About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Right-wing media disregards experts on national security threat of global warming

June 14, 2010 5:41 pm ET — 93 Comments

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."

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by wesley (June 14, 2010 5:47 pm ET)
      1 12
      The house of cards is collapsing:

      -- 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."
      Report Abuse
      • Author by txthinker (June 14, 2010 5:53 pm ET)
        11 1
        A cross examination of global warming science conducted by the University of Pennsylvania's Institute for Law and Economics has concluded....
        And just how many climatologists do they HAVE at the Institute for Law and Economics, Wesley???

        I call shenannigans.......
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Andy Kreiss (June 14, 2010 6:34 pm ET)
          5  
          That's why I always click on Climate Change threads at any website forums. For years now, any time the topic comes up, there's some cult member proudly posting the link that is going to collapse this shoddy house of cards scientists have been building for years.

          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.

          Report Abuse
      • Author by southerngal (June 14, 2010 5:57 pm ET)
        1 11
        And don't you just love the elitist politicians who looooove to tell us they are more concerned with main street than Wall Street, and then they try and peddle global warming as our most pressing national security issue?

        Try selling that baloney to main street.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by RiffRabbit (June 14, 2010 6:00 pm ET)
          8  
          As if Wall Street is concerned about global climate change or national security.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by Andy Kreiss (June 14, 2010 6:39 pm ET)
          6 1
          I'm not sure what your point is, righton. Are you saying that if we have a pressing concern that some people on Main Street don't understand, we should ignore it, or that acknowledging it shows more concern for Wall Street?

          Or were you really trying to say anything besides "elitist politicians" ?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by southerngal (June 14, 2010 6:45 pm ET)
            1 8
            I am saying that we need to get beyond the debate itself, for it is now becoming counterproductive and minds will probably not be changed on either side, barring some bombshell of sorts.

            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.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by eb (June 14, 2010 6:55 pm ET)
              8 1
              So do you agree its a problem?

              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...




              Report Abuse
              • Author by DellDolly (June 14, 2010 10:44 pm ET)
                4  
                No, he wants to change the subject, per usual, and demand that we come up with the solutions, so he can attack the solutions we suggest!
                Report Abuse
            • Author by clams casino (June 15, 2010 12:24 am ET)
              4  
              Really? You're waiting for people to start telling you what we can all do to prevent global warming? You really haven't been paying attention at all, have you?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by DellDolly (June 15, 2010 3:26 am ET)
                2 1
                Of course you know that's not what he's doing, of course!
                Report Abuse
            • Author by dwbat (June 15, 2010 7:48 am ET)
              4  
              There is a funny thing about peer reviews, thats how science is done. If I come out and say that Pluto has life, I better have the science to back it up because guess what, all of my findings will be under peer review. So we can logically deduce that if over 500 peer reviewed studies have been conducted and confirmed by scientist, there must be something behind what they are saying.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by dwbat (June 15, 2010 8:01 am ET)
                4  
                almost forgot, that comment was directed towards right on, who either has no idea about the way new science is conducted throughout the world (we no longer need the vaticans approval to say the world is round and not the center of creation), or he is engaging in willful ignorance like so many of his political persuasion are
                Report Abuse
                • Author by southerngal (June 15, 2010 11:24 am ET)
                    3
                  LOL! Not one global warming advocate, except eb, has the stones, apparently to say what they would do. But you all can clearly tell us it's a national security issue but not what to do about it, specifically?

                  Whiners.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by DellDolly (June 15, 2010 12:14 pm ET)
                    3  
                    As I have already explained elsewhere on this thread, your demand that we provide suggested solutions and the assertion that no one defended what Senator Barbara Boxer said are derailment techniques.

                    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.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by southerngal (June 15, 2010 12:17 pm ET)
                        3
                      In other words, you know your solutions will never sell, because it involves major tax increase and major control over people's lives - so you and the global warming fanatics bob and weave instead of being upfront and honest.

                      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.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by DellDolly (June 15, 2010 1:22 pm ET)
                        2  
                        In other words, as I said elsewhere on this thread, "No, he wants to change the subject, per usual, and demand that we come up with the solutions, so he can attack the solutions we suggest!"

