Generals, admirals say climate change a matter of national security
Failure to act on climate change leaves us vulnerable to attack, says new report.
Photo credit: Pbase Comments
It would help if these "Generals and admirals" would provide some rationale for this very bizarre claim. If the rationale is oil dependency, then someone better tell these brass hat dodos
(and our beloved braindead Prez) that this has nothing to do with those fossil fuels that are used to produce electricity. We can power electric cars using fossil fuels without fear either.
A groups of national security experts are assembled and briefed on the most dire of global warming prediction and they note the military implications of each...shocking! Floods are bad, population shifts are disruptive, big storms can be dangerous. This is proof that we have yet to address the fundamental issues at hand or seriously develop a strategy for addressing them - we cannot "fix" everything...we must know when to mitigate the effects of chage.
After all the comments from global warming alarmists about the 'non-scientists' on the other side, it's amusing to see them resorting to retired admirals and generals. Obviously their supply of credible spokespeople is running low.
Nonetheless, twelve doesn't seem like many. There must be hundreds of retired generals and admirals in the US; what are all the others saying?
Well, @Jon, I guess it doesn't matter what the rest of the retired generals and admirals are saying. After all, your side continue to dismiss the vast majority of the entire planet's climate scientists, who agree on the broad outline that man-caused climate change is likely extremely dangerous, so why pay any attention even if every last general and admiral were to be briefed then publicly announced he (or she) is convinced the scientists -- the 97-98% of them we're talking about here -- are.... More
In 1995, the contributing IPCC scientists found no evidence for a significant human influence on global temperatures. The IPCC heirarchy didn't like that conclusion, so they changed it. Google the 1996 WSJ letter written by Frederick Seitz, former president of the National Academy of Sciences and American Physical Society.
Oh, yes, by all means bring up the late Dr. Seitz, whose stance on climate change was publicly refuted by the National Academy of Sciences, of which he was President for several years in the 1960's. He also was a founder of the George C. Marshall Institute, which has had as one of its cheap purposes for years now to try to debunk climate science. He also was a moving force behind the so-called "Oregon Petition." As controversial as his claims regarding climate change were his other.... More
I can't actually see that the generals are worried about climate change. They are worried about obtaining oil from the Middle East, and having to kill lots of Arabs in order to keep the flow going. That seems to be a reasonable concern.
If we were to drill more in Alaska and the Arctic, and find fuel in our own backyard, that would satisfy them perfectly. As would increasing nuclear power extensively. You can't claim that the military want to save the penguins...
I'm a retired officer, and I agree with Tim. These guys know a lot about their business. This ain't it.
First of all, generals? What are they likely to know about national energy policy and global climate? Second, what does this even mean: "We cannot continue the ‘business as usual’ approach to energy security or pursue energy options “inconsistent with the national response to climate change”?" That is gobbledy gook that doesn't say anything at all about global warming, or energy policy for that matter.
Finally, "We have less than 10 years to change or [sic] fossil fuel.... More
This is a complex set of issues. It deserves more than sound bites or diparaging remarks about people or organizations who have done extensive and thoughtful research and analysis. Before jumping to conclusions about the motives or qualifications of those speaking out about climate change and national security, do some reading. None of the people involved in this study profited by it or had an agenda. They simply listened carefully to a wide range of experts in many fields and asked a lot of.... More
Its good to see the military taking a stance on global warming and climate change. America's strength has always relied upon its military and industrial might, energy therefore plays a huge part in maintaining this. America needs to diversify its energy production and creation otherwise it will have to rely upon other nations who could hold them hostage. Go.... More
