Right-wing media disregards experts on national security threat of global warming
The right-wing media have mocked Sen. Barbara Boxer's comments about the threat of global warming to national security. However, national security experts -- including those in the Bush administration -- have highlighted the "significant geopolitical consequences" of climate change.
Boxer cites "national security experts" in highlighting national security threat of global warming
In a June 10 floor statement, Boxer stated:
I'm going to put in the record, Madam President, a host of quotes from our national security experts who tell us that carbon pollution leading to climate change will be over the next 20 years the leading cause of conflict, putting our troops in harm's way. And that's why we have so many returning veterans who want us to move forward and address this issue, so we can create those new technologies that get us off this foreign oil.
Right-wing media: Boxer's statements about the effects of climate change on national security are unfounded
Beck mocked Boxer's claim that veterans "want us to move forward and address this issue" as "completely out of touch." On the June 11 edition of Glenn Beck's radio show, co-host Pat Gray accused Boxer of "throwing out some baseless generalities," and Beck himself suggested that Boxer's comments were evidence that she is "completely out of touch." From the exchange:
BECK: I've got to play Barbara Boxer because just when you think these people are completely out of touch, then you hear Barbara Boxer and then you are like, you know what?
GRAY: Yeah.
BECK: They got it going on. Here's Barbara Boxer.
BOXER (audio clip) A host of quotes from our national security experts who tell us that carbon pollution leading to climate change will be, over the next 20 years, the leading cause of conflict, putting our troops in harm's way and that's why we have so many returning veterans who want us to move forward and address this issue.
GRAY: I love that because there's no facts there, there's no figures, there's no stats. She's just throwing out some baseless generalities, you know, that all the troops that are returning really want us to take care of this problem because they know more than terrorism, more than threats from other nations --
BECK: Global warming.
GRAY: It's carbon. Carbon is their main enemy that they fear.
Doug Powers: Boxer's comments are "'blame America first' at its most twisted." In a June 11 post to Michelle Malkin's blog, columnist and blogger Doug Powers claimed that Boxer was attempting to "inextricably link" climate change and terrorism and "assign the blame to your SUV." From michellemalkin.com:
"Al Gore is on record as calling "climate change" a greater threat to humanity than terrorism or rogue dictators with nukes, and Barbara "Ma'am" Boxer has followed suit by saying that "carbon pollution, leading to climate change, will be, over the next 20 years, the leading cause of conflict."
[...]
If by "conflict" she means harsh opposition to the continued takeover of the U.S. from within under the guise of saving the world from a fiery death, then I suppose she's correct -- but that's not what she means.
Boxer is saying, "Unless you want a lot of wars, support our EPA power grab!"
The real intent of course isn't to rank climate change as being a greater threat than terrorism, but to inextricably link them as one problem and assign the blame to your SUV and dependency on the coal energy that is giving Ashley Judd the trots. It's "blame America first" at its most twisted. "They won't attack if you hand us billions more for clean energy and green jobs!"
Maybe Barbara Boxer believes that Al Qaeda flew planes into the World Trade Centers because they were getting too warm, but I'm certainly skeptical."
Fox Nation highlights blogger claim: "I'm making myself a huge tub of baked beans, watch out Babs, I'm your worst nightmare!" Fox Nation posted video of Boxer's statements on the floor of the Senate, claiming that she deemed "CO2" our "greatest national security threat." Along with the video, Fox Nation included a caption originally from the blog Weasel Zippers that stated, "I'm making myself a huge tub of baked beans, watch out Babs, I'm your worst nightmare!"
NewsBusters' Noel Sheppard characterized Boxer's remarks as "Saturday Night Funnies." In a June 12 NewsBusters post, Sheppard ran the headline: "Saturday Night Funnies: Boxer Says CO2 Leading Cause of Conflict Next 20 Years." He asserted that Boxer "claimed that carbon dioxide -- that naturally occurring gas integral to life on this planet! - 'will be over the next 20 years the leading cause of conflict, putting our troops in harm's way.'"
