Jumping the shark: Climate change a national security threat

Wow, this is thick. What next? Climate research becoming classified?

Panetta: Climate change a national security threat

by Joel Gehrke Commentary Staff Writer for the Washington Examiner – Beltway Confidential

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta declared global warming a national security threat yesterday during a speech before an environmentalist group in Washington, D.C.

“The area of climate change has a dramatic impact on national security,” Panetta told the Environmental Defense Fund last night. “Rising sea levels, severe droughts, the melting of the polar caps, the more frequent and devastating natural disasters all raise demand for humanitarian assistance and disaster relief.”

The Defense Secretary must have missed Examiner Columnist Mona Charen’s recent piece on how symbols of global warming aren’t working out the way environmentalists predicted.

For instance, The United Nations climate change panel “admitted that the melting Himalayas prediction was not based on science but on a 1999 media interview given by one scientist,” Charen observed.  “They said they regretted the error. Now, a study in nature, based on satellite imagery, has shown that some melting of lower altitude glaciers is taking place but that higher glaciers have been adding ice.”

With reference to the story of an apparently-marooned polar bear floating on an ice floe — puzzling, as polar bears can swim for hundreds of miles — Charen cited a new Canadian study showing that the polar bear population is on the rise.

“Oh, and the scientist for the Department of the Interior whose 2004 work on drowning polar bears inspired Al Gore and others [had been] placed on administrative leave for unspecified wrongdoing,” she added.*

*But is now reinstated

Yeah, national security threat. That’s the ticket.

h/t to Dr. Leif Svalgaard

About these ads

94 thoughts on “Jumping the shark: Climate change a national security threat

  1. The Climate Sedition Act criminalizes climate dissent, including not only blogs but also any actual data, measurements, or scientific arguments against the fragile consensus of climate danger to national security. Any thermometer reading lower than airports will be dismantled. Any sea-level gauges not showing flooding will be removed and model data substituted.

  2. The military has been pushing this idiocy for a while.

    Still, I love to watch every step up the Stairway To Insanity. The higher they climb, the farther they’ll fall when the money finally runs out and careerism no longer keeps the “experts” in line. Splat!

  3. If Global Warming is truly a National Security Threat, maybe should fire nuclear missiles at until it’s dead and we have Nuclear Winter!

    There. Problem solved.

    - MJM

  4. National security. Because as central America and Mexico turn into deserts, their entire populations will migrate north and cause an intolerable burden on America … oh … hmmm … they already did …

  5. This is scary stuff when a Defense Secretary can be brainwashed this easily…it just proves the liberal propaganda machine has been very effective in pushing this virulent strain of pseudo-science.

  6. He has occupied so many different government positions he has forgotten he is Secretary of Defense.

  7. Hand in glove with that “10 year plan” to finance anti-skeptic propaganda with taxpayer money. If the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, what more excuse would they need to criminalize climate skepticism? It’s a national security threat.

    The government’s really looking to move here. Too much popular opinion against them to succeed at this point, but it will have been a near escape.

  8. President Obama made May 1st “Loyalty Day.”

    In order to recognize the American spirit of loyalty and the sacrifices that so many have made for our Nation, the Congress, by Public Law 85-529 as amended, has designated May 1 of each year as “Loyalty Day.” On this day, let us reaffirm our allegiance to the United States of America, our Constitution, and our founding values.

    NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim May 1, 2012, as Loyalty Day. This Loyalty Day, I call upon all the people of the United States to join in support of this national observance, whether by displaying the flag of the United States or pledging allegiance to the Republic for which it stands.

    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this first day of May, in the year of our Lord two thousand twelve, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-sixth.

    I’m sure Panetta got the memo, understood what reaffirming allegiance meant, saluted, and spewed what the boss wanted.

  9. I argue that a modern Space Race is taking place between NASA scientists (read: James Hansen and Co.) and Russian space scientists (read: Abdussamatov and Co.) in Don’t Sell Your Coat with Abdussamatov saying “worry about cold” and Hansen saying “worry about warm.” Each team of space scientists is backed by its respective commander in chief (fossil-fuel bashing Obama, on the one hand and fossil-fuel-accumulating Putin, on the other). If I were allowed to brief Panetta, I would let him know that he is on the wrong side of the science and the wrong side of the energy debate and is compromising my nation’s security with his beliefs. So, yes, climate change is a threat to national security, in that sense.

    If I thought sending him my book would help, I would. DSYC has been the No. 1 Climatology book on Amazon for most of the last 5 weeks, and if you think that’s a sales pitch, you’re right.

  10. Of course he is so worried about climate change that he burns up fuel flying excessively

    “Defense Secretary Racks Up $860,000 In Commuting Costs

    WASHINGTON — It’s turning out to be a costly commute home for Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.

    The Pentagon chief has traveled on military aircraft to his home in northern California more than two dozen times since he took the defense post in July – trips that have cost the government about $32,000 each.

    Panetta, in turn, has reimbursed the government about $630 per roundtrip for the personal flights, based on longstanding formulas dictated by federal policies.

    The totals detailed by defense officials lay out his reimbursements for the first time, showing that as of March 19, Panetta had written checks to the Treasury totaling about $17,000 for 27 roundtrip flights. The total cost to the Pentagon is as much as $860,000 based on average fuel and operating costs for his Air Force planes”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/06/defense-secretary-commuting-leon-panetta_n_1407923.html

  11. For precisely what reason was the Defense Secretary addressing the Environmental Defense fund in the first place? Would he also like to talk about National Health in relationship to our defense needs? I’m certain there’s a group of doctors who might want some consideration given to them too. But I shouldn’t be sarcastic. Who knows, solutions to AGW just might bolster national security. If some hostile fighter jets from Hugo Chavez manage to penetrate our airspace we could maybe chop them up with those wind turbines.

  12. Don’t read too much into this.

    We are now officially in election year mode. Consider the audience Panetta was addressing. His boss knows that he needs the greenies to both come out and vote and to provide campaign support. He also recognizes that his record to date hasn’t exactly satisfied these folks. They still consider his support of nuclear power as a betrayal and even on Keystone they think he was slow to act and know that it is only a temporary measure – i.e. Keystone is not dead.

    Panetta is telling people what they want to hear. Doesn’t mean he believes it.

  13. tolo4zero says:
    May 3, 2012 at 5:26 pm

    Of course he is so worried about climate change that he burns up fuel flying excessively

    Those charges are just rounded-off. That $860,000 probably includes $34.34 per flight for the carbon offsets he bought.

  14. Maybe Secretary Panetta can send some of that global warming to Oregon. We need it!

  15. Panetta Presumes to Protect US from Proper Physics….

    “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scrondrel”….Sammuel Johnson, Apr 7, 1775….
    [including Faux Patriots efforts at forced re-education to dumbed-down AGW compliance]….

  16. IF you swallow the extreme end, the CAGW, then the security threat is real. Just as the shut-down of coal plants is reasonable. Of course, if over-population is going to destroy the biosphere, and you truly, truly believe that, then the 12 Monkeys Solution, spreading a human-only pathogen like a mutated H5N1 (read about today) makes not perfect sense but an absolute priority.

    This is the true danger of Gore, Hansen, Strong and Suzuki. If you believe them to be reasonable people facing a real, inevitable problem with CO2, then global, authoritarian management with dire social, political and economic consequences are what must, not should, occur.

    When a man points a gun at your head, you are allowed, nay encouraged, to do what is necessary to survive. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are portrayed by these four rascals as the same as the man and his gun. In our countries we have turned over responsibilities for dealing with the gun and man to self-authorizing agencies. This is a frightening situation.

    The four have indirect power and should have the accountability that comes with holding power – great power, great responsibility, right? So far we see only one side of that coin.

    The skeptics have great social reason to fight back against CAGW. Scary, very scary.

  17. Climate change could indeed be a major national security issue if it gets colder. A Russia and a China and a US with failed crops would not present a rosy world picture. Now couple that with a situation where interest on the national debt is larger than the entire defense budget and you start to see the situation we could be in somewhere around 2017. An agitated, hungry world and we can’t afford a military. Not a comforting thought.

  18. Weather has been a significant concern for the military since before Hannibal attacked Rome. It’s why we have “all weather” combat capability in aircraft and other technology and specialized training for troops (desert, arctic, tropic, etc.). Don’t get your panties in a knot about it. We got it covered. Also you might like to search on “Climate” here http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/ to get an idea what the big brains at the US Army War College think about it.

    Panetta is just sucking up to Obama.

  19. Wow, this is thick.

    Clever, even subtle, actually.

    What next? Climate research becoming classified?

    And FOI that, you deniers, you!

  20. Leon Panchetta declares that Climate Change is a national security threat, eh? I concur!

    The billions of dollars wasted on this false hypothesis threatens the US in manifold ways. It distracts critical focus from real threats. It diverts billions desperately needed to rebuild our aging Navy, AirForce, over worked Marines, and excessively deployed National Guard. Our defense infrastructure is on the cusp of being met and surpassed in many areas by China. Within 5 years, we will be ‘playing from behind’. If this was not the deliberate desire of the Obama administration, it surely has been the direct effect.

    We must act now, with alacrity, to ensure the end of Obamanation this November and retirement of Leon Panchetta to the Environmental Defense Fund or similar, where his global ‘strategery’ thinking will be better appreciated.

  21. Weather has been a significant concern for the military since before Hannibal attacked Rome.

    Yep, weather and wealth. Hannibal was able to field an army for the better part of two decades without financial support from Carthage because he had control of the silver mines on the Iberian peninsula. Before Rome attacked Carthage, they attacked Spain and took control of those mines. But bad weather can also save a nation as China learned during a certain ill-fated attempt to attack Japan.

    But if you look at the LIA, it was generally a period of protracted conflict.

  22. Obama can’t say anything about AGW during the election. But he has to have some way to pander to his groupthink panderers. So he rolls out Panetta to sell the repackaged product. Another great soldier. Forward!

    They’ve got to be running out of ways to repackage this worn out product? Doesn’t he know that there is a reason to wrap dead fish in old newspapers and throw them out?

  23. evanmjones says:
    May 3, 2012 at 6:27 pm

    Beat me to it, classified data is not FOI able so they create whatever data they want without having to share it.

  24. “Wow, this is thick. What next? Climate research becoming classified?”
    I can think of one Mann that thinks it already is.

  25. Of course the Russian threat made yesterday to stage pre-emptive strikes on NATO anti missile battery sites in eastern Europe evidently isn’t a threat compared to climate changing as it has for billions of years.

    Panetta may not have bothered reading the news.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/3/russia-threatens-strike-nato-missile-defense-sites.

    Russia’s top military officer warned Thursday that Moscow would strike NATO missile-defense sites in Eastern Europe before they are ready for action, if the U.S. pushes ahead with deployment.

    “A decision to use destructive force pre-emptively will be taken if the situation worsens,” Russian Chief of General Staff Nikolai Makarov said at an international missile-defense conference in Moscow attended by senior U.S. and NATO officials.

    Gen. Makarov made the threat amid an apparent stalemate in talks between U.S. and Russian negotiators over the missile-defense system, part of President Obama’s policy to “reset” relations with Moscow. The threat also elicited shock and derision from Western missile-defense analysts.

  26. Did Panetta ask the UN for permission to fight back against Climate Change already?

  27. Given that the threat of climate change has been elevated by my former congressmen to a National Security Threat- I think it’s time to fight the problem with a National (we in CA have paid enough already to go it alone) Value Added TAX on all offending sources of energy. I recommend the funds from the VAT be spent like this: 1) mitigation 25%, 2) adaption 50%, 3) a new administrative body’s overhead costs to make sure 1) and 2 are fairly, equitably and sustainably administrated. I leave the % VAT to someone else to figure out.

    PS After a bit of reflection I think something like 50% of the VAT fees that are generated from folks in CA should be sent back the the residents of the state to help pay for what we have already done for the cause.

  28. I’ve let it be known that I don’t not like how the terror alert system was used to scare people. So I’m surely not a fan of these tactics.

  29. Curiousgeorge says:
    May 3, 2012 at 6:11 pm

    Weather has been a significant concern for the military since before Hannibal attacked Rome. It’s why we have “all weather” combat capability in aircraft and other technology and specialized training for troops (desert, arctic, tropic, etc.). Don’t get your panties in a knot about it. We got it covered. Also you might like to search on “Climate” here http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/ to get an idea what the big brains at the US Army War College think about it.
    _______________________________
    The Military always has to be careful what they say in public. What is said in private is an entirely different matter. (Ex Army Wife)

  30. If Climate change is a national security threat, does that make mike Mann’s E-mails classified and therefore not subject to FOIA?

    I would not put that move past these money grubbers.

  31. If they do classify weather, sorry,climate change, as a national security threat then that might be a good moment to release the Climategate III emails…

  32. If climate change is a national security threat requiring some response by the military does that mean that Obama will be instituting a plan to have the military round up all of us deniers and ship us off to climate change death camps?

    Perhaps I am not clear on what exactly the military is planning to do to “fight” the climate. Maybe Obama can tell us more about just what his administration is thinking with this announcement.

  33. Curiousgeorge says:
    May 3, 2012 at 6:11 pm
    Weather has been a significant concern for the military since before Hannibal attacked Rome. It’s why we have “all weather” combat capability in aircraft and other technology and specialized training for troops (desert, arctic, tropic, etc.). Don’t get your panties in a knot about it. We got it covered. Also you might like to search on “Climate” here http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/ to get an idea what the big brains at the US Army War College think about it.

    Panetta is just sucking up to Obama.
    ==========================================
    They call them weather “fronts” because the roots of the weather service is in the theory that sickness that might effect an army was due to “bad air”. I forget his name, but one of the pioneers in weather forecasting was doing his work for the military. (French?) He pictured warm air battling cold air. Where they met was a “front”. Panetta sounds like he’s not talking about how weather might impact our troops but rather that warm air and cold air will actually be attacking our nation.

  34. This blog item is quite symptomatic of a much larger issue, no?

    . WUWT TV would be a great place to elaborate on this subject :)

  35. multiple choice question for our fearless leaders.

    12.500 years ago the Chicago area was:

    A) Delightful
    B) A swamp in need of draining
    C) Future home of the most corrupt city in the country
    D) Being scoured by a mile thick glacier, moving south-southwest

  36. Their conflation of science with philosophy is beginning to impinge upon reality.

    I wonder what they think about dilution of the American culture through uninhibited immigration policies and unmeasured illegal immigration. Surely they would consider that to be a national security threat. Well, perhaps not in a democratic republic. With a minority position, they need leverage to consolidate wealth and power.

    Yeah, it’s off-topic; but, far less than their corruption.

