Warmists Heavily Pushing “Climate Change Is A National Security Threat” Meme

The meme is nothing new: Warmists have been trotting it out now and then for the past 5 years or so. However, they’ve recently ramped up their use of it in order to push their politics. Here’s Phil Plait (who’s really cool on all the science programs he appears on) pushing it at Slate

Climate Change Denial Is a Threat to National Security

First, let me be clear about this reality: Planet Earth is warming because of human activity, because of us, and that is profoundly affecting the climate. There is no honest doubt about this; the overwhelming evidence supports it, so much so that 97 percent of climate scientists agree on it.

Interesting: Phil starts of with what is essentially opinion, not science, in the first link. In his 2nd link he trots out “consensus”, which is not science, using a study that has been debunked. Why should we believe anything else he has to say?

The effects of climate change are profound. We are already seeing more extreme weather, more powerful tropical storms, more wildfires. As the sea level rises, coastal populations are threatened, including military bases.

No, we aren’t.

I have been saying for a long time that climate change is a threat to our national security, and it’s long past time to call out those who would deny this as abetting that threat.

President Obama did just this last week, in a speech at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy. My Slate colleague Eric Holthaus wrote all about this, and I strongly urge you to read that article. Obama used words like “negligence” and “dereliction of duty”: (snip)

Take a moment and ponder this. The president of the United States of America said that people who deny the reality of climate change are a threat to national security. And he strongly implied that members of Congress who do so are guilty of dereliction of duty.

And there is the point of all this: to brand people who do not buy into the notion that humans are mostly/solely responsible for all changes in the weather as Enemies. As Threats. As Traitors.

That goes for all you Warmists who refuse to give up fossil fuels and go “Carbon neutral”.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

30 Responses to “Warmists Heavily Pushing “Climate Change Is A National Security Threat” Meme”

  1. john says:

    I guess by “warmists” you mean the US military.
    Sigh…… there was a time when those on the right showed respect for our military.
    And the Pentagon has bee issuing warnings about the planet getting warmer for 15 years

  2. Liam Thomas says:

    The planet is getting warmer. Ice is melting. The ocean is rising. Icebergs are moving out of normal lanes.

    Most people accept this. Its the military’s job to advise of conditions and prepare for the repercussions of any possible scenario.

    The real debate it WHY. AGW crowd says eliminate fossil fuels tomorrow and all will be well.

    I say and how are we going to eat? I would rather it be warmer and the climate a bit rougher then starving.

    When you warmists come up with a viable plan to feed the masses and power the nations WITHOUT FOSSIL FUELS…..sign me up….I dont care if EXXON or Joes Nukalar emporium is raking in all the money….

    I just want to eat. But in your AGW haste you all seem to have forgotten how to feed the people with windmills and solar panels.

  3. john says:

    These are only some of the “warmists” who believe that climate change is an issuw of “national security”
    Thomas Fingar, former chairman of President Bush’s National Intelligence Council: “We judge global climate change will have wide-ranging implications for US national security interests over the next 20 years … We judge that the most significant impact for the United States will be indirect and result from climate-driven effects on many other countries and their potential to seriously affect US national security interests.”
    Brig. General Steven Anderson, USA (Ret.), former Chief of Logistics under General Petraeus and a self-described “conservative Republican”: “Our oil addiction, I believe, is our greatest threat to our national security. Not just foreign oil but oil in general. Because I believe that in CO2 emissions and climate change and the instability that that all drives, I think that that increases the likelihood there will be conflicts in which American soldiers are going to have to fight and die somewhere.”

    Leon Panetta, Secretary of Defense: “[T]he area of climate change has a dramatic impact on national security: rising sea levels, to severe droughts, to the melting of the polar caps, to more frequent and devastating natural disasters all raise demand for humanitarian assistance and disaster relief.”

    Robert Gates, former Secretary of Defense: “Over the next 20 years and more, certain pressures-population, energy, climate, economic, environmental-could combine with rapid cultural, social, and technological change to produce new sources of deprivation, rage, and instability.”