HotAir's Morrissey: "[W]hat keeps Barbara Boxer awake at night? A raging case of the vapors." In a June 10 post, HotAir's Ed Morrissey listed several current national security issues, then commented, "And what keeps Barbara Boxer awake at night? A raging case of the vapors." He then embedded video of Boxer's statement. Morrissey added: "This hyperbole comes from a desperate attempt to get her colleagues to push her cap-and-tax bill forward in the Senate, and the ridiculous claim that CO2 will somehow outweigh a nuclear Iranian mullahcracy and a global Islamist network for national-security concerns shows just how desperate Boxer has become."
National security experts: Global warming a "grave challenge" to national security interests
Chairman of Bush's National Intelligence Council highlighted global warming's "potential to seriously affect US national security interests." In June 25, 2008, testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, Dr. Thomas Fingar, chairman of President Bush's National Intelligence Council, presented the Council's study titled "National Security Implications of Global Climate Change to 2030." Fingar stated that in 2006, the Council concluded that "time was right to develop a community level product on the national security significance of future climate change." Fingar presented the following "summary of key observations":
We judge global climate change will have wide-ranging implications for US national security interests over the next 20 years. Although the United States will be less affected and is better equipped than most nations to deal with climate change, and may even see a benefit owing to increases in agriculture productivity, infrastructure repair and replacement will be costly. 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. We assess that climate change alone is unlikely to trigger state failure in any state out to 2030, but the impacts will worsen existing problems--such as poverty, social tensions, environmental degradation, ineffectual leadership, and weak political institutions. Climate change could threaten domestic stability in some states, potentially contributing to intra- or, less likely, interstate conflict, particularly over access to increasingly scarce water resources. We judge that economic migrants will perceive additional reasons to migrate because of harsh climates, both within nations and from disadvantaged to richer countries.
The Center for Naval Analysis (CNA) issued a report concluding that climate change "presents significant national security challenges." The 2007 study authored by 11 retired generals and admirals states that "[t]he nature and pace of climate changes being observed today and the consequences projected by the consensus scientific opinion are grave and pose equally grave implications for our national security." The report issued four conclusions: 1) "Projected climate change poses a serious threat to America's national security." 2) "Climate change acts as a threat multiplier for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world." 3) "Projected climate change will add to tensions even in stable regions of the world." 4) "Climate change, national security, and energy dependence are a related set of global challenges."
Military reportedly began "studying possible future impacts of global warming with new intensity" during the Bush administration. An April 15, 2007, Washington Post article on the CNA study highlighted a "sense of urgency" surrounding the government's interest in the national security effects of climate change. According to generals interviewed by the Post, the urgency "stems from the fact that changing climatic conditions will make it harder for weak nation-states to address their citizens' basic needs." The Post also reported that "several branches of the military are examining how to cope with climate change."
After being "a little bit of a skeptic," Gen. Gordon R. Sullivan told the Post he is "convinced that global warming presents a grave challenge to the country's military preparedness." From the April 15, 2007, article:
"The Army's former chief of staff, Gen. Gordon R. Sullivan, who is one of the authors, noted he had been "a little bit of a skeptic" when the study group began meeting in September. But, after being briefed by top climate scientists and observing changes in his native New England, Sullivan said he was now convinced that global warming presents a grave challenge to the country's military preparedness.
"The trends are not good, and if I just sat around in my former life as a soldier, if I just waited around for someone to walk in and say, 'This is with a hundred percent certainty,' I'd be waiting forever," he said."
The Department of Defense cited the role of climate change as a potential "accelerant of instability or conflict." The Department of Defense's Quadrennial Defense Review Report, issued in February of 2010, states that "[w]hile climate change alone does not cause conflict, it may act as an accelerant of instability or conflict." The DoD report also indicated "climate change will shape the operating environment, roles, and missions that we undertake." Further, the report stated, "climate change and energy are two key issues that will play a significant role in shaping the future security environment."
CIA launched Center on Climate Change and National Security to help coordinate information on what it deems "an important national security topic." In September of 2009, the CIA launched The Center on Climate Change and National Security. According to a September 25, 2009, press release, its charter is to explore "the national security impact of phenomena such as desertification, rising sea levels, population shifts, and heightened competition for natural resources." Director Leon Panetta explained that "[d]ecision makers need information and analysis on the effects climate change can have on security."
