106 lawmakers, 11 Rep., tell Trump climate change is a national security threat

B00Mer

Make Canada Great Again
Sep 6, 2008
47,127
8,145
113
Rent Free in Your Head
www.canadianforums.ca
106 lawmakers — including 11 Republicans — tell Trump climate change is a national security threat



In a move that contradicted nearly three decades of military planning, the Trump administration in December backed away from calling climate change a national security threat.

On Friday, a bipartisan group of 106 House members sent a letter to the president asking him to reconsider.

Conspicuously absent from the National Security Strategy report released last month was any mention of climate issues critical to national security, like how extreme weather drives conflict or how rising sea levels are a looming danger for coastal military facilities.

But lawmakers in their letter to the president quoted Defense Secretary James Mattis, who said at his confirmation hearing, “The effects of a changing climate... will impact our security situation.” He added that leaving climate change out of the discussion “represents a significant step backwards on this issue and discredits those who deal in scientific fact.”

President Obama’s 2015 National Security Strategy mentioned “climate change” 13 times across 35 pages and had “Confront Climate Change” listed as a security priority.

“Climate change is an urgent and growing threat to our national security, contributing to increased natural disasters, refugee flows, and conflicts over basic resources like food and water,” according to the Obama administration report.

Trump’s report mentions “climate” four times but refers to climate change only once, to criticize how addressing it hurts fossil fuels. “Climate policies will continue to shape the global energy system. U.S. leadership is indispensable to countering an anti-growth energy agenda that is detrimental to U.S. economic and energy security interests,” it says.

The softening on climate change as a national security threat is part of an ongoing effort to dismantle climate change efforts across all government agencies. But it is at odds with the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act, which Trump signed into law earlier this month. The $700 billion law describes climate change as a “direct threat” to US national security.

The military has long considered climate change a “threat multiplier,” with assessments dating back to 1990 observing that “nearly all areas of operational effectiveness are threatened by these environmental changes should they occur.” In 2014, the US Department of Defense published a climate change adaptation road map, oblivious to the political wrangling on the issue and writing that “rising global temperatures, changing precipitation patterns, climbing sea levels, and more extreme weather events will intensify the challenges of global instability, hunger, poverty, and conflict.”

Higher oceans, for example, menace 128 military bases. A 2016 report from the Union of Concerned Scientists found that the largest naval installation in the world, Naval Station Norfolk, will face water levels that are between 4.5 feet and 7 feet higher in this century.

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-envi...ge-national-security-strategy-threat-military
 

coldstream

on dbl secret probation
Oct 19, 2005
5,160
27
48
Chillliwack, BC
Neocons. There are a lot of morons in elected office who fall for the most obvious and devious of scams.. like AGW.

Neocons.. at least the Republicans. There are a lot of morons in elected office who fall for the most obvious and devious of scams.. like AGW. But it seems the Dem morons outnumber the Repub morons by something like 10 to 1 these days.
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
148
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
Random internet bloggers, generally speaking, don't have the direct power to pass individual pieces of legislation or institute punitive global warming taxes.

How you enjoying global warming season these days?
 

Curious Cdn

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 22, 2015
37,070
8
36
Random internet bloggers, generally speaking, don't have the direct power to pass individual pieces of legislation or institute punitive global warming taxes.

How you enjoying global warming season these days?

Well, we see a lot of species around here, now that didn't live in Ontario in my Grandfather's time. We have an Opossum that visits our back yard, regularly. My Veterinarian uncle recorded the first sighting of one near here ever a half century ago.

I remember when Cardinals first turned up ... the first sighting in Montreal, Ottawa. Now, they are year-round residences. Lots of species are heading north, even tree species. I'm worried that in the future, it might be something like malaria that is now kept in check by cold winters.

It's warming up, changing noticably in my lifetime. This has been a somewhat snowy winter.it's above freezing now and it's staying that way. By say, Thursday, all of the snow is gone, again.
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
148
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
Well, we see a lot of species around here, now that didn't live in Ontario in my Grandfather's time. We have an Opossum that visits our back yard, regularly. My Veterinarian uncle recorded the first sighting of one near here ever a half century ago.

I remember when Cardinals first turned up ... the first sighting in Montreal, Ottawa. Now, they are year-round residences. Lots of species are heading north, even tree species. I'm worried that in the future, it might be something like malaria that is now kept in check by cold winters.

It's warming up, changing noticably in my lifetime. This has been a somewhat snowy winter.it's above freezing now and it's staying that way. By say, Thursday, all of the snow is gone, again.

I will wager that many generations that came before you made similar observations.

Cyclical changes occur monthly, annually, generationally (choose your own time frame).

The fundamental question here is causation. And to this ends, there is no smoking gun that conclusively supports the premise of anthropogenic GW... Lots of supposition and speculation, but no concrete proof whatsoever that indicates that humanity has the significant effects that the pro-AGW lobby states.
 

Curious Cdn

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 22, 2015
37,070
8
36
I will wager that many generations that came before you made similar observations.

Cyclical changes occur monthly, annually, generationally (choose your own time frame).

The fundamental question here is causation. And to this ends, there is no smoking gun that conclusively supports the premise of anthropogenic GW... Lots of supposition and speculation, but no concrete proof whatsoever that indicates that humanity has the significant effects that the pro-AGW lobby states.

I will wager that my Welsh and Cornish ancestors lived at the foot of the glaciers, there.

I will also wager that Florida will disappear completely over the next couple of centuries.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,340
113
Vancouver Island
106 lawmakers — including 11 Republicans — tell Trump climate change is a national security threat



In a move that contradicted nearly three decades of military planning, the Trump administration in December backed away from calling climate change a national security threat.

On Friday, a bipartisan group of 106 House members sent a letter to the president asking him to reconsider.

Conspicuously absent from the National Security Strategy report released last month was any mention of climate issues critical to national security, like how extreme weather drives conflict or how rising sea levels are a looming danger for coastal military facilities.

But lawmakers in their letter to the president quoted Defense Secretary James Mattis, who said at his confirmation hearing, “The effects of a changing climate... will impact our security situation.” He added that leaving climate change out of the discussion “represents a significant step backwards on this issue and discredits those who deal in scientific fact.”

President Obama’s 2015 National Security Strategy mentioned “climate change” 13 times across 35 pages and had “Confront Climate Change” listed as a security priority.

“Climate change is an urgent and growing threat to our national security, contributing to increased natural disasters, refugee flows, and conflicts over basic resources like food and water,” according to the Obama administration report.

Trump’s report mentions “climate” four times but refers to climate change only once, to criticize how addressing it hurts fossil fuels. “Climate policies will continue to shape the global energy system. U.S. leadership is indispensable to countering an anti-growth energy agenda that is detrimental to U.S. economic and energy security interests,” it says.

The softening on climate change as a national security threat is part of an ongoing effort to dismantle climate change efforts across all government agencies. But it is at odds with the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act, which Trump signed into law earlier this month. The $700 billion law describes climate change as a “direct threat” to US national security.

The military has long considered climate change a “threat multiplier,” with assessments dating back to 1990 observing that “nearly all areas of operational effectiveness are threatened by these environmental changes should they occur.” In 2014, the US Department of Defense published a climate change adaptation road map, oblivious to the political wrangling on the issue and writing that “rising global temperatures, changing precipitation patterns, climbing sea levels, and more extreme weather events will intensify the challenges of global instability, hunger, poverty, and conflict.”

Higher oceans, for example, menace 128 military bases. A 2016 report from the Union of Concerned Scientists found that the largest naval installation in the world, Naval Station Norfolk, will face water levels that are between 4.5 feet and 7 feet higher in this century.

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-envi...ge-national-security-strategy-threat-military

They are right to be concerned as the US does not have nearly enough ice breakers to ensure their naval ships can leave port in winter.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,340
113
Vancouver Island
Well, we see a lot of species around here, now that didn't live in Ontario in my Grandfather's time. We have an Opossum that visits our back yard, regularly. My Veterinarian uncle recorded the first sighting of one near here ever a half century ago.

I remember when Cardinals first turned up ... the first sighting in Montreal, Ottawa. Now, they are year-round residences. Lots of species are heading north, even tree species. I'm worried that in the future, it might be something like malaria that is now kept in check by cold winters.

It's warming up, changing noticably in my lifetime. This has been a somewhat snowy winter.it's above freezing now and it's staying that way. By say, Thursday, all of the snow is gone, again.

Yet the east coast of Vancouver Island is having a blizzard right now like we rarely see. I was out at 03:30 chaining up firetrucks.
 

Curious Cdn

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 22, 2015
37,070
8
36
Yet the east coast of Vancouver Island is having a blizzard right now like we rarely see. I was out at 03:30 chaining up firetrucks.

Ocean currents shifting around? The Gulf Stream seems to be moving more to the West because of warming thus making Great Britain cooler and at the same time, thawing out Greenland.
 

Jinentonix

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 6, 2015
11,619
6,262
113
Olympus Mons
Well, we see a lot of species around here, now that didn't live in Ontario in my Grandfather's time. We have an Opossum that visits our back yard, regularly. My Veterinarian uncle recorded the first sighting of one near here ever a half century ago.
Possums have been Southern Ontario as long as I can remember.

I remember when Cardinals first turned up ... the first sighting in Montreal, Ottawa. Now, they are year-round residences.
Which of course would have nothing to do with idiots feeding them. The last place I lived, all the parks with water, whether a river or pond/small lake, had sign saying, "Please do NOT feed the birds." The town was on a major migratory path and people feeding the birds were causing them to remain instead of continuing south.
It's warming up, changing noticably in my lifetime.
Yeah, and? Doesn't mean we caused it or can do anything to prevent it.
 

Jinentonix

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 6, 2015
11,619
6,262
113
Olympus Mons
Yeah, especially when you consider that 97% figure is base lie. Once again, 97% of 33% is NOT a consensus.

If I send out 100 climate surveys to scientists and only 33% respond, it doesn't matter how many of those 33 agree with the premise, it still ain't a consensus. Particularly when individuals from the other 67% claim they didn't fill out the survey because the questions were designed to lead to a pre-conceived conclusion.

Kind of like the flawed method they use to calculate volcanic output into the equation. They simply measured the output of volcanoes that are above sea level. The problem there is, those only represent about 1/1000th of the total.
Estimates state that humans put around 30Gt of CO2 into the atmosphere every year while they state that the volcanoes they measured only produce about 0.2Gt/ yr. But since those they measured only represent 1/1000th of the total, simple extrapolation shows that volcanoes (and their associated systems) generate around 200Gt of CO2/yr.
Now for those who are mathematically challenged, 30 is substantially less than 200.