    General Gordon Sullivan, USA (Ret.), former Army chief of staff: “Climate change is a national security issue. We found that climate instability will lead to instability in geopolitics and impact American military operations around the world.”

    Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn, USN (Ret.): “If the destabilizing effects of climate change go unchecked, we can expect more frequent, widespread, and intense failed state scenarios creating large scale humanitarian disasters and higher potential for conflict and terrorism … The Department of Defense and national intelligence communities recognize this clear link between climate change, national security, and instability and have begun strategic plans and programs to both mitigate and adapt to the most likely and serious effects in key areas around the globe.”

    General Anthony Zinni, USMC (Ret.), former Commander-in-Chief of U.S. Central Command and special envoy to Israel and Palestine under President George W. Bush: “It’s not hard to make the connection between climate change and instability, or climate change and terrorism.”

    Admiral Joseph Lopez, USN (Ret.): “Climate change will provide the conditions that will extend the war on terror.”

    General Chuck Wald, USAF (Ret.), former Deputy Commander of U.S. European Command under President George W. Bush: “People can say what they want to about whether they think climate change is manmade or not, but there’s a problem there and the military is going to be a part of the solution. It’s a national security issue because it affects the stability of certain places in the world.”

    Brig. General Bob Barnes, USA (Ret.): “While most people associate global warming with droughts, rising sea levels, declining food production, species extinction and habitat destruction, fewer connect these impacts to increasing instability around the globe and the resulting threats to our national security. But the connection – and the threat it poses – is real and growing.”

    Vice Admiral Richard Truly, USN (Ret.), former NASA administrator: “The stresses that climate change will put on our national security will be different than any we’ve dealt with in the past.”

    General Paul Kern, USA (Ret.), Commander of the United States Army Materiel Command under President George W. Bush: “Military planning should view climate change as a threat to the balance of energy access, water supplies, and a healthy environment, and it should require a response.’

    Lt. General Lawrence Farrell, USAF (Ret.): “The planning we do that goes into organizing, training, and equipping our military considers all the risks that we may face. And one of the risks we see right now is climate change.”

    Admiral John Nathman, USN (Ret.), former Commander of the U.S. Fleet Forces Command under President George W. Bush: “There are serious risks to doing nothing about climate change. We can pay now or we’re going to pay a whole lot later. The U.S. has a unique opportunity to become energy independent, protect our national security and boost our economy while reducing our carbon footprint. We’ve been a model of success for the rest of the world in the past and now we must lead the way on climate change.”

    Vice Admiral Lee Gunn, USN (Ret.): “The national security community is rightly worried about climate change because of the magnitude of its expected impacts around the globe, even in our own country … Climate change poses a clear and present danger to the United States of America. But if we respond appropriately, I believe we will enhance our security, not simply by averting the worst climate change impacts, but by spurring a new energy revolution.”
    Yup sounds like warmist talk to me !!!!!

  4. Liam Thomas says:

    Lt. General Lawrence Farrell, USAF (Ret.): “The planning we do that goes into organizing, training, and equipping our military considers all the risks that we may face. And one of the risks we see right now is climate change.”

    I’ll cherry pick because this pretty much sums up what the military is saying…ONE OF THE RISKS.. yes an climate change is an issue.

    But the AGW crowd are idiots if they think they can alter climate change. The IPCC says….

    the only way to really stop global warming is the complete stopping of the use of fossil fuels TODAY.

    I WILL ASK YOU AS I ASK JEFFERY…….

    Whats your ff’ing solution besides windmills and solar panels and batteries?

    HOW ARE YOU GOING TO FEED 7 billion people with no fuel. HOW ARE YOU GOING TO MAKE STUFF for the people?

    WHATS YOUR SOLUTION…..the world anxiously awaits your answer.

    Remember the science is settled…..AGW is the reason were all going to persish.

    Do you honestly believe that IF THE POLITICIANS IN THE KNOW>>>>>EVEN THOSE ON YOUR SIDE really believed this and their advisers really believed this that there would not be a crash plan going on around the world?

    You guys agenda is so transparent its almost laughable……the Deniers agenda may be transparent as well but at least its rooted in sanity……….And that sanity is lets keep feeding the people, keep the economy going, Keep people fed and clothed and keep civilization from world wide Anarchy.

    Your agenda is stop consumerism. Stop Capitalism. What FUELS the two? ENERGY. How do you stop the ENERGY? Make It evil. What makes energy evil……ahh it emits stuff. That stuff must be bad….therefore energy is bad…..

    AGAIN Brother JOHN…..HOW ARE YOU GOING TO FEED THE WORLD IF YOU END FOSSIL FUEL USE…even end it in 50 years from now?

    WHATS YOUR PLAN? JEFFERY WONT ANSWER HE JUST COMES BACK WITH MORE SAUL ALINKSY CRAP AND CHANGES THE SUBJECT.

    So perhaps you have a plan?

  5. Jeffery says:

    LIAM,

    DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT THE HUMAN SPECIES APPEARED BY MAGIC IN THE 1800s????

    YOU THINK HUMANS CAN ADAPT TO FLOODED COASTS BUT NOT FIGURE OUT HOW TO HARVEST CROPS???

    WHAT IS YOUR PLAN FOR FRESH WATER FOR THE 10 BILLION HUMANS TO DRINK??

    WHAT IS YOUR PLAN FOR FEEDING THE MASSES WHEN WE RUN OUT OF ECONOMICALLY AVAILABLE FOSSIL FUELS?? won’t we BE FORCED THEN TO find other forms of ENERGY??

    WHY DO YOU TYPE IN ALL CAPS??

    WHAT IS YOUR evidence ThAT Transitioning TO RENEWABLES WILL DESTROY THE economy???

  6. Liam Thomas says:

    WHY DO YOU TYPE IN ALL CAPS??

    To get your attention. It worked. Once again you offer NO SOLUTIONS OF YOUR OWN….only MORE demands of me to answer your questions.

    The twelfth rule: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. You cannot risk being trapped by the enemy in his sudden agreement with your demand and saying “You’re right — we don’t know what to do about this issue. Now you tell us.”

    But YOU wont tell us….You just offer more:

    The ninth rule: The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.

    YOU offer up devastation and doom and gloom all because of rising co2. Yet really? HOW are you going to stop 10 billion people from becoming a reality?

    Genocide?

    Denmark did a remarkable job of adapting to flooded coasts. New Orleans is on average 12 feet below sea level. But

    IF you take away our power, our wealth. Our Energy…you take away any chance of surviving the impending doom and gloom you predict.

    So tell me Jeffery how are you going to feed the people. Give them stuff. Keep them from drowning? How are you going to make stuff when their are no more fossil fuels in 2 decades cause YOU and your AGW whackos took them all away?

    Come on JEFF. JOHN. Whats YOUR plan? I don’t need a plan because its not me calling on the end of fossil fuel use which powers the world.

    Whats YOUR PLAN?

  7. Zachriel says:

    Liam Thomas: AGW crowd says eliminate fossil fuels tomorrow and all will be well. I say and how are we going to eat?

    Actually, the vast majority of scholars studying the issue think that a gradual change is the best solution.

    Liam Thomas: When you warmists come up with a viable plan

    A common plan is a market-based approach, such as a carbon tax, or cap-and-trade. It will require a healthy economy to make the transition, as it will require investment in technology and infrastructure.

    Liam Thomas: The IPCC says… the only way to really stop global warming is the complete stopping of the use of fossil fuels TODAY.

    We checked the IPCC report, and nowhere does that quote appear. While they counsel immediate action, remaking the industrial economy will take at least a generation.

  8. Liam Thomas says:

    Actually, the vast majority of scholars studying the issue think that a gradual change is the best solution.

    This is not a solution. You have nothing to gradually change too. Of course they want a gradual change…the longer it takes the more grant money they get and the more they can milk the system.

    A common plan is a market-based approach, such as a carbon tax, or cap-and-trade. It will require a healthy economy to make the transition, as it will require investment in technology and infrastructure.

    So the solution to feeding the world is TAXING PEOPLE…..GAWD. Cap and trade is all well and good and I actually dont care if they do that or not…..but all that does is TAX CO2.

