is among the most vocal candidates in 2018 on the urgency of climate action — he has built his campaign around a “Green New Deal” plan for environmentally sustainable jobs that pay a living wage. An army veteran, he told ABC News his time in the military convinced him that the threat of climate change extends beyond extreme weather and rising temperatures.
“As a result of being dependent on fossil fuels … we send troops to protect resources like oil,” Bryce said, citing the Iraq war as an example of why the U.S. must invest in independent, renewable energy sources.
Where were his complaints when Obama instigated military action to make sure the oil kept flowing from Libya to France and Britain?
Interestingly, none of these candidates mention that they’ve given up their own use of fossil fuels. Weird, that.
Like all dems, running on the same old “fake” crises.
Rather than examining evidence, deniers prefer to let how other people live determine their scientific perspectives. That approach IS simpler than doing research.
Climate scientists travel on planes, therefore global warming is a hoax.
My physician is overweight, therefore the benefits of exercise are a hoax.
My doctor smokes, therefore smoking doesn’t cause lung cancer.
“Instead of offering evidence, alarmists fly around the world on planes saying the science is settled.†Fixed it for you
Science is rarely settled, but we’re confident that the Sun will “come up” tomorrow, that an apple will fall from a tree at a calculable rate, that cigarette smoking will increase the risk of lung cancer, that predicted tides will occur, that dinosaurs once existed, that there was once a supercontinent called Pangaea that broke apart 175 million years ago, that humans evolved from more ape-like ancestors over the past 3 million years, that sunscreens will block UV light, and that CO2 added to the atmosphere will continue to cause the Earth to warm.
As scientific evidence accumulates in support of a scientific theory, without any invalidating contrary evidence, a point is reached where it becomes unreasonable to not accept the theory. The theory of gravity may be debunked one day, but it’s unreasonable to assume that. Maybe the big bang theory will be invalidated (or at least not renewed for another season). And it’s possible a climate scientist will discover a new mechanism for planetary warming that supplants the greenhouse gas theory.
Not every smoker gets cancer. Not every unprotected sex act results in pregnancy. Not every house burns down. Not every car crashes. But lack of 100% certainty is no way to plan.
But, but…
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/08/17/remember-when-they-told-us-coral-bleaching-was-a-sure-result-of-recent-man-made-global-warming-never-mind/
The authors of the paper on which Tony Wuwt based his screed, disagreed with his conclusions.
Warming oceans cause coral bleaching – is that the point you hoped to make? As we’ve said before, do not believe what non-scientific bloggers like Tony or Pierre tell you – find the original article they are misinterpreting.
Mr. Wuwt implies that since periods of ocean warming existed even 400 years ago, that that meant warming couldn’t be causing bleaching. But El Ninos have been happening a long time; it’s just that El Ninos warm as the Pacific warms.
But don’t feel too bad, Wuwt is an expert at spreading disinformation.
And this is the paper Wuwt misinterpreted…
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2018.00283/full
And of course context, along with reading comprehension, apparently doesn’t matter to the little fella.
He only reads what he wants to in order to misrepresent and mislead…
It doesn’t work anymore when anyone can read the citation…
By all means, read away.
Come back when you want to discuss.
“Rapid environmental changes will include multiple stressors…..â€. J gets confused with the difference between what’s happened and what’s “projectedâ€. None of these things have happened. And WUWT doesn’t say warming can’t cause bleaching, in fact they allude to a bleaching event from the 1998 El Niño, which of course are natural events. Also from the paper: Bleaching events. 1700-1750: 17
1750-1800: 19
1800-1850: 7
1850-1900: 12
1900-1950: 10
11950-2000: 15
As said, maybe someday we’ll reach what happened in the 18rh century.
Of course El Ninos transfer ocean heat to the atmosphere, and the warmer water contributes to bleaching. That’s why I brought it up.
If warming causes bleaching, doesn’t it make sense that more warming would cause more bleaching? That was their point.