Intelligence analysts reportedly suggest that "[t]he changing global climate will pose profound strategic challenges to the United States in coming decades." The New York Times reported on August 8, 2009, that "a growing number of policy makers say that the world's rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest." The Times noted that military officials are "studying ways to protect the major naval stations in Norfolk, Va., and San Diego from climate-induced rising seas and severe storms." According to Pentagon official Amanda Dory, there has been "a 'sea change' in the military's thinking about climate change in the past year. "These issues now have to be included and wrestled with" in drafting national security strategy, she said."
State Department official reportedly highlighted department's focus on "security and geopolitical challenges" of global warming. According to the August 8, 2009, Times report, the State Department and Pentagon are "considering the effects of global warming in their long-term planning documents." According to a State Department official, "[t]he sense that climate change poses security and geopolitical challenges is central to the thinking of the State Department and the climate office."

















-- A cross examination of global warming science conducted by the University of Pennsylvania's Institute for Law and Economics has concluded that virtually every claim advanced by global warming proponents fails to stand up to scrutiny.
The cross-examination, carried out by Jason Scott Johnston, Professor and Director of the Program on Law, Environment and Economy at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, found that "on virtually every major issue in climate change science, the [reports of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] and other summarizing work by leading climate establishment scientists have adopted various rhetorical strategies that seem to systematically conceal or minimize what appear to be fundamental scientific uncertainties or even disagreements."
I call shenannigans.......
If it's not a law and economics school saying there "seems" to be someting wrong, it's a link to James Inhofe site, or some blogger who got suckered by "climategate".
And they always seem to think that this time they're not going to be laughed at.
Try selling that baloney to main street.
Or were you really trying to say anything besides "elitist politicians" ?
So let the global warming advocates start putting out the nuts and bolts, the specifics, the details, of exactly what it is you or they want. And let the debate begin there. If this climate bill pending is not enough, then what, specifically? What legislation or regulation is being advocated and what specifically is involved. No more silly vague generalities, no more "peer reviewed scientists say this or that", WHAT EXACTLY DO YOU WANT?
That is what I am waiting for.
Specifically we need to stop burning carbon. The idea disturbs people so they pretend the problem doesn't exist. Others deny it because it strikes at the heart of their world view.
If it were up to me, I'd gradually tax carbon more and use the revenue to pay for alternative transportation etc...
Whiners.
Now, I know it frustrates you when I catch you in the act of doing that. Too bad, so sad.
What we "all can clearly tell" fools like you is that the TOPIC here is how the rightwing media has ignored the fact that National Security experts agree with Boxer. What "to do about it" is NOT the subject.
You are a phony, the movement is cloaked in phoniness and you know it. Because anyone can highlight a problem, but it takes brains and integrity to offer the solution.
Neither of which you have.
The topic is NOT our solutions, so when I point that out, you are so intent on derailing the thread you can't resist the need to attack the solutions I DIDN'T provide! That's hilarious.
I bet you're teed off that I caught you in the act again! Too bad, so sad.
Please don't continue to feed this troll post.
You get more hysterically ridiculous every day Sue.
I nailed the solutions, and you know it. Otherwise you'd counter them, you can't.
You crack me up!
Something tells me though that you weren't at all interested in discussing in great detail the various ideas that have been proposed to mitigate global warming. I think you just don't like the people who trying to do something about it. Now, you would rather not simply dismiss climate scientists, as your fellow deniers do, as taking that kooky position would comprimise your self-image as a detached, sensible skeptic, and you therefore are forced to find various nit-picking irrelevencies when attacking those who are trying to do something about AGW. Whether it is because because Barbera Boxer sounds vague, or that environmentalists haven't been effective enough in persuading the public, or that posters of MMFA have not presented their solutions to your satisfaction, you always find a way to attack environmentalists without actually disagreeing with them about anything.
Bottom line, it's not about Global Warming at all, it's all about Right On, and his need to feed his ego as reasonable intellectual who is above the partisan squabbles.
I know it's easier to take pot shots at me though, go for it.
Easy and fun ;-).
I'll give you credit for not being evidence-resistant, though.
The subject is how the rightwing media went against accepted science to attack Boxer!
Yet another stupid piece written by a denier that is *not* peer reviewed, and not science, supposedly undermining over 600 peer reviewed articles supporting AGW. From the abstract, the author of this stupid piece notes " the possibility that inherent variability in the earth’s non-linear climate system, and not increases in CO2, may explain observed late 20th century warming."
