Add this to the extensive annals of stupid things he’s said.
11 thoughts on “Chuck Hagel And Global Warming”
Seems totally brainless to me. Even if global warming turns out to have major costs, which is possible, I can’t see anything that the military has to do about it.
My volleyball team has just completed a study about climate change as well. We concluded that if the sea level rises far enough, we might have to move our net further up the beach. We want to be prepared…
I gather the implication is that global warming results in more numerous and more severe bad things happening, which results in more need for US military deployments, which results in more need for US military funding. Funny how that works out.
“which results in more need for US military deployments”
Explains why Obama is gutting our military then.
The problem is that our surface fleet was carefully designed for older sea levels. Our larger ships might do okay, but our smaller craft are going to founder. The Russians will probably have to make more changes than we will, because in a warmer world Hitler could take Moscow.
I don’t mind if the military throws some money away on “green” fuel experiments but a total restructuring of the military out of fears of seven degree warming and apocalyptic weather predictions is absurd. The models haven’t even been right about small degrees of warming but Hagel is out there saying it is going to be a seven degree increase.
I forget which publication I saw this in but they had bullet points summarizing the this story and one of their points was that people who traditionally support the military will be put off by the military’s embrace of global warming. This was in a lefty leaning publication. I think Obama and the Democrats are playing a long game here. Their intention is to drive a wedge between people on the right who are pro-military and the military with zero tolerance PC nonsense, selective cuts to the officer corps, anti-Christian policies, and making the military take part in every lefty social and political cause.
“As far back as 2003, during the first term of the Bush/Cheney Administration, a specially commissioned Pentagon report titled “An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and the Implications for United States Security” warned that rapid climate change could “potentially de-stabilize the geo-political environment, leading to skirmishes, battles and even war” over scarce food, water and energy supplies. The threat of climate change, the report went on to state, needed to “be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a U.S. national security concern.”
By the time the Defense Department’s Center for Naval Analyses released its landmark 2007 report, “National Security and the Threat of Climate Change,” the Bush/Cheney Administration had officially acknowledged the reality of global warming — although it continued to question whether humans were the cause. The 11-member Military Advisory Board of retired three-star and four-star admirals and generals who headed up the Center’s study, however, unanimously accepted the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change, concluding that “the evidence is sufficiently compelling and the consequences sufficiently grave” to warrant the military’s urgent attention.
The MAB asserted that climate change acts as a “threat multiplier for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world.” In response, the MAB proposed a number of recommendations, including that
· The national security consequences of climate change should be fully integrated into national security and national defense strategies;
· The United States should commit to a stronger national and international role to help stabilize climate changes at levels that will avoid significant disruption to global security and stability;
· The United States should commit to global partnerships that help less-developed nations build the capacity and resiliency to better manage climate impacts.
The report also called upon the Pentagon to adopt its own energy efficiency measures.”
That was all back before it became clear what a mess the science was.
Well, to some anyway. Even most, probably. But, for those of us who saw the gaping logical and mathematical flaws and rush to judgment, we knew it was just a matter of time before the bottom dropped out. Now, we see the advocates vainly struggling to hold on to whatever vestiges remain, arguing today based on lingering indicators which, for them, are all trending in the wrong direction.
Given those trends, it is only a matter of time before they have to throw in the towel. One wonders what keeps them going, and how they are planning their ultimate bailout before the final plunge, and who will be left standing to accept the blame when the music stops.
On the plus side, they are growing ever more confident and shrill in their selling of climate change snake oil.
I have to say that I believe there is some degree of global warming going on. I live around the 45th parallel north. There are signs consistent with modest climate change and that latitude with its shifting snowline is the place where one would first see effects of global warming.
But to advocate massive reduction in humanity activity for the sake of climate change? I need to see evidence of the claimed direness first.
I’d like to see evidence of linkage. Only primitive societies attempt to control the weather through irrelevant sacrificial rites.
Agreed, it was for those wondering what the military justification was. That article seemed to point out what the miltary at the time was concerned with and it seemed to be the threat mulitplier aspect is what they were most concerned with.