  37. tolo4zero says:
    May 3, 2012 at 5:26 pm

    Of course he is so worried about climate change that he burns up fuel flying excessively…

    Look, I understand the outrage. But this is a legitimate taxpayer expense. I want the leader of the defense of the free world to be comfortable and inconvenienced. Don’t you?
    I’m not arguing against the false claim of “climate change” being a “national security threat”. Far from it. But that those imbued with the power and responsibility of defending the free world being accused of hypocrisy because they live within the bubble their positions impose is unfair.

  38. What and when will the next false claim be a national security threat? When will we give up a little more freedom on a precautionary principle ideologiclly and agenda driven?

  39. TomB says:
    May 3, 2012 at 8:46 pm

    tolo4zero says:
    May 3, 2012 at 5:26 pm

    Of course he is so worried about climate change that he burns up fuel flying excessively…

    Look, I understand the outrage. But this is a legitimate taxpayer expense. I want the leader of the defense of the free world to be comfortable and inconvenienced. Don’t you?
    I’m not arguing against the false claim of “climate change” being a “national security threat”. Far from it. But that those imbued with the power and responsibility of defending the free world being accused of hypocrisy because they live within the bubble their positions impose is unfair.

    He may be cutting back. Recently he explained:

    1) The inflight movie got pretty old. I think I’d seen the Avengers 3 or 4 times.
    2) You know that famous briefing in my office, when we captured Osama bin Laden? They had to photoshop me into that picture. (laughing) I was on my way back to my ranch to handle some pecan issues.
    3) I actually get better reception on my cell at 40,000 feet. If there ever were a national emergency, where would you rather I be? (laughing)

  40. before Obama appointed him to the CIA in 2009.

    18 Nov 2008: UCTV: Leon Panetta Addresses Global Climate Summit
    Former White House Chief of Staff and co-chair of the Joint Ocean Commission addresses Governors’ Global Climate Summit…

    http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.aspx?showID=15707

    plenty of videos in this one, including ones featuring Vice Admiral Lee Gunn, U.S. Navy (ret.) who goes around the US with Rear Admiral Neil Morisetti CB, who is currently the United Kingdom’s Climate and Energy Security Envoy, trying to get Republicans back on board the CAGW gravy train:

    2012 NCSE Conference: Environment & Security

    http://www.environmentandsecurity.org/

  41. >>
    NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim May 1, 2012, as Loyalty Day. This Loyalty Day, I call upon all the people of the United States to join in support of this national observance, whether by displaying the flag of the United States or pledging allegiance to the Republic for which it stands.
    >>

    Hey, I missed that one. Makes sense though, no one has a job any more so no sense in having “Labor Day”. Just wave a flag instead, that’ll fix it.

    Mr. Pres, on the subject of the Republic , can we have our constitution back please ?

  42. >> Climate research becoming classified?

    After the malfeasance of CRU they have had responsibility for archiving the land temperature record transfered to the Met. Office.

    M.O. is part of UK ministry of defense, hence immune from FIOA.

  43. Over 8 years ago, the Vancouver Sun published an article stating that the Pentagon considered Climate Change a national threat (or as the Vancouver Sun headline puts it: End Of The World As We Know It – Pentagon Style | Facing A World Of Fire And Ice):

    “Frozen countries, massive famine, shattered economies — even nuclear war — as a result of climate change. More doom and gloom from eco-radicals? Nope, this is the Pentagon speaking.”

    http://www.rense.com/general49/end.htm

  44. So so-called Global Warming is now a “security threat” —that’s scary. Maybe that’s why the American Army is being withdrawn from Afghanistan—so it can go to war pacifying nature.

    I read Panetta’s speech as a prelimary position—a budget positional move or stake out. If it’s election year, any new government needs as much misinformation as possible before the election to influence their budget(s) once they own the Treasury. The organ grinding is under way…

  45. Why is the Defence Secretary talking to the Enviromental Defence Fund in the first place. SHouldn’t he be talking to Congress, his troops, or something?

  46. P. Solar says:
    May 3, 2012 at 10:49 pm

    M.O. is part of UK ministry of defense, hence immune from FIOA.

    No it isn’t. From their own website (here):-

    We are a Trading Fund within the Department for Business Innovation and Skills, operating on a commercial basis under set targets. Our targets are verified and publicised in this section.

    AFAIK they are not exempt from FOI.

  47. @ G R Dukes says:
    May 3, 2012 at 8:27 pm

    SecDef is not the military.

    Especially not Panetta. He spent 2 years (64-’66) as a shavetail Lt. in Army Intel. Panetta is a politician, and a suck up, plain and simple. Sort of a hood ornament. Anybody interested should look up his bio.

  48. We may laugh, but isn’t the defense secretary declaring climate change a national security issue only a few steps away from “deniers” being treated as terrorists?

  49. Leon Panetta is no more qualifed to be Sec. of Defense than you or me, the man is a flat out politician for life and a civil rights lawyer, not a former military man or international relations scholar.