                        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.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by southerngal (June 15, 2010 1:25 pm ET)
                            2
                          HAHAHA!! You phony. Oh, so now you are afraid to offer up the solutions because they will be attacked? HAHAHA!

                          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!
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by internet soldier (June 15, 2010 5:36 pm ET)
                            2  
                            Since you are clearly so thirsty for a wonkish discussion of climate policy, here's my solution to Global Warming, other solutions may differ: I support a hodge-podge of measures; combination of Solar energy where possible, wind energy where possible, nuclear where possible, strict fuel mileage standards and generally having government actively encouraging and where need be, enforcing, more efficient energy use methods (I know, I'm such a stalinist), and I would greatly increase funding for research into alternatives to oil and coal. Though it would take a level of national commitment and sacrifice not seen since WWII, it is possible to develop sustainable national energy use practices.

                            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.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by southerngal (June 15, 2010 5:53 pm ET)
                                1
                              Why are policy specifics so difficult for liberals to lay out? You gave me some, it's a start to begin to have a constructive dialogue on the merits of your proposals, I'll give you that. That is where the debate should be now, on what is being proposed to combat global warming, specifically by proponents. From there it's the merits and the pros and cons.

                              I know it's easier to take pot shots at me though, go for it.
                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by internet soldier (June 15, 2010 6:03 pm ET)
                                   
                                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.
                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by southerngal (June 15, 2010 6:16 pm ET)
                                    1
                                  I have never once said that global warming is a hoax, what I have said is that it will be argued forever, it's pointless, so let's move from that and on to what the proponents want, legislation, regulations, etc. Details.
                                  Report Abuse
                              • Author by DellDolly (June 16, 2010 1:42 am ET)
                                   
                                Again, OUR SOLUTIONS for global warming are NOT the subject here.

                                The subject is how the rightwing media went against accepted science to attack Boxer!
                                Report Abuse
      • Author by funnymanpants (June 14, 2010 9:51 pm ET)
        4  
        >>The house of cards is collapsing:

        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?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by pete592 (June 14, 2010 10:32 pm ET)
        4  
        Wow, that's really great Wesley. The next time I want to know more about the law or about economics, I'll consult a climate scientist.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by wesley (June 15, 2010 12:20 am ET)
            4
          (braille tag on) 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 (braille tag off)
          Report Abuse
          • Author by pete592 (June 15, 2010 3:02 am ET)
            4  
            The next time I want to know more about the law or about economics, I'll consult a climate scientist who watches Law & Order and CNBC in his spare time.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by DellDolly (June 15, 2010 3:48 am ET)
            4  
            {Weasel-locating beacon on} He's familiar with ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, not climate studies, you weasel.

            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!
            Report Abuse
      • Author by DellDolly (June 15, 2010 3:25 am ET)
        3 2
        I hope everyone notices that neither Wesley nor RightON actually discussed the actual topic here - that the rightwing has to IGNORE national security experts who agree with Senator Barbara Boxer in order to attack her stance on global warming being a major national security potential threat.

        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.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Andy Kreiss (June 15, 2010 7:18 pm ET)
            1
          Dell, if you think they're "controlling the conversation", you're not in on the joke. Some of just enjoy seeing how hard they'll contort to pretend to be on topic.

          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. :)
          Report Abuse
          • Author by DellDolly (June 16, 2010 1:46 am ET)
              1
            Nope, you're 100% wrong.

            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!

            Report Abuse
            • Author by Andy Kreiss (June 16, 2010 10:22 am ET)
              1  
              Speak for yourself, DD. If you think you need to issue warnings, or that they gain something by making fools of themselves, they may be "controlling" you, but the rest of us are just playing with them.

              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.
              Report Abuse
      • Author by NiceguyEddie (June 15, 2010 4:38 pm ET)
        1  
        They day I ask a Law Professor about his opinion about CLIMATE CHANGE is the day I'll ask Climatologist for LEGAL ADVICE.

        "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.\
        Report Abuse
        • Author by DellDolly (June 16, 2010 1:49 am ET)
            1
          What these people who THINK they can simply debunk beliefs about global climate change don't understand that the underlying science is build like a pyramid. It's not simply ONE brick stacked upon another and then another - it's a massive stack of bricks upon bricks that are built upon each other in a stable and logical fashion.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by NiceguyEddie (June 15, 2010 4:39 pm ET)
           
        They day I ask a Law Professor about his opinion about CLIMATE CHANGE is the day I'll ask Climatologist for LEGAL ADVICE.

        "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.\
        Report Abuse
      • Author by NiceguyEddie (June 15, 2010 4:39 pm ET)
           
        They day I ask a Law Professor about his opinion about CLIMATE CHANGE is the day I'll ask Climatologist for LEGAL ADVICE.

        "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.\
        Report Abuse
    • Author by southerngal (June 14, 2010 5:53 pm ET)
      2 10
      Right wing media is right. Boxer's comments deserved to be mocked, they are stupid. Exactly, they are nothing but vague useless generalities meant to appeal to some level of emotion but devoid of any substance.

      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.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by RiffRabbit (June 14, 2010 5:59 pm ET)
        6 1
        Did you read the MMFA article?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by southerngal (June 14, 2010 6:00 pm ET)
          1 8
          If you're only here to rubber stamp it, not necessary. I read it. Boxer's comments were stupid. I said that already.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by RiffRabbit (June 14, 2010 6:04 pm ET)
            8 1
            I'm not just here to rubber stamp it. It's just that the article lists various groups and individuals expressing similar concerns. My point is, are all of their concerns stupid?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by southerngal (June 14, 2010 6:07 pm ET)
              1 8
              Those reports are somehow meant to backup the nonsense from Boxer, according to MMfA, so you decide for yourself.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by RiffRabbit (June 14, 2010 6:08 pm ET)
                8 1
                Are you suggesting that all of these people said these things just to back up Boxer?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by southerngal (June 14, 2010 6:15 pm ET)
                  1 8
                  Huh? I don't think you read the article here. Let me walk you through it. MMfA tries to cushion Boxer's nonsense, so they find others in the past who vaguely suggest what she did - to make her look more credible.

                  It didn't work.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by RiffRabbit (June 14, 2010 6:23 pm ET)
                    10 1
                    How is it vague? You're not making any sense.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by southerngal (June 14, 2010 6:26 pm ET)
                      1 9
                      "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"

                      You're going to seriously tell me that the above statement is ripe with specifics?

                      You must be on Barbara Boxer's payroll.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by RiffRabbit (June 14, 2010 6:30 pm ET)
                        6 1
                        Pardon my lack of clarification. I was referring to the comments from other people, how they are not "vaguely similar", they are more similar than that.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by southerngal (June 14, 2010 6:33 pm ET)
                          1 8
                          I have answered your questions, if they are not to your satisfaction, sorry. My original comments are clarification enough, if not for you, sorry.

                          Boxer's comments were stupid.
                          Report Abuse
                        • Author by Andy Kreiss (June 14, 2010 6:45 pm ET)
                          11 1
                          You were perfectly clear, riffrabbit. If you haven't met Righton, this is his/her M.O.;

                          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.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by southerngal (June 14, 2010 6:48 pm ET)
                            1 8
                            No, I don't swallow politician's nonsense hook line and sinker. You do, fine. I don't.

                            And yet none of you have even bothered to defend what she said, that is quite funny. Oh well.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by RiffRabbit (June 14, 2010 6:55 pm ET)
                              6 1
                              Again, various references called climate change a military/national security threat. And in any case, I find it "quite funny" that you think I accept everything politicians say. You must not know much about me at all.
                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by Andy Kreiss (June 14, 2010 7:01 pm ET)
                                6 1
                                Was that hook, line and sinker thing directed at you or me ? It sometimes hard to tell who the rightys are talking to, what with everything they're arguing about and accusing others of being made up in their heads and all.

                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by RiffRabbit (June 14, 2010 7:12 pm ET)
                                  5 1
                                  I don't know, Andy. I assumed it was both to me and the people trying to back me up.
                                  Report Abuse
                            • Author by internet soldier (June 14, 2010 7:38 pm ET)
                              4 1
                              Right On, the pentagon and the CIA has global warming a grave threat to U.S. national security.

                              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?
                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by cugagcmu805031 (June 14, 2010 8:54 pm ET)
                                3  
                                I wonder whether RightOn realizes that many of these studies were ordered by G. W. Bush?

                                Who would have thought that those who think GWB was the greatest president in modern history would part ways with him on climate change?
                                Report Abuse
                            • Author by DellDolly (June 14, 2010 10:47 pm ET)
                              3  
                              THE EXPERTS concurrence with what she said defends what she said just fine, doofus. Do you think we somehow MISSED that MMFA documented that her statements were sound and well grounded and accurate? I swear, get a freakin' clue!
                              Report Abuse
                      • Author by raddave43 (June 14, 2010 7:00 pm ET)
                        6 1
                        Well, if she indeed put on the record a host of quotes from national security experts backing up her claim then she was not being vague or stupid in the least. Now if she had taken the wingnut approach and just said "climate change will be over the next 20 years the leading cause of conflicts..." Then you could claim she was being stupid and vague.
                        Report Abuse
                    • Author by eweston8542983 (June 14, 2010 6:43 pm ET)
                      6  
                      Don't look for any sense on this issue from RO or BH.

                      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.

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by southerngal (June 14, 2010 6:47 pm ET)
                        2 8
                        The day I look to Barbara Boxer for anything beyond political double speak and rhetorical baloney, is the day hell freezes over, aka big time global cooling.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by Andy Kreiss (June 14, 2010 6:52 pm ET)
                          7 1
                          Talk about saying nothing. Why don't you just admit you were confused by the item, and move on with your life?
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by internet soldier (June 14, 2010 8:06 pm ET)
                            7 1
                            In vintage Right ON fashion, he came to tell us all not that he disagreed with anything Boxer said, but that she sounded very vague, and how unforgivable her poor delivery was. This way he can attack Boxer without addressing whether or not her claims are true.

                            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!!!!!"
                            Report Abuse
                        • Author by eb (June 14, 2010 6:57 pm ET)
                          7 1
                          So she is not allowed to quote national security experts who are concerned, without being accused of talking like Glen Beck?
                          Report Abuse
                        • Author by DellDolly (June 15, 2010 3:54 am ET)
                          4 1
                          RightON wrote "The day I look to Barbara Boxer for anything beyond political double speak and rhetorical baloney, is the day hell freezes over, aka big time global cooling."

                          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?
                          Report Abuse
      • Author by boulderhippy (June 14, 2010 6:12 pm ET)
        1 9
        Her statements actually made very good sense. When people get too hot they become a little cranky.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by pete592 (June 14, 2010 10:45 pm ET)
        3  
        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.
        Are you suggesting that within this sentence fragment, Boxer was saying that putting our troops in harm's way is the leading cause of conflict?

        Report Abuse
    • Author by alienofwar (June 14, 2010 6:48 pm ET)
      8 1
      I wonder what Deniers think about all the floods that have been happening lately? Funny how they made such a big deal about the D.C snow storm and yet are so quiet about the extra precipitation we have been having. Climate change may not have directly caused these abnormal weather events, but as the Earth gets warmer, we will see more and more of this happening.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by cugagcmu805031 (June 14, 2010 9:02 pm ET)
        4 1
        It is not summer yet, and the temperature here in GA has been over 100 ( 105 in my area yesterday) for over a week. I don't ever recall it being this hot before summer sets in. A 29 y/o died in TN over the weekend, probably due to a heat stroke. I'm surrounded by climate change deniers who won't believe in cc until the sun begins setting fire to their rooftops, yet they've been complaining about the heat lately. They seem unable to make a connection between the unusual high Spring temperatures and cc.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Jose4 (June 14, 2010 8:39 pm ET)
      1 6
      There is a good possibility that the oil leak in the Gulf is going to cause significant global cooling.

      Hurry up and pass your cap and tax bill before it's too late.





      Report Abuse
      • Author by RiffRabbit (June 14, 2010 9:11 pm ET)
        4  
        What makes you say that?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Jose4 (June 14, 2010 9:17 pm ET)
            5
          The oil will reflect the heat back into the atmosphere.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by RiffRabbit (June 14, 2010 9:31 pm ET)
            3  
            I'm kind of skeptical that it change much in the climate, although this is an environmental nightmare.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by RiffRabbit (June 14, 2010 9:32 pm ET)
              2  
              Willchange much, my mistake.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Jose4 (June 14, 2010 9:37 pm ET)
                1 5
                An interesting property of oil is it can thin out to one molecule thick. This allows a little bit of oil to cover a large surface area.

                Take a lot of oil and you have a super large surface area. Think of it as sun blocker.

                Report Abuse
          • Author by raddave43 (June 14, 2010 9:36 pm ET)
            3  
            Oil is darker in color than water and will absorb more heat than water. Therefore, it can raise the water temps in the gulf.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Jose4 (June 14, 2010 9:38 pm ET)
              1 5
              Silver is the best known reflector and it isn't white.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by raddave43 (June 14, 2010 9:43 pm ET)
                5  
                Silver is lighter in color than oil.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Jose4 (June 14, 2010 9:47 pm ET)
                    5
                  Yes, oil is not as good of a reflector as silver. However it is a much better reflector than water.

                  To grasp the concept consider the properties of shiny.

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by eweston8542983 (June 14, 2010 10:01 pm ET)
                    3  
                    It will hold more heat in the water. Causing more evaporation of water. pumping energy into the atmosphere. Increasing the energy of storms that pass through the area.

                    Reflectivity is what your talking about. I don't think oil reflects well, but I'll check on this.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by eweston8542983 (June 14, 2010 10:45 pm ET)
                      4  
                      Depending upon the wavelenths your looking at, an oil slick will reflect more or less than seawater.
                      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.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by Jose4 (June 15, 2010 9:14 am ET)
                          4
                        Do you have a reference for your data?

                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by Jose4 (June 15, 2010 9:17 am ET)
                          5
                        I think your numbers support my assertion. Appearing 'hot' implies that it is being reflected.

                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by eweston8542983 (June 15, 2010 10:34 am ET)
                          2  
                          Appearing hot probably means it is hotter than the surrounding (sea water) material.

                          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?
                          Report Abuse
                        • Author by raddave43 (June 15, 2010 11:18 am ET)
                          2  
                          It appears hotter because it absorbs heat and becomes "hot"
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by Jose4 (June 17, 2010 9:32 am ET)
                              1
                            Wrong, it appears hotter because it is radiating more heat.

                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by Disputed Zone (June 17, 2010 3:56 pm ET)
                              1  
                              No, you're completely wrong. Comically wrong.

                              Dark colors absorb light and radiate heat. Light colors reflect the light, much preferable from a global warming perspective.
                              Report Abuse
              • Author by raddave43 (June 14, 2010 9:57 pm ET)
                3  
                Actually snow is the best reflector. Reflecting between 80-90% of light.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by pete592 (June 14, 2010 10:57 pm ET)
                  5  
                  Hmmm... do ya think maybe that's one thing that makes glaciers, ice sheets and polar caps important? </sarc>
                  Report Abuse
          • Author by pete592 (June 14, 2010 10:51 pm ET)
            5  
            "The oil will reflect the heat back into the atmosphere."
            LMFAO!!!! OMG!!! Where do these people come from???

            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.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by raddave43 (June 15, 2010 12:03 am ET)
              3  
              Maybe that's why oils were used to tan the skin, but isn't used to block the sun?
              Report Abuse
            • Author by Andy Kreiss (June 15, 2010 10:27 am ET)
              3  
              Once again, a right wing poster volunteers to validate the existence of Poe's Law.

              Is jose4 being deliberately silly ? Seriously trying to make a point ? Who knows ? It's really hard to tell with the wingnuts.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Jose4 (June 17, 2010 9:43 am ET)
                  1
                The only intelligent person I found here is eweston8542983 who said it is a "complex situation."

                The agenda driven bloggers here don't care about science. They only care about achieving their political goals.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by Disputed Zone (June 17, 2010 4:04 pm ET)
                  1  
                  You have shown that you have an agenda and absolutely no understanding of basic science. Anybody other than a wingnut troll would be too embarrassed to show their face here again after being as completely and stubbornly wrong as you have been on this thread.
                  Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.