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 ...
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.
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.