  50. garymount says:
    May 4, 2012 at 12:49 am

    Over 8 years ago, the Vancouver Sun published an article stating that the Pentagon considered Climate Change a national threat (or as the Vancouver Sun headline puts it: End Of The World As We Know It – Pentagon Style | Facing A World Of Fire And Ice):

    “Frozen countries, massive famine, shattered economies — even nuclear war — as a result of climate change. More doom and gloom from eco-radicals? Nope, this is the Pentagon speaking.”

    http://www.rense.com/general49/end.htm

    Firstly, the article is now hosted on ‘rense’ (literally: Jeff Rense); not a very reputable source (somewhere behind Alex Jones in terms of ‘reliability’) so I wonder if any parts were added or modified. One should really only accept screenshots or photos of articles from these guys.

    Secondly, this was part of ‘contingency planning’ study for a worst-case scenario but magnified through the lens of a conspiratorialists ™ (e.g. The Sun article writer and the rense website):

    On the orders of Andrew Marshall, one of the U.S. government’s most influential defence advisers (he was … responsible for a sweeping strategic review of the military under … Secretary … Rumsfeld), two respected senior consultants prepared a study of the threat to national security posed by climate change.

    Note: Not actual DOD (i.e. not the Pentagon) but rather consultants to (hired by) the DOD.

    .Its authors … Peter Schwartz is a Central Intelligence Agency consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group. Doug Randall is from the California-based Global Business Network.

    The ‘study’ amounts to an extrapolation of the worst-case scenario envisioned in the minds of ‘fiction writers’ … that could be loosely translated into ‘Hollywood screenplay writers” … the ‘study’ goes into ‘detail’ since some of the Pentagon types might not be too imaginative as to what the collapse of a society might look like …

    .

  51. Mods & Anthony, a little follow-up to my previous post if I may.

    Re: The Vancouver Sun / rense republication EOTW-CAGW article:

    Peter Schwartz

    - cofounder of the Global Business Network (GBN), an elite corporate strategy firm, specializing in future-think and scenario planning.

    <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Business_Network"Global Business Network

    – Now employing Peter Schwartz (he is actually a co-founder, something not mentioned in the the Sun/rense article, rather, they only mention his Royal Dutch Shell employ in the ‘strategic planning scenarios’ area of just 4 years)

    Global Business Network, or GBN, is a strategy consulting firm and member of Monitor Group, that helps businesses, NGOs, and governments use scenario planning to plan for multiple possible futures.

    GBN was founded in Berkeley, California in 1987 by a group of friends including Peter Schwartz, Jay Ogilvy, Stewart Brand, Napier Collyns, and Lawrence Wilkinson. The company grew to include a core group of “practice members”, and over a hundred “network members,” provocative thinkers from a diverse number of fields, such as social media expert Clay Shirky, anthropologist Mary Catherine Bateson, economist Aidan Eyakuze, musician Brian Eno, biotechnologist Rob Carlson, and China scholar Orville Schell. For its first 15 years, corporate clients would pay up to $40,000 annually in order to gain access to this network of advisers through a private website, attend meetings on emerging trends and training seminars, and receive a selection of literature about future issues each month. GBN no longer offers this membership service, concentrating instead on scenario-based consulting and training.

    Unlike forecasting which extrapolates past and present trends to predict the future, scenario planning is an interactive process for exploring alternative, plausible futures and what those might mean for strategies, policies, and decisions. Scenario planning was first used by the military in World War II and then by Herman Kahn at RAND (“Thinking the Unthinkable”) during the Cold War, before being adapted to inform corporate strategy by Pierre Wack and other visionaries at Royal Dutch/Shell in the 1970s. The key principles of scenario planning include thinking from the outside in about the forces in the contextual environment that are driving change, engaging multiple perspectives to identify and interpret those forces, and adopting a long view.

    Before GBN, Peter Schwartz had been employed at SRI International as director of the Strategic Environment Center; following that, he took a position as head of scenario planning at Royal Dutch/Shell, from 1982 to 1986, where he continued the pioneering work of Pierre Wack, in the field of scenario planning.

  52. “Climate change a national security threat”

    So that’s how they intend to prevent the release of Dr. Mann’s emails to FOIA.

  53. Pull My Finger said at 5:37 am
    Leon Panetta is no more qualifed to be Sec. of Defense than you or me, the man is a flat out politician for life and a civil rights lawyer, not a former military man or international relations scholar.

    PMF, you can fill in the blanks for the entire Obama administration: ________________ is no more qualified to be _________________ than you or me, the man/woman is a flat out politician for life and a _________________ lawyer, not a former ____________ or ___________________ scholar. THEY’RE ALL POLITICIANS! THAT’S THE PROBLEM! Most of them are not even career administrators, much less qualified, experienced experts/professionals in a given discipline.

    And specific to Panetta, he is also not a scientist but he did serve 2 years in the Army – hey, and during that time he was promoted once! That certainly “qualifies” him to be Secretary – - of something – - in the current “PROGRESSIVE” administration… LOL

    And what can one say about a person who makes a statement that the relatively minuscule changes in weather (on average) over more then a hundred years are a “national security threat”….?? It begs a lot of questions about being “qualified” for anything, much less Sec. of Defense. One might also ask, if it is such a big threat, where have you been for the last 20, 30 40+ years? And who in their right mind would put in the “position” in you’re in now – - or keep you there after that statement?