Really? This is the best your side can do? Johnston is lying right through his teeth (or he doesn't understand the science). That is a blatantly false statement, as has been pointed out numerous times.
Now do you have any *real* science--you know, the stuff presented in peer reviewed journals?
You figured you could cite the title above, and get away with it, didn't you, being the weasel that you are!
But you can't get away with it! How do you NOT know this yet?
Johnston works at an Ivy League law school, Penn, and here's what THEY say his expertise is...
Contracts
Environmental Law
Law and Economics
Natural Resources Law and Policy
NOT "the environment", or climate science, OR National Security issues. He has NO qualifications to run that "review" or "cross-examination". He doesn't know enough about it to say that they come to faulty conclusions or ignore contradictory evidence!
{Weasel-locating beacon off}
Wesley the weasel's sole purpose here was to derail the thread to a DIFFERENT topic from the actual one here. It must mean that this actual topic really scares him!
And that was their goal - to derail the thread by posting first on this topic, so that they could control the conversation.
It's not coincidence that it happens that way, ya know.
Almost as much fun is seeing the desperate face-saving attempts when it becomes obvious that everybody is on to their BS. You should lighten up and enjoy the show. :)
They ARE controlling the conversation.
They WANT negative attention! YOU are the one who is clueless here, thinking that what you do embarrasses them! They are thrilled to death when it devolves into something like that, and everyone KNOWS that they're making foolish comments that clearly AREN'T intended to further ANY debate, yet people STILL continue to reply to them!
They LOVE that. They LOVE that it takes people like you FOREVER to figure out that any individual troll is NEVER going to contribute here and so should simply be either shunned entirely OR should get a brief debunking, get mocked, and get a warning for others to not respond!
Maybe you missed my point; It's pretty insulting for you to tell other people they're clueless or being fooled because we don't step aside and let you lead your arbitrary anti-troll program. Everybody here knows what's going on, except for you, if you think you need to dish out instructions for others.
Lighten up, comment or ignore depending on your mood, and quit worrying about what others are doing. You have a scroll wheel on your mouse, use it.
"Scrutiny" has to come from people who KNOW THE MATERIAL. What's more, from what I see that you've posted, this clown has done nothing more that the typical RW charade of saying that because Science isn't 100% CERTAIN with COMPLETE CONSENSUS, that somehow means that the majority viewpoint is somehow wrong.
That's nonsense. Science is NEVER 100% settled. That doesn't mean that the accepted hyposthesis can simply be thrown out on a whim, whenever it suits us. Professor Johnson should lose his credentials if he thinks that's how science works.
When he has a ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESIS to explain the OBSERVED WARMING TREND that is supported by EVIDENCE and itself has withstood SCRUTINUY by the ACADEMIC COMMUNITY (not one fool doing a mock-"cross examination") THEN he can speak all he wants about the matter.
Until then, he's just a politically-biased HACK. And any SCIENCE majors who are in hsi calss should have their tuition refunded for those credits.
--------------------------------------------
Moran.\
"Scrutiny" has to come from people who KNOW THE MATERIAL. What's more, from what I see that you've posted, this clown has done nothing more that the typical RW charade of saying that because Science isn't 100% CERTAIN with COMPLETE CONSENSUS, that somehow means that the majority viewpoint is somehow wrong.
That's nonsense. Science is NEVER 100% settled. That doesn't mean that the accepted hyposthesis can simply be thrown out on a whim, whenever it suits us. Professor Johnson should lose his credentials if he thinks that's how science works.
When he has a ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESIS to explain the OBSERVED WARMING TREND that is supported by EVIDENCE and itself has withstood SCRUTINUY by the ACADEMIC COMMUNITY (not one fool doing a mock-"cross examination") THEN he can speak all he wants about the matter.
Until then, he's just a politically-biased HACK. And any SCIENCE majors who are in hsi calss should have their tuition refunded for those credits.
--------------------------------------------
Moran.\
"Scrutiny" has to come from people who KNOW THE MATERIAL. What's more, from what I see that you've posted, this clown has done nothing more that the typical RW charade of saying that because Science isn't 100% CERTAIN with COMPLETE CONSENSUS, that somehow means that the majority viewpoint is somehow wrong.
That's nonsense. Science is NEVER 100% settled. That doesn't mean that the accepted hyposthesis can simply be thrown out on a whim, whenever it suits us. Professor Johnson should lose his credentials if he thinks that's how science works.