The heat from an El Nino comes from the ocean, heat gained from the atmosphere, and released back.
But earlier you wrote…
Guess the little fella can’t find his fallacies there either.
Do you have a point?
The atmosphere absorbs little visible light. The visible light is absorbed by land, water and stuff and released as infrared radiation.
The oceans and atmosphere exchange heat. In the south Pacific the ENSO, La Nina and El Nino are part of that exchange.
When the El Nino releases heat into the atmosphere, where do YOU think that heat comes from? Undersea volcanoes? Cosmic rays? Nuclear fission?
Sooo, The Earth can only gain or lose heat radiatively?
Do you have a point? Or do you just like playing alone?
So do you have an answer or not?
Simple question that you keep avoiding.
Or do you really not know?
Jeff,
Yes, science, true science, does have a number of ups and downs. But at one time, the authorities would burn you at the stake for disputing the fact that the sun revolved around the earth. A doctor could be chased out of town because he felt disease was caused by a doctor not washing his hands. The list is very long. But in many cases the concern is not having another view, but the fact that a group of influential people use the authority of the state to suppress opinion pass a tax, or establish a situation leading to world communism. Thus, if you desire to project climate religion as anything other than a hoax, then you need to discuss the situation in terms that are realistic. You left the scientific world when you said that critics must present another method other than your own to justify consideration. And reme!see that correlation does not mean causation. So far, in all your rants you have not touched on any aspect of the scientific method.
david7134,
The Earth is warming.
Atmospheric CO2 is increasing from burning fossil fuels.
The Earth (land and oceans and things, but not the atmosphere) absorbs visible (and other) radiation from the Sun.
The Earth re-emits some of this radiation as infrared wavelengths (heat).
Infrared leaving the Earth’s surface in absorbed by greenhouse gases (water vapor, CO2, NO, CH4 and others).
Greenhouse gases retard the loss of infrared into space.
This leads to the warming of Earth.
Let’s discuss any one of these or all. We could be wrong in our assessment. Is there a possibility that you could be wrong?
Nice collection of some truths, some doubtful truths and some down right lies. The starting place is were you propose an experiment to justify your claims, otherwise, you have nothing.
By the way, thanks for the reference on the Trump books, I passed that along to friends as we can not get a good catalogue of all the good, winning things that Trump is doing as the news is exceptionally biased and will not report them. Oh, and you were confused about getting certain books for free. You see, it works this way, you are paying Amazon close to $10 per month and they provide a list of books for free based on their profiling. I get history and science books in my profile, looks like you get political crap, except for the great book on Obama being the worst president ever, which you paid for and did not know. MAGA.
Looks as if the little fella agrees with the kiddiezzz.
Right?
david7134,
OK. You don’t wish to discuss climate. Got it.
Does ‘Make America Great Again’ (MAGA) mean that America is not great?
What a terrible thing for an American to say, especially a pretend president.
But we know that tRump cares not one snit about America, only about himself.
And if not great now, when was America great? And why?
I’m just trying to understand the ‘tRump Mystique’ with his worshipers.
#KAGAt (Keep America Great, Axe tRump)
A simple yes or no would do, little fella.
If you have a point make it, please.
It appears you like to type bon mots but can’t take the time to make an argument.
Why is that? We think it’s because you haven’t actually thought out your argument.
Right?
Jeff,
Why discuss anything when you lie and use hyperbole.
So in other words still no proof of the harm due to warming. And we’re still not sure of how much warming there’s been due to data contamination from “adjustmentsâ€.
So, little fella, because you seem to become somewhat obtuse unless questions are simplified for you.
Do you agree or not with the kiddiez’ (Zachriel) claim posted above?
A simple yes or no will do.
What is your position on the comment?
They were basically agreeing with what you wrote earlier. So you’re 0 for 1.
For bonus points, and I know this might be tough since you can’t answer a simple yes or no question, can you point out the fallacies in their quote?
Hint: there’s more than one.