  54. u.k.(us) says on May 3, 2012 at 8:24 pm:

    multiple choice question for our fearless leaders.

    12.500 years ago the Chicago area was:

    A) Delightful
    B) A swamp in need of draining

    “B”, and it’s still a ‘swamp’ in need of draining (i.e. the Daley political machine et al).

    .

  55. Very soon we will hear America declare War on Climate. Anything to distract the voters from the economy.

  56. This administration harbors the lowest low-life politicians in at least the last 50 years that I can recall. Lord help us if there is no significant change in November.

  57. Bin Laden is dead, so I guess we need a new security threat. When will Eastasia become available? (Think Orwell’s 1984)

  58. A threat to national security? Get ready for martial law, the suspension of civil rights, habeus corpus. It’s all at risk now.
    This is some serious stuff.

    • I checked as you suggested, and replied to the Heartland as follows:

      Sirs, Madams and Dudes,

      You just repeated the Blow-Em-Up UK fiasco. You have equated warmists to the Unabomber. Have you been talking to each other so long that groupthink has erased all sense of your audience?

      Many, many warmist believers are sincere, caring people. It is their caring and passionate nature, their desire for fair play, for justice for all, for fuzzy pets and cute kittens that lets Gore, Hansen and others pull them in. They are the victims of their own kindness, not maniacal, totalitarian despots and murderers. But you have just portrayed them all as The Enemy. The type we want to execute or assassinate.

      I could point out that the non-murdering beliefs of murderers are in no way questionable because of the murderers other, despicable actions. This billboard strategy is ad hominem by association. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

      If it weren’t for my personal technical work that I feel repudiates CAGW, your behaviour here would push me into the warmist camp. What was someone thinking? Or, really, was anyone thinking?

      Whoever is your PR firm, FIRE THEM IMMEDIATELY, as well as whoever approved the program.

      Doug Proctor

  59. Friends;

    I think we should be careful to avoid knee-jerk reactions.

    US Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta spoke at an annual reception for the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) at the Renwick Gallery in Washington D.C., May 2, 2012.

    Panetta’s political affiliation and policies of the EDF should not prejudice consideration of what he said. And I would like to see a full text of Panetta’s speech because the reports of it I have seen say he provided a speech which seems eminently sensible. Indeed, I could have made the speech if it was as is reported by Nick Simeone of the American Forces Press Service.

    Simeone reports Panetta’s speech to the EDF on the US Department of Defence web site at

    http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=116192

    Simeone’s article says;

    “Panetta cited the melting of Arctic ice in renewing a longstanding call for the Senate to ratify the United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea. More than 150 nations have accepted the treaty, which has been in force since the early 1990s, and a succession of U.S. government administrations have urged ratification.

    Among other things, the convention would guarantee various aspects of passage and overflight for the U.S. military. Panetta urged his audience to use their influence to push for treaty ratification. “We are the only industrialized nation that has not approved that treaty,” he said.”

    Simeone then goes on to say;
    “The secretary also said he has great concern about energy-related threats to homeland security that are not driven by climate change.

    “I have a deep interest in working to try to ensure from a security perspective that we take measures that will help facilitate and maintain power in the event of an interruption of the commercial grid that could be caused, for example, by a cyber attack which is a reality that we have to confront,” he said.”

    Simeone’s article says Panetta commented on rising fuel costs affecting military budgets. And reports Simeone then saying;
    “In the next fiscal year, we are going to be investing more than a billion dollars in more efficient aircraft and aircraft engines, in hybrid electric drives for our ships, in improved generators, in microgrids for combat bases and combat vehicle energy-efficient programs,” he said. “We are investing another billion dollars to make our installations here at home more energy-efficient, and we are using them as the test bed to demonstrate next-generation energy technologies.”

    Simeone’s article is typical of other such articles in that none quotes Panetta as having made any reference to AGW or any suggestion that AGW is having any affect. So, I would like to see the actual text of what Panetta said.

    Richard

  60. Doug Proctor says on May 4, 2012 at 9:15 am:

    I checked as you suggested, and …

    What’s your source that confirms that the billboard space purchased was actually bought and paid for by HI?

    … could be a ‘false flag’ op designed to have the exact effect you responded with …

    Oh, I see now that they may have paid for them … still, the disloyal opposition is all over this, the ‘think progs’ and ‘desmog blogs’ are leading with this … could this fall into the “no publicity is bad publicity” department?

    http://climateconference.heartland.org/our-billboards/

    May 3, 2012 – Billboards in Chicago paid for by The Heartland Institute point out that some of the world’s most notorious criminals say they “still believe in global warming” – and ask viewers if they do, too. The first digital billboard – along the inbound Eisenhower Expressway (I-290) in Maywood – appeared today.

    The Heartland Institute is widely recognized as a leading source of science and economics questioning claims that man-made global warming is a crisis. The rest of this page provides answers to some of the questions you might have about these billboards. For more information, contact Director of Communications Jim Lakely at jlakely@heartland.org and 312/377-4000.

