Green Call for the US Military to “Instruct” Civilians to Address Climate Change

U.S. Soldiers with the 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division stand at attention after receiving awards from Army Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III, the commander of U.S. Central Command, at Forward Operating Base Apache, Zabul province, Afghanistan, Nov. 29, 2013. Austin visited the base to meet with Service members and celebrate the Thanksgiving holiday with them.

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Having failed to break the US political deadlock, greens are now looking to the US military to intervene in domestic politics, to save us all from the carbon demon.

The Only Force That Can Beat Climate Change Is the U.S. Army

America’s military is the only institution that can break the partisan deadlock on the worst threat the nation faces.

BY ANATOL LIEVEN | JANUARY 9, 2018, 12:45 PM

The precise extent of human-induced climate change is unclear, but the basic science is unequivocal, as is the danger it poses to the United States. This threat comes from the direct impact of climate change on agricultural production and sea levels but equally importantly from the huge waves of migration that climate change is likely to cause, on a scale that even the world’s richest states and societies will be unable either to prevent or accommodate.

This is because the most promising avenue to convince conservative American voters and to generate genuinely serious action in the United States against climate change would be to firmly establish the link between global warming and critical issues of national security. The threat should be obvious, but even before Donald Trump took office, the security elites in the United States and other major countries had not yet really integrated it into their thinking. Thus the vast majority of reporting and analysis of security issues in the Persian Gulf relates to classical security threats: the future of the Iran nuclear deal, the geopