Skip to comments.Climate Myths and National Security
Posted on 10/12/2009 2:32:31 AM PDT by Scanian
The President of the United States recently told the United Nations that "global warming" poses a threat to national security and may engender conflicts as populations are displaced by rising sea levels, droughts, floods, storms etc. etc. etc. However, it is now clear that there is no basis for the notion that the barely-detectable human influence on the climate is likely to prove a threat to climate, still less to national security.
The first principle to which any national security advisor must adhere is that of objective truth. Though he must have an understanding of politics, he is not a politician: he is a truth-bearer. Therefore, he begins by narrowing down the issue to a single, central question whose answer determines whether the suggested threat is real. He then tries to find the truthful answer to that question, and draws his conclusion from that.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Hope... the final frontier. These are the voyages of the Obama administration. It’s four year mission: to explore strange new policies, to snuff out new life and new businesses, to badly go where America has never gone before.
Becoming accustomed to decoding the Marxist rhetoric, I can't help but wonder if this statement's coded message is, "I'll use the Dept of Homeland Security to stifle opposition to my cap-and-tax program."
After all, didn't a high mufftee demoRat recently say that any opposition to zero was siding with the terrorist?
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
There is no one in this administration that is remotely interested in the truth. There is no liberal in this country that is remotely interested in the truth.
1. Cash for clunkers? Destroying assets will never make us wealthier.
2. Stimulus spending? No serious study has ever shown a multiplier greater than one.
3. Increasing access to health care (i.e. demand) will cause the cost to go down? Supply and Demand - it's not just a good idea, it's the law.
I could go on, but why?
How about good old fashioned Evolution? Didn't we all see Al Gore turn from a stuffed suit Vice President and Presidential Candidate to a Swollen Buffoon in just a few years? Who's to say the Earth's climate couldn't change over a short period of time from natural events without Man's interference?
check this out. “The CIA Center for Climate Change”
The radicals have found a way to tap into the black budget to fund their pseudo science religion.
I remember the pentagon being dragged into environmentalism under Clinton, I think he made Gary Hart an assistant secretary of defense for some environmental whack issue..
The fact is, however, that those behind that movement won't read the article and if they did it wouldn't matter to them the science doesn't support their position. The climate models they use are not proof that Climate Change is man-made, they are simply JUSTIFICATION FOR THE SOCIAL CHANGES THEY SEEK. The social changes are, in their eyes, so 'important' that it really doesn't matter to them whether there is any scientific basis for their beliefs. They want higher taxes, a transfer of wealth from the U.S. to the rest of the world, a weakening of the power of the U.S, profits for their Carbon Tax Brokers like Al Gore and the further and possibly irreversible centralization of power in Washington D.C.
So while we argue the science we need to understand that on the other side no one is listening. They don't care about the science.