When he has a ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESIS to explain the OBSERVED WARMING TREND that is supported by EVIDENCE and itself has withstood SCRUTINUY by the ACADEMIC COMMUNITY (not one fool doing a mock-"cross examination") THEN he can speak all he wants about the matter.
Until then, he's just a politically-biased HACK. And any SCIENCE majors who are in hsi calss should have their tuition refunded for those credits.
--------------------------------------------
Moran.\
And this from her "the leading cause of conflict, putting our troops in harm's way". What a completely moronic thing for her to say.
Put your money where your considerable mouth is Senator Boxer and be specific as to exactly how you plan to deal with your "leading cause of conflict", what legislation you are proposing, what you exactly want.
Otherwise your statements are hollow and meaningless, and any mocking you receive is well deserved.
It didn't work.
You're going to seriously tell me that the above statement is ripe with specifics?
You must be on Barbara Boxer's payroll.
Boxer's comments were stupid.
1. skim the article, misunderstand it, and disagree with it.
2. Resist all attempts by others to explain it.
3.Claim that the article was ineffective because Righton wasn't forced to understand it.
4. Offer sarcastic apologies to those not accepting that righton's comprehension problems alter reality.
And yet none of you have even bothered to defend what she said, that is quite funny. Oh well.
Are they also stooopid?
Are they are also part of the conspiracy, as a few of your brethren, mookie von zipper in particular, have insisted?
Boxer's statement may have been broad, but do you dispute anything that she said?
Who would have thought that those who think GWB was the greatest president in modern history would part ways with him on climate change?
What ever evidence might get past their internal censors. The issue still has it roots in people that they cannot take seriously, and it might possibly cause them some inconvienience down the road. Which easily negates the evidence in front of them.
I think it's his way of saying, "I may not know enough about Global Warming to dispute any of Boxer's claims, BUT I DON'T LIKE BARBERA BOXER!!!!!"
Thanks for being stupid enough to admit in public that you'll reject solid commentary because of who it comes from - that you'll attack the messenger, rather than listen to the message.
Of course, we already KNEW how full of animus you can be towards those who make your political philosophy look like nonsense! But still, thanks for owning up to it in public! Most intelligent people wouldn't do something so mind-numbingly stupid as that kind of admission, but you were so overtaken with your animus that you couldn't resist, huh?
Hurry up and pass your cap and tax bill before it's too late.
Take a lot of oil and you have a super large surface area. Think of it as sun blocker.
To grasp the concept consider the properties of shiny.
Reflectivity is what your talking about. I don't think oil reflects well, but I'll check on this.
This talks about systems used to detect oil spills.
The emissivity of microwaves from an oil slick is twice that of seawater, 0.8 versis 0.4.
A thick oil spill will appear hot in the 8 to 14 um part of the infared spectrum.
I'm willing admit that the situation is complex. I could say that the color black isn't a color. We percieve black when the surface absorbs nearly all the visible light. This is a little deeper than your arguement, but is still limited. The ability of oil to retain heat versis seawater is another part.
The information needed is to follow the trail of the band of electromagnetic radiation recieved by the two materials. From the amounts the materials are exposed to. The thickness of the oil slick can vary the amount absorbed significantly. Another complication of the situation.
Seawater evaporates in a simple manner upon exposure to heat. Oil's response to heat is complex. It has simpler molocules that will become gasious easily. On the other end complex moloclues in oil require much higher temperatures to make that phase change.
Can you say you know even the extent and type of spill in the gulf, the amounts of different wieghts of oil present and their quanities and their thermal futures, even in the near term?
I don't think so. Yet you will eagerly offer an opinion. Why?
Dark colors absorb light and radiate heat. Light colors reflect the light, much preferable from a global warming perspective.
Crude is about as non-reflective as a substance can get. In addition...
Sanders explains that the beached oil absorbs the heat from the sun and can get to 100-plus degree temperatures. When heated to that extreme level, bird experts say the oil begins to "literally cook the birds" as they get coated in it.
Is jose4 being deliberately silly ? Seriously trying to make a point ? Who knows ? It's really hard to tell with the wingnuts.
The agenda driven bloggers here don't care about science. They only care about achieving their political goals.