    Again the only solutions you guys put forth is TAXING. TAX, TAX, TAX. Again going back to economics 101….companies and corporations dont pay taxes….Customers pay taxes because any industry that is hit with a tax on carbon or cap and trade is simply going to pass along the costs of doing business.

    Just look at how expensive Mickey D’s hamburgers have become…Raise minimum wage to 15 bucks an hour and then watch how expensive they become.

    We checked the IPCC report, and nowhere does that quote appear. While they counsel immediate action, remaking the industrial economy will take at least a generation.

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that global temperatures a mere 2 degrees Celsius higher than pre-industrial levels would dangerously interfere with the climate system. The inference is there. TO keep the earth from warming by 2c would require a complete shut down of fossil fuels immediately.

    Lead authors of the IPCC reports have been quoted as saying this very thing and while it is true that those words are not actually in the report….the implications are quite clear, stark and without debate.

    However a report prepared by Princeton University shows……..Washington, Nov 25 (ANI): A new research has revealed that even if carbon dioxide emissions came to a sudden halt, the gas already present in Earth’s atmosphere is enough to warm our planet for next hundreds of years.

    The study led by researchers at Princeton University suggested that it might take a lot less carbon than previously thought to reach the global temperature scientists deem unsafe.

    Therefore by inference the IPCC is claiming the only way to save “MANKIND” is a total shutdown of fossil fuel use within the next 10-20 years.

    I will ask you the same thing I ask every other AGW truther. How you going to feed the planet?

    You really think a TAX or Cap and Trade is going to feed the planet?

    You have no plan. The IPCC has no plan and the technology is certainly nowhere in sight to continue forward without fossil fuel useage. The progressive left has several billionaires….Let them fund the R&D for going forward with no fossil fuels but you and I both know that they are in it for the money….Not the science.

  9. Liam Thomas says:

    While they counsel immediate action, remaking the industrial economy will take at least a generation.

    As for this. Retooling with no fossil fuels is impossible. Manufacturing depends upon petroleum based products to make stuff.

    Our military depends upon petroleum to operate. Our mass transit depends on petroleum to move people. Our economy is moved by petroleum. Our farmers farm the lands with petroleum. Fertilizers and pesticides are made with petroleum.

    There is more to eliminating fossil fuels then just powering homes and factories with solar, nukalar and windmills. That produces electricity. Electricity does not feed people, move foods to market, move the population around the planet nor power armies which are just itching to kill each other all over the world.

    Eliminating fossil fuels in the next 100 years is a pipe dream. One meant to redistrubute wealth. The problem is your group has not thought about the repercussions of redistributing that wealth and that would be……..

    WORLDWIDE ANARCHY as the people of the planet starve…..but then many people believe this is exactly what your people want to have happen.

  10. Zachriel says:

    Liam Thomas: This is not a solution. You have nothing to gradually change too.

    That’s the miracle of a market-based solution. By putting the costs on carbon emissions, the market will find solutions.

    Liam Thomas: Again the only solutions you guys put forth is TAXING. TAX, TAX, TAX.

    A carbon tax can be made revenue neutral. In any case, your point was that climate advocates insisted on an immediate stoppage of the use of fossil fuels, and that wasn’t correct.

    Liam Thomas: TO keep the earth from warming by 2c would require a complete shut down of fossil fuels immediately.

    Some warming is probably already locked in, but that’s no reason not to reduce any further damage to the climate.

    Liam Thomas: How you going to feed the planet?

    We already answered — avoiding disruption by transitioning over a period of time.

    Liam Thomas: Retooling with no fossil fuels is impossible. Manufacturing depends upon petroleum based products to make stuff.

    We have great confidence in the ability of humans to face the challenge.

    Liam Thomas: There is more to eliminating fossil fuels then just powering homes and factories with solar, nukalar and windmills.