Seems totally brainless to me. Even if global warming turns out to have major costs, which is possible, I can’t see anything that the military has to do about it.
My volleyball team has just completed a study about climate change as well. We concluded that if the sea level rises far enough, we might have to move our net further up the beach. We want to be prepared…
I gather the implication is that global warming results in more numerous and more severe bad things happening, which results in more need for US military deployments, which results in more need for US military funding. Funny how that works out.
“which results in more need for US military deployments”
Explains why Obama is gutting our military then.
The problem is that our surface fleet was carefully designed for older sea levels. Our larger ships might do okay, but our smaller craft are going to founder. The Russians will probably have to make more changes than we will, because in a warmer world Hitler could take Moscow.
I don’t mind if the military throws some money away on “green” fuel experiments but a total restructuring of the military out of fears of seven degree warming and apocalyptic weather predictions is absurd. The models haven’t even been right about small degrees of warming but Hagel is out there saying it is going to be a seven degree increase.
I forget which publication I saw this in but they had bullet points summarizing the this story and one of their points was that people who traditionally support the military will be put off by the military’s embrace of global warming. This was in a lefty leaning publication. I think Obama and the Democrats are playing a long game here. Their intention is to drive a wedge between people on the right who are pro-military and the military with zero tolerance PC nonsense, selective cuts to the officer corps, anti-Christian policies, and making the military take part in every lefty social and political cause.
“As far back as 2003, during the first term of the Bush/Cheney Administration, a specially commissioned Pentagon report titled “An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and the Implications for United States Security” warned that rapid climate change could “potentially de-stabilize the geo-political environment, leading to skirmishes, battles and even war” over scarce food, water and energy supplies. The threat of climate change, the report went on to state, needed to “be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a U.S. national security concern.”
By the time the Defense Department’s Center for Naval Analyses released its landmark 2007 report, “National Security and the Threat of Climate Change,” the Bush/Cheney Administration had officially acknowledged the reality of global warming — although it continued to question whether humans were the cause. The 11-member Military Advisory Board of retired three-star and four-star admirals and generals who headed up the Center’s study, however, unanimously accepted the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change, concluding that “the evidence is sufficiently compelling and the consequences sufficiently grave” to warrant the military’s urgent attention.
The MAB asserted that climate change acts as a “threat multiplier for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world.” In response, the MAB proposed a number of recommendations, including that
· The national security consequences of climate change should be fully integrated into national security and national defense strategies;
· The United States should commit to a stronger national and international role to help stabilize climate changes at levels that will avoid significant disruption to global security and stability;
· The United States should commit to global partnerships that help less-developed nations build the capacity and resiliency to better manage climate impacts.
The report also called upon the Pentagon to adopt its own energy efficiency measures.”
http://journalstar.com/news/opinion/editorial/columnists/local-view-u-s-military-global-warming-is-real/article_da07086c-e767-58b4-9258-24196cdecf03.html
That was all back before it became clear what a mess the science was.
Well, to some anyway. Even most, probably. But, for those of us who saw the gaping logical and mathematical flaws and rush to judgment, we knew it was just a matter of time before the bottom dropped out. Now, we see the advocates vainly struggling to hold on to whatever vestiges remain, arguing today based on lingering indicators which, for them, are all trending in the wrong direction.
Given those trends, it is only a matter of time before they have to throw in the towel. One wonders what keeps them going, and how they are planning their ultimate bailout before the final plunge, and who will be left standing to accept the blame when the music stops.
On the plus side, they are growing ever more confident and shrill in their selling of climate change snake oil.
I have to say that I believe there is some degree of global warming going on. I live around the 45th parallel north. There are signs consistent with modest climate change and that latitude with its shifting snowline is the place where one would first see effects of global warming.
But to advocate massive reduction in humanity activity for the sake of climate change? I need to see evidence of the claimed direness first.
I’d like to see evidence of linkage. Only primitive societies attempt to control the weather through irrelevant sacrificial rites.
Agreed, it was for those wondering what the military justification was. That article seemed to point out what the miltary at the time was concerned with and it seemed to be the threat mulitplier aspect is what they were most concerned with.