    1. Who appears on the billboards?

    The billboard series features Ted Kaczynski, the infamous Unabomber; Charles Manson, a mass murderer; and Fidel Castro, a tyrant. Other global warming alarmists who may appear on future billboards include Osama bin Laden and James J. Lee (who took hostages inside the headquarters of the Discovery Channel in 2010).

    These rogues and villains were chosen because they made public statements about how man-made global warming is a crisis and how mankind must take immediate and drastic actions to stop it.

    2. Why did Heartland choose to feature these people on its billboards?

    Because what these murderers and madmen have said differs very little from what spokespersons for the United Nations, journalists for the “mainstream” media, and liberal politicians say about global warming. They are so similar, in fact, that a Web site has a quiz that asks if you can tell the difference between what Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, wrote in his “Manifesto” and what Al Gore wrote in his book, Earth in the Balance.

    (More – see link above.)

    I see that they do make effort to justify their ‘direction’ and choice, as those persons depicted did make statements/writings in support of curative measures for purported CAGW. Of course, the disloyal opposition makes no ‘reference’ to those criminals’ AGW positions …

    .

  61. richardscourtney says:
    May 4, 2012 at 9:00 am

    ….“Panetta cited the melting of Arctic ice in renewing a longstanding call for the Senate to ratify the United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea. More than 150 nations have accepted the treaty, which has been in force since the early 1990s, and a succession of U.S. government administrations have urged ratification…..
    __________________________________
    This is just another move towards “Global Governance”

    ….There are many criticisms of this treaty and its implementation. It weakens a country’s sovereignty by agreeing to follow outside rules and regulations as well as by having to submit to outside body’s for certain regulations and other policies. It complicates some areas of national security4 at the same time. It requires countries to abandon their own environmental policies and adopt those of UNCLOS….. http://voices.yahoo.com/a-dissertation-united-nations-convention-on-2003253.html

    Soon the USA and other nations will become vassal states of the United Nations/world trade Organization bureaucracy as more and more decision making power is moved from the nation to a Supranational Governing Authority.

  62. I’ve said this before; if they believe their manufactured hype nonsense about AGW (which secretly they don’t thanks to climategate 1 and 2); then it is a basis for war. Which is why Leon needs to urge the neo-con-artists to start bombing China immediately. True though isn’t it?; if AGW threatens mankind—then it is the basis for going to war. When the Germans situated in France in 1940, England’s response was optionable but innevitable. China’s program, if you factor AGW, of opening one coal fired power plant per week, directly threaten’s our existence just as much as any hot war. Bombing us or poisoning our habitat and life environment is the same and is one. it amounts to an act of war. And that makes you, Mr. Anthony Mega Watty, a security threat. Mr. Pannetta’s abitlity to reason through a simple pie chart has yet to be tested so don’t bet on reason and Science to let you wiggle out of this one!!!

  63. Meet the Canadian Hansen: Economist Simon Frazer Univeristy Professor Mark Jaccard…
    Jaccard never seeked office in a federal election. The Green Party gathered 3.76% during the 2011 Federal Election. Inciting to civil disobedience, Jaccard does not play by the democratic rules, he flaunts them.

    Clearly Minsiter Oliver was darn right to label him and its kind terrorists, intellectual terrorists to start then…

    Mark Jaccard SFU professor:

    http://www.straight.com/article-676861/vancouver/mark-jaccard-why-ill-be-blocking-bnsf-coal-trains-saturday

    “Putting myself in a situation where I may be accused of civil disobedience is not something I have ever done before. It is not something I ever expected to be doing or wanted to do. But the current willingness of especially our federal government to brazenly take actions that ensure we cannot meet scientifically and economically sound greenhouse gas reduction targets for Canada and the planet leaves me with no alternative. I now ask myself how our children, when they look back decades from now, will have expected us to have acted today. When I think about that, I conclude that every sensible and sincere person, who cares about this planet and can see through lies and delusion motivated by money, should be doing what I and others are now prepared to do.
    I pledge, along with everyone else taking part on Saturday, that my actions will be peaceful, non-violent and respectful of others. There will be no property damage. We will conduct ourselves in a safe, open and transparent manner. We are putting ourselves on the line Saturday because our future is at risk and we have to stand up for it”.

  64. Johnnythelowery says:
    May 4, 2012 at 10:09 am

    I’ve said this before; if they believe their manufactured hype nonsense about AGW (which secretly they don’t thanks to climategate 1 and 2); then it is a basis for war. Which is why Leon needs to urge the neo-con-artists to start bombing China immediately. True though isn’t it?

    Let’s look at what precipitated the world wars: “trade wars” and trade restrictions; I don’t think we’re there yet … ever heard the saying: “If goods don t cross borders, armies will” or “Where goods cross borders, armies don’t” works equally well.

    .