    Sure. Electric cars, or synthetic fuels, can replace fossil fuels. As we said, we have great confidence in the ability of humans to face the challenge.
    http://www.cnet.com/news/miracle-tech-turns-water-into-fuel/

  11. Jeffery says:

    Liam,

    I understand your apparent frustration, when seemingly reasonable and reasonably intelligent people disagree with you at a fundamental level. You likely expected your comments to win the day.

    A result of our adding CO2 to the atmosphere is the warming of the Earth. There is no scientifically plausible reason to expect this warming to cease any time soon, other than by reducing atmospheric CO2.

    We can reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by “capturing” it at the source (if you succeed in this you’ll become a billionaire), capturing from the atmosphere (e.g., green plants do this; accretion into insoluble carbonates do this) or reducing the amount we emit.

    Few reasonable people advocate the immediate cessation of fossil fuel use. As pointed out by others a market-based, conservative cap-and-trade system in carbon has been advocated that would allow the invisible hand (when it’s not giving billionaires reach arounds) to allocate resources. Note well, that someone, at some time, will be forced to pay for the damages from global warming. Is it fair to push this cost onto future generations when we can start to address it now? Is that how responsible adults act?

    There is no credible evidence to support your contention that increasing the costs of fossil fuels will lead to destroyed economies, anarchy or mass starvation.

  12. Hank_M says:

    “A result of our adding CO2 to the atmosphere is the warming of the Earth.”

    You can repeat this all you want but it is not proven. In fact, data suggests that the warming has long since ceased and we’re entering a period of global cooling.

  13. Liam Thomas says:

    We already answered — avoiding disruption by transitioning over a period of time.

    Again. This is not a plan. This is a strategy. Transition to WHAT? Again you have no plan. Not even the hint of a plan. Just a strategy.

    I understand your apparent frustration, when seemingly reasonable and reasonably intelligent people disagree with you at a fundamental level. You likely expected your comments to win the day.

    Im not frustrated at all. What Im hearing from you AGW truthers is OMG were all gonna die….then when pressed for a plan, you have none. Then when pressed again you come up with a strategy.

    There is no credible evidence to support your contention that increasing the costs of fossil fuels will lead to destroyed economies, anarchy or mass starvation.

    Wrong. Oil went to 150.00 per bbl under Bush and the economy nearly collapsed. In 1974 the Arab oil embargo put the US military on full scale alert and soldiers were ready to ride into the sunset in the middle east and seize oil fields.

    You guys simply have put forth a strategy to raise the price of fossil fuels in an attempt to make fossil fuels so expensive as to render them archaic. This is the whole point of carbon taxation and Cap and trade.

    A strategy does not replace Fossil fuels. Raising the prices of oil to 150.00 per bbl did not stop the people from using it. Taxing Carbon will not stop the flow of that “EVIL” co2 into the air, it will only change how much it costs to put co2 into the air.

    “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe,” Chu said in an interview with the Journal in September 2008. The prices in Europe are roughly 8.00 per gallon of gasoline.

    AFTER becoming sectretary of energy Chu said………..Chu added, according to POLITICO, that the “most important tool in DOE’s tool chest is moving off oil.” Said publicly at a hearing on capitol hill.

    Anyone that thinks 8.00 per gallon for gasoline would not destroy our economy is a fool…and you saying their is no evidence that high energy prices would bring doom and gloom is just that…..a statement with no support in an effort to shore up you flimsy STRATEGY for going forward with little to no Fossil fuels.

  14. Zachriel says:

    Liam Thomas: Transition to WHAT? Again you have no plan.

    Again, the strategy is to use market forces along with industrial policy to reduce carbon emissions. Currently, people aren’t paying the true cost due to externalities of fossil fuel burning.

    And we provided an example of a government-corporate partnership that has led to efficient production of synthetic fuels.
    http://www.cnet.com/news/miracle-tech-turns-water-into-fuel/

    Liam Thomas: What Im hearing from you AGW truthers is OMG were all gonna die…

    Actually, humans are very adept at adaptation, and will more than likely survive even the most severe projections for climate change. However, it will be more costly to adapt later than to adapt now. And some aspects of the humanity’s natural inheritance will be lost forever.

