Posted on 04/11/2007 6:16:36 AM PDT by Kitten Festival
Climate Change: Some in Congress think global warming is so important it should be an issue of national defense, not science. It's a wrongheaded and dangerous idea, one that shows how crazy the debate has become.
Unfortunately, the proposal to make global warming a matter of national security is bipartisan, with Sen. Chuck Hagel, a Nebraska Republican, joining Sen. Dick Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, as co-sponsors. If nothing else, this proves neither party has a monopoly on wisdom.
According to the Boston Globe, their plan calls for the U.S. intelligence chief to produce a "national intelligence estimate" on global warming. That includes determining which countries and regions might suffer the most from warming, and which would be at greatest risk for wars due to shrinking resources.
It also would require the Pentagon to conduct "war games" to see how warming and "extreme weather events" would affect our own national security.
Gee, and here we thought that terrorism — which only recently claimed more than 3,000 American lives in the worst-ever attack on U.S. soil, and which continues to kill tens of thousands each year overseas — was our civilization's great security challenge.
(Excerpt) Read more at ibdeditorials.com ...
“According to the Boston Globe, their plan calls for the U.S. intelligence chief to produce a “national intelligence estimate” on global warming.”
Just when you thought you’d seen it all.....
Major snow storm in Chicago today.
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE CHICAGO
April 11, 2007
Hazardous Weather Outlook
Short Term Forecast
“Today...Light rain and snow. Colder. Snow accumulation up to 1 inch. Windy. Temperatures nearly steady in the upper 30s. Northeast winds 20 to 30 mph. Chance of precipitation 100 percent.”
Al, please send me some global warming!!!!!!
Isn’t there already enough bad intelligence on Global Warming, why compound the problem?
Weather reports from the DOD.
“If nothing else, this proves neither party has a monopoly on wisdom. “
Get elected to Congress. Check brain at door.
|
- Carbon Credits For Sale - Cheap -
|
The author just doesn’t get it and neither do you.
The fact that the climate is changing is settled. The open issue is whether people are causing it or not. Although the DOD might get involved, that is not the reason it is a REAL security issue.
If the planet is warming, for whatever reason, this will cause changes in water levels and weather patterns.
Millions if not hundreds of millions of people could be displaced or go hungry or otherwise put in disaster-situations as a result of the weather. This could happen on an unprecendeted scale and it could happen in countries that have WOD.
Imagine a storm surge in Bangladesh that sent 100 million refugees streaming into Pakistan and India. Would such a situation not be a perfect breeding ground for Al Quada? Add in nukes in both countries and extremely pourous borders. Get it now?
It is absolutely correct and apolitical for the DOD to look at climate change issues as they related to national security. Actually they have been doing so for years now. The Bush adminstration has sought to censor some of their reports in its equally non-scientific ideological drive to surpress action on the issue.
The fact that the Democrat controlled Congress bolstered by the Supreme Court are now moving on anthropogenic climate change is one thing, the fact that the climate is changing is a national security issue is another.
The fact that the author immediately invokes 9/11 is just a testament to the weakness of argument and lack of thought. You may have been fooled, but try and have a clear think about it and recognize that if the DOD does not clearly assess the risks they are not doing their jobs.
Oh geez, we’re all going to die.
You write like you drank the Kool-Aid. Does it affect your ability to spell al-Qaeda, too?
Scaremongering has been officially the function of government since the concept was institutionalized by Mencken. There is no realistic reason to believe that climate change, should it continue in the current direction (not likely), will produce catastrophes. Since the lovely ‘60’s every catastrophic prediction has been completely falsified, whether it be global cooling, population explosion, or whatever. Furthermore, millions of people have died as a result of programs to prevent imagined catastrophes, such as by the banning of DDT. Why waste my US taxes on something that may or may not be a problem, likely the latter.
My guess is that you have about zero military experience or if so, slept through the strategic risk assessment part.
That is it? Call me crazy and critize my spelling? Gosh, I guess your brain really is on cruise control in the slow lane (see calling names is easy).
You have presented no counter-arguments whatsoever as I should have suspected. Maybe you can go call Rush and he can give you something to say.
Weather Happens.
The Great Global Warming Swindle (Film)
Previously "Borked" by Google.
Strangely enough, actually produced by the BBC.
Were it not for the greenhouse effect brought on by agriculture, earth would be 5000 years into an Ice Age. That was the opinion of an actual atmospheric scientist 50 years ago.
And would like to fight a war with science from 50 years ago? How about have surgery with 50 year-old medical equipment and a doctor trained in the latest 1957 practices?
How about predicting the weather without satellites?
Science progresses and new ways of understanding the world around us emerge. To argue about scientific conclusions from half a century ago is ludicrous. Scientists have and always will continue to get things wrong. At present, the best guess of most of them is that based on the available data and observations the earth is warming and human beings are at least partly responsible.
You can argue about their conclusions based on the data, but the logic of using past incorrect scientific conclusions to invalidate the present is just ideological propaganda (if you know better) or stupidity (if you don't).
As a counter-argument I can probably find hundreds of billions of scientific predications that did pan out - but that doesn't prove the assumptions as much as yours do not disprove them.
Why do suddenly get the feeling I am arguing with people who believe in Intelligent Design?
Fascinating. Thanks for the strawman.
We'll get to this in just a minute...
The fact that the climate is changing is settled. The open issue is whether people are causing it or not. Although the DOD might get involved, that is not the reason it is a REAL security issue.
Of course it's settled! It's been settled for millennia! The world's climate is always changing. Always has, always will. And while you may think people are the cause of "climate change" (along with a few other scientists) as being an "open issue", the issue is in fact not quite so cut and dried. There are lots and lots of scientists (whose field of endeavor is actually climatology!) that take exception to the mass hysteria surrounding the current hype.
If the planet is warming, for whatever reason, this will cause changes in water levels and weather patterns.
It may. It may not. This is not a settled area, but having said that, the earth's history is replete with many "earth changes". Historically, cataclysm on this planet has been the rule, not the exception. Although the outer shell of the planet has cooled and has remained relatively stable for a long time, there's lots going on under the surface. For all we know, the Yellowstone Caldera could erupt and explode tomorrow, and it would have absolutely nothing to do with "Global Warming" or "climate change" or whatever.
Millions if not hundreds of millions of people could be displaced or go hungry or otherwise put in disaster-situations as a result of the weather. This could happen on an unprecendeted (sic) scale and it could happen in countries that have WOD.
It could, it could, it could. I could win Powerball on the next draw. This all falls under the rubric of "anything is possible". You're busy invoking end-of-the-world scenarios, which could happen, but it's not really likely, at least in a weather-related sense.
Catastrophes, although not on the scale you're invoking, have happened a lot of times in the recent past. There has been loss of life, which we cannot minimize or marginalize, but after the catastrophe passes, invariably life goes on.
And here at the end of this paragraph you mention "WOD", which I assume means either "War on Drugs" or "Weather on Demand". Either way, what does that have to do with anything?
Imagine a storm surge in Bangladesh that sent 100 million refugees streaming into Pakistan and India. Would such a situation not be a perfect breeding ground for Al Quada? Add in nukes in both countries and extremely pourous (sic) borders. Get it now?
Such storm surges has happened in that area in the past. Al Qaeda undoubtedly has a presence in the area, but weather has nothing to do with it. Bangaldesh from before it's inception has always been an international basket case. That's the reality.
Since both Pakistan and India are hot to trot with nukes, and the porous borders which you cite have always existed, and since al Qaeda has been in the area a good long time now, why hasn't that venerable organization manipulated events to bring about the scenario you espouse earlier? Or even now? The politics of radical Islam does not depend upon the weather.
It is absolutely correct and apolitical for the DOD to look at climate change issues as they related to national security. Actually they have been doing so for years now. The Bush adminstration (sic) has sought to censor some of their reports in its equally non-scientific ideological drive to surpress (sic) action on the issue.
So here's where you truly reveal drinking the Kool-aid. I knew you'd bring the Bush administration into the polemic at some point, and here it is. The DoD is apolitical (just like it was in the Clinton years!), and yet it's Bush's fault. Yeah, we get it now!
The fact that the Democrat controlled Congress bolstered by the Supreme Court are now moving on anthropogenic climate change is one thing, the fact that the climate is changing is a national security issue is another.
The Socialists/Communists in Congress making common cause with the 5-4 (liberal) majority on the Supreme Court, who apparently buffed their scientific credentials before making that ruling, has to be Headline of the Day! And imagine - those who seek to dismantle the Constitutional Republic and rule over us all see weather/climate/whatever as a tool of "National Security"!
Where's the turnip truck you just fell off of?
The fact that the author immediately invokes 9/11 is just a testament to the weakness of argument and lack of thought. You may have been fooled, but try and have a clear think about it and recognize that if the DOD does not clearly assess the risks they are not doing their jobs.
Risk assessment is a part and parcel of DoD's charter. They do these things as a matter of course. But answer me this: If DoD is, and has been, involved in this, what was the purpose of our esteemed Senators introducing such "legislation", and why was it deemed necessary? If what you say is true, it's redundant at best, and a cheap political trick otherwise, not that these mental midgets who introduced it are above such behavior.
So I'll leave you with this ponder as you prepare your next Chicken Little screed:
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." -- H. L. Mencken
...and...
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken
And so, my friend, I, and doubtless a lot of other people here, must truly question whether or not it's you who doesn't get it.
CA....
Please ping me if you find one I’ve missed.
OKSooner and I are doing the POGW
ping list while xcamel is on vacation.
Here in Madison, we are supposed to get 6-10 inches of snow today and tonight. I don’t see any “Global Warming” here, just more “Gorebull”
As I said, the total lack of a clue of the people on this thread is astounding. Tornadoes and Global Warming? (and by the way, the correct term is "climate change". Only Americans say "global warming" because the wacko left decided Americans like "change").
It appears that the vast majority of intelligent skeptics (pfony1 for instance) have left your little idiot party and recognized that despite their legitimate concerns, there is going to be something done and the smartest bet is to trying and make it a sensible and market-based solutions. People like you are going to get Al Gore power to redistribute resources when all we need is a little reasonable efficiency and less dependence and Iranian, Venezuelan, Russian and Saudi Oil.
y'all er dummer than a bag a hammers.
The best part is, that everytime someone accuses me of being a wacko on this thread, they go ahead and give some Extrme far-right conspiracy theory. I love it. Where have all the intelligent Freepers gone?
I mean, if the left has truly pulled off a global conspiracy among scientists hasn’t the right already lost? Shouldn’t you be buying gold and hording guns? Or paying honage to your new overlords and masters.
Better remove that tin foil.
The second part of that was supposed to be:
This is Freeper speak for: I understand your point and am probably wrong, but cannot admit it publicly.
By the way, I do appreciate being noticed. Since we are all typing, I am not sure why I am “vocal” other than that I have clear and logical arguments that go beyond the everyday idiotic rhetoric of American echo chambers left and right.
Sorry. Apologies for independent thinking. Although I suggest you try it. I am always happy to debate intelligent and well-thought out contrary opinions.
Change is implied in the term itself. A small point is that there is no global climate. For example, in Alaska there are perhaps five climatic zones depending how they are defined. Global warming is probably more accurate as a term for focus on an issue than world climate change, although the issue is not whether to control changing climates but whether this can be done at all or even ought to be attempted and especially if it is proper to make it a political issue at this very early stage of scientific understanding.
Nice job. Thanks.
Intelligent FReepers? Presumably, you put yourself in that group. We don't. And you don't have to worry about other people here accusing you of being a "wacko", as you so eloquently put it. You're managing to hang that epitaph around your shoulders all by yourself.
I mean, if the left has truly pulled off a global conspiracy among scientists hasn’t the right already lost? Shouldn’t you be buying gold and hording guns? Or paying honage (sic) to your new overlords and masters.
I don't pay "honage" to anyone.
Buying gold? Hoarding guns? That's so...so...so 70's!
Better remove that tin foil.
Tin foil? That's so...so...so 60's!
Have a nice day, now!
CA....
“Climate change” was introduced to stem this tide, and the capaciousness of the term allowed control of the dialogue no matter what happened, climate-wise.
Shifty little buggers, those lefties. But it’s of little consequence. We’re still onto them.
CA....
We'd doubtless be accommodating and accepting of your shortcomings if you'd focus on bringing out a few "well-thought out contrary opinions" yourself.
Just a thought...
CA....
Just rereading your retort here (it certainly wasn't an "answer") got me to thinking. Since it was directed at me and my earlier post, I'm curious - where in my reply did you find some "Extrme (sic) far-right conspiracy theory" that impelled you to respond as you did? Just for the record, can you point it out to us?
Thanking you in advance for your worthy effort, I remain,
Cordially Yours,
CA....
LOL!
Very good graphic potlatch!
I see the Euro-Socialists are on this thread!
Pansyfied since they got their butts kicked and now overrun by crazy Muzzies as Euros have a problem being able to keep their “population” up!
I haven’t read through it.
The snow is expected to start tonight and last all day tomorrow, here in SW Wyoming. 2-4" accumulation.
At least it got up to 40° today, and the wind has stayed below 20 MPH. Yesterday, it was in the low to mid-thirties, with wind 30-40 MPH steady.
I'm about ready for a little global warming over here...
Re: your sneering comment #2, yes, I must have slept through the strategic risk assessment sessions dealing with asteroid strikes, martian invasions, and global warming.
I understand where you are coming from, but I don't accept that statement.
For the sake of argument, I'll accept the fact that the earth has warmed. What I will not accept is the hypothesis that it will continue to do so. An analysis of the strategic effects of future weather would have to take into account that it might be getting warmer over the next 50 years, but also that it might be getting colder, or that it might not change at all.
Trends, whatever their cause, usually end. Past weather trends were up and down, and all but the current one has ended. Guessing when a trend will or will not end is risky business, and we have no scientific basis to conclude how long the current trend will last.
We’re having the coldest April since records started being kept 134 years ago.
I see why the eco-nuts changed “Global Warming” to “Climate Change”. Right now, I’d guess that over the next hundred years, it would be about even money that we’re heading for a new ice age rather than a hockey stick steam bath.
This is the effect of the political climate that uses propaganda movies to push agendas. Real, hard hitting "documentaries" like Fahrenheit-911 (that PROVES there is no terror in the world but that which WE create) and "An Inconvenient Truth" (that PROVES we are the cause of all weather problems too.)
I think I'm going to be sick.
If someone needs to apply the term “RINO” to a politician, Hagel wins without opposition.
ENTROPY??
Sooner or later, we're all gonna be at the same temperature.
I will agree to that.
Just by posting 3 times dosen't make "you", "we". Schizophrenia anyone? Maybe you should get a few additioal screen names to go with whatever meglomaniacal pathology you have.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