  65. Tom Rude quotes Prof Mark Jaccard:

    “…I conclude that every sensible and sincere person, who cares about this planet and can see through lies and delusion motivated by money…”

    So states über-hypocrite Mark Jaccard, with his snout firmly planted in the public trough…

  66. @ Smokey, Jaccard is a green fascist who imposed the BC Carbon Tax. Meanwhile for the second year in a row, spring is well below normal temperatures on the West Coast of Canada… but the media are quite discreet about it… wait for two hot days and “heatwave” will be all over the headlines of postmedia…

  67. TomRude says:
    May 4, 2012 at 10:54 am
    “…..Meanwhile for the second year in a row, spring is well below normal temperatures on the West Coast of Canada… ”

    Tom,
    The same is true down the west coast of the US. I live just south of Seattle and we are routinely running 5-10F below ‘normal’ average high and low daily temperatures. With only occasional exceptions, this has been true since January. Our monthly temp averages, as reported by Pacific Gas and Electric, are running a few degrees below last year, when we also experienced a colder than normal winter and spring. The stores are trying to sell tomato plants and our daily temp ranges are low 40s to mid 50s, with cold rains almost daily! My neighbor has erected a PVC pipe and transparent plastic ‘dome’ over his garden, in a determined attempt to get his tomatoes to really grow, set fruit well, and ripen in abundance! It has just been too damn cold, the last few summers.
    The good news: We may hit 70F on Sunday or Monday! Whooo Hoooo! Heat Wave!
    MtK

  68. TomRude says:
    May 4, 2012 at 10:54 am
    “…..Meanwhile for the second year in a row, spring is well below normal temperatures on the West Coast of Canada… ”

    Tom,
    The same is true down the west coast of the US. …
    _______________________________
    The East Coast has not exactly been hot either. We had a warm spell early (lots of trumpeting in the media) but April was chilly. Only four days in the 80F range with a high of 86F normally we have at least a few days over 90F in April. We are seeing them now, but it isback to the seventies this weekend. The large town south of us is Fayetteville NC It sits in the middle of the state and you can see it has been cooling for the last nine years. We are a good one degree C lower than the mean for the 1930′s.

  69. Mr Panetta has obviously noticed the huge inflow of cash to finance climate scientists. Accordingly he is making an attempt to grab some of that funding by adding climate change to the list of enemies of the US military.

  70. Harold Ambler (above) notes “DSYC ['Don't sell Your Coat'] has been the No. 1 Climatology book on Amazon for most of the last 5 weeks, and if you think that’s a sales pitch, you’re right.”
    Deservedly so! CONGRATULATIONS.

    Tomorrow, I get to speak to the Denver SKEPTICAMP 2012 conference, and Ambler’s book is my BIG recommend to assembled science geeks and fanboys! WUWT here put it on my ~buy~ list, and later brought me to Harold Ambler’s worthy new blog, http://talkingabouttheweather.com/

    Anthony, I love this graphical illustration, and my talk will conclude with it – “jump the shark” indeed! My theme is about how “global weirding” converted ordinary weather variability into “the climate crisis” thereby killing climate science. Next theory…? Most likely, Svensmark’s cosmoclimatology.

  71. If Panetta can make this stick, the Government could use it as an excuse to exempt all climate research details from FOIA. National Security is one of the listed exemptions.

  72. John F. Hultquist says:
    May 3, 2012 at 9:39 pm
    Gunga Din says:
    May 3, 2012 at 8:17 pm

    Try this:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_cyclone_model

    ====================================================
    Thanks. I think I had Urbain Leverrier in mind. Napoleon III had him organize a weather-forecasting system for France. But, as you’ve pointed out, he had nothing to do with using the word “fronts” in forecasting. Learn something new everyday.

  73. Willis Eschenbach says:
    May 3, 2012 at 5:50 pm
    Rising sea levels are a threat to national security???

    Do you have any idea of the havoc just one fast attack sub could wreak in the Shenandoah Gulf?

  74. Here’s a paper by LTC Fujimoto of the Strategic College pushing the NWO “Liberal” solution to the rise of China. There’s clearly a cadre of Rodney King disciples there.
    Cites Wilsonian Slaughter and ultra-lib Friedman:

    Anne-Marie Slaughter, the former Dean of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, argues that true Wilsonian idealists “support liberal democracy, but reject the possibility of democratizing peoples . . .”16 and reject military primacy in favor of supporting a rules-based system of order.

    Investment in a liberal world order would also set the conditions for the United States to garner support from noncommitted regional powers (i.e., Russia, India, Japan, etc.), or “swing civilizations,” in countering China’s increasing hegemonic influence. These states reside within close proximity to the Indian Ocean, which will likely emerge as the geopolitical focus of the American foreign policy during the 21st century, and appropriately have the ability to offset China’s imperial dominance in the region.

    Critics of a liberal world construct argue that idealism is not necessary, based on the assumption that nations that trade together will not go to war with each other. In response, foreign affairs columnist Thomas L. Friedman rebukes their arguments, acknowledging the predicate of commercial interdependence as a factor only in the decision to go to war, and argues that while globalization is creating a new international order, differences between civilizations still create friction that may overcome all other factors and lead to conflict.

Comments are closed.