    Liam Thomas: Oil went to 150.00 per bbl under Bush and the economy nearly collapsed. In 1974 the Arab oil embargo put the US military on full scale alert and soldiers were ready to ride into the sunset in the middle east and seize oil fields.

    Which is another good reason to reduce dependence on fossil fuels.

  15. john says:

    well Liam YOU are going to die. That is a fact better get used to it. A big question might be what kind of a world are you going to be leaving behind for humanity?

  16. Liam Thomas says:

    The rig, at this stage, is for demonstration and feasiblity purposes; its capacity for CO2 recycling is currently at around 3.2 tonnes per tonne fuel, and it has the capacity to produce a barrel of fuel per day. The cost of designing and building the rig was “seven figures”, half of which came from public funding received from the Federal Ministry of Education and Research.

    And you now going to use up massive amounts of water to create fuel?

    But I say build them. Let Europe subsidize these babies….I mean after all I will take about 1 billion of these machines to create the fuel needed to drive the cars in Europe.

    Good Plan…Nothing is free…matter can be neither created nor destroyed to make fuel you need something else….it just doesnt come out of thin air.

  17. Liam Thomas says:

    well Liam YOU are going to die. That is a fact better get used to it. A big question might be what kind of a world are you going to be leaving behind for humanity?

    I imagine with a world full of progressives Im going to leave behind a communist state in which opportunity is non existent…..thanks…My grandchildren will appreciate it greatly.

  18. Jeffery says:

    “A result of our adding CO2 to the atmosphere is the warming of the Earth.”

    Hank_M: You can repeat this all you want but it is not proven. In fact, data suggests that the warming has long since ceased and we’re entering a period of global cooling.

    Scientific theories, supported by overwhelming evidence, are never proven. Let’s see… it is proven that CO2 absorbs and re-radiates infrared radiation. It’s proven that man has added enough CO2 to the atmosphere to cause a 40% increase. It’s proven that a large proportion of the increase is CO2 from fossil-fuels. It’s proven that the Earth’s surface and oceans are warming. There has been no plausible alternative hypothesis proposed (other than by some “undiscovered mechanism”).

    What data “suggests that the warming has long since ceased” and that “we’re entering a period of global cooling”?

    Several commenters, like you (and Teach) claim the Earth stopped warming nearly 20 years ago.

    Some commenters (and Teach) claim the Earth is still warming but by some undiscovered mechanism.

    One commenter suggests that the Earth is warming and that will cause global cooling.

    Some commenters claim CO2 can warm, others that it cools.

  19. Zachriel says:

    Liam Thomas: its capacity for CO2 recycling is currently at around 3.2 tonnes per tonne fuel

    Yes, it’s called a prototype.

    Liam Thomas: Nothing is free…matter can be neither created nor destroyed to make fuel you need something else….it just doesnt come out of thin air.

    No, it requires energy. However, your original complaint was lack of a substitute for fossil fuels for transportation. This offers a viable solution to that aspect of the problem.

  20. Steve57 says:

    By military you mean DoD. And the DoD is not a neutral scientific body. Like NASA and NOAA it is a political body chasing budget dollars.

    Nobody in the actual military takes this “global warming ins a national security threat” crap seriously.

    I spent 20 years learning that.

  21. Steve57 says:

    This:

    A new study has just come out that looked at nearly 12,000 professional scientific journal papers about global warming, and found that—of the papers expressing a stance on global warming—97 percent endorse both the reality of global warming and the fact that humans are causing it.

    Becomes this:

    There is no honest doubt about this; the overwhelming evidence supports it, so much so that 97 percent of climate scientists agree on it.

    One Japanese researcher faked at least 172 studies and probably 209 of the 212 he was able to get published in “peer reviewed” journals.

    http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/07/new-record-for-faking-data-set-by-japanese-researcher/

    See, there’s a difference between numbers of researchers and numbers of research papers.

    These warmists are too stupid to get that simple fact straight. Why should I let anybody lecture me about anything if they can’t tell the difference between people and papers?

    And regarding that paper that said it found 97% consensus among scientific journal papers (not scientists), Prof. Richard Toll put it very well when he thoroughly debunked it. You might recognize his name; he used to contribute to IPCC reports until out of disgust he asked them to take his name off of it. If you want to demonstrate that climate research is incompetent, biased, and secretive (I would add corrupt) that political advocacy paper masquerading as research pushing the 97% consensus is an outstanding example of the genre.

  22. Liam Thomas says:

    Liam Thomas: its capacity for CO2 recycling is currently at around 3.2 tonnes per tonne fuel

    Something you just googled to respond? If you read the article you would find this at the bottom of the page….but of course since its a warmist site your not going to find any true information……

    skip alllllllllllllll the way to the bottom of the page……..Updated November 27, 8:09am AEDT: Sunfire had mistakenly informed us that the machine’s CO2 recycling capacity was 3.2 tonnes per day.

    Secondly your converting WATER a much more precious commodity to energy.

    No, it requires energy. However, your original complaint was lack of a substitute for fossil fuels for transportation. This offers a viable solution to that aspect of the problem.

    Actually no its not viable. You do realize the droughts occuring all over the planet right….and now your wanting to convert water into fuel with this machine. This is why Hydrogen cars havent been built. (WATER VAPOR is a huge contributor to WARMING) This is why salt water to fresh water plants havent been built along the coasts….their capacity is miniscule in comparison to their costs.

    Your concern is supposedly the WARMING OF THE PLANET………..so you want to replace co2 which is the LEAST of the warming elements with the GREATEST OF THE WARMING ELEMENTS.

    This is why its not viable for the AGW crowd…..IF they are honestly worried about the planet warming and not just wanting to punish big corporations like we all suspect they are.

    But with current technology, proposed technology or on the drawing board technology there is nothing to replace what fossil fuels do….and while now all of a sudden Jeffery and YOurself and others appear to have moderated your stance because Ive shown without question there is no plan after fossil fuels………the majority of the AGW whackos want us farming with sticks and eating dirt and dying off to save the planet.

  23. Liam Thomas says:

    What data “suggests that the warming has long since ceased” and that “we’re entering a period of global cooling”?

    Several commenters, like you (and Teach) claim the Earth stopped warming nearly 20 years ago.

    Some commenters (and Teach) claim the Earth is still warming but by some undiscovered mechanism.

    One commenter suggests that the Earth is warming and that will cause global cooling.

    Some commenters claim CO2 can warm, others that it cools.

    Excellent Saul Alinsky BS.

    Were still waiting for your plan Jeffery.

  24. Jeffery says:

    Lame,

    We get it. You don’t like the plan forward. It’s OK.

    We don’t need your cooperation as we take dominion over the planet.

    Yes, you got us to admit it, you sly dog you. Our overarching goal is total world domination, where white conservatives are enslaved, forced to work for no less than $15 an hour (adjusted annually for inflation) with no upper limit. The poorer you are, the more you will be forced to receive subsidized healthcare! That’s the progressive hellscape that awaits you!

    Seven days ago in Berkeley, me, Alinsky, Krugman, Obama, Hillary, Soros and Michael Mann met and finalized our plans to take over the world by eventually instituting a weak carbon cap and trade program. Alinsky wanted to force Whole Foods to sell cakes with “We Love Teh Gays!” but we tabled that peculiar notion.

    Our first move, and most bold I must admit, is to institute a 24 year plan to win Democratic majorities in BOTH houses of the US Congress. It was a nearly unanimous vote (Soros wanted a 20 year plan). Step two, and the most controversial, is re-education of identified climate Deniers – Barack will be offering tax incentives for anyone who wants to take a remedial physics course at a local community college! Step three, and a long shot, lobby the current Congress to perhaps beginning to think about, but not rashly, to maybe reduce the direct and indirect subsidies given to fossil fuel companies. Krugman objected to this – he felt it might be unfair to big oil and big coal to stop their entitlement transfer programs where tax monies from the middle class were given to millionaires so they could extract natural resources and sell them back to us at huge profit. His contention is that the millionaires had come to rely on these payments so that their children and children’s children would never to have to work. Therefore, we announce our bold target for a 50% reduction in fossil fuel subsidies by 2050. Hence our new slogan, “50 by 50”! We thought it might be more aggressive, but Hillary told us that conservatives only object to subsidies for POOR people.

    I’m in charge of arguing in the comments sections of RWNJ blogs with fewer than 100 hits a day. Krugman will continue to write an op-ed per week in the NY Times citing the economic literature related to global warming. Soros is the money man. Every week we each receive a 55 gal drum filled with $100 bills from him. His use of oil drums is ironic, but that’s typical George.

    Note: We found out later that Saul Alinsky died decades ago. One Seth Alinsky (the manager of the Whole Foods) had joined us by mistake over our lattes. That explains the cake thing. And the cornrows.

  25. Zachriel says:

    Steve57: And regarding that paper that said it found 97% consensus among scientific journal papers (not scientists)

    The consensus for scientists was 98.4%.
    http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

    Liam Thomas: Secondly your converting WATER a much more precious commodity to energy.

    http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2012/9/26/1348685374708/Southern-Ocean-011.jpg

    In any case, you are far off on your perspective. Global freshwater withdrawals (about 4000 km^3) are many times greater than its gasoline usage (about 1 km^3).

    Liam Thomas: (WATER VAPOR is a huge contributor to WARMING)

    Excess water vapor is only retained in the atmosphere if the atmosphere warms. Otherwise, it rapidly condenses out.

    Liam Thomas: This is why salt water to fresh water plants havent been built along the coasts

    http://www.tampabaywater.org/tampa-bay-seawater-desalination-plant.aspx

  26. Steve57 says:

    Why do you keep linking back to a study that declares its methodology.

    We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

    Then insist that it says something about consensus among scientists? It didn’t look at scientists, It looked at abstracts at scientific papers.

    Yes, I know it links to surveys. Which I will not wade through since the Cook study itself is a premiere example of the shoddiness of this type of political propaganda posing as science. It declares its political intent right up front.

    An accurate perception of the degree of scientific consensus is an essential element to public support for climate policy (Ding et al 2011).

    Cook then proceeds to present an inaccurate report of that “consensus” by, among other things, using a non-representative sample of the literature and CAGW activists to evaluate the abstracts.

    Again, if you want to convince me of anything disregard the Cook report. It’s the Bellesiles report of climate change. And especially don’t link to it when trying to convince me of consensus among scientists when this report simple looked at abstracts of scientific papers.

    Link to Cook’s co-conspirators who did equally incompetent and biased “surveys” to get to some sort of foreordained consensus on some unknown question of the science of AGW if you like.

    Then I will laugh and point out if you’re talking about consensus you are doing politics, not science.

  27. Zachriel says:

    Steve57: Then insist that it says something about consensus among scientists?

    Cook et al: “Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.”

    Steve57: Cook then proceeds to present an inaccurate report of that “consensus” by, among other things, using a non-representative sample of the literature …

    “In March 2012, we searched the ISI Web of Science for papers published from 1991–2011 using topic searches for ‘global warming’ or ‘global climate change’.”

    Seems pretty straightforward.

    Steve57: and CAGW activists to evaluate the abstracts.

    “Endorsement percentages from self-ratings”

    Seems pretty straightforward.

  28. Liam Thomas says:

    @Zachriel

    You do know that the peer reviewed process is a process owned and operated by AGW truthers right? Even the climategate emails showed that Mann et al. were putting pressure on publications to not accept any papers that denied Climate change as a reality.

    So when truthers claim that all the published scientists agree with the concept that climate change is real…..by god they are accurate.

    I suppose in peer reviewed studies 98 percent do agree with the AGW agenda. Thats because 98 percent of the peer reviewers are AGW truthers who would not allow divergent opinions to be published in the first place.

  29. Zachriel says:

    Liam Thomas: I suppose in peer reviewed studies 98 percent do agree with the AGW

    Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations
    “The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society.”
    http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

    Notably, you didn’t respond to our substantive remarks regarding human adaptive capabilities.

Bad Behavior has blocked 8179 access attempts in the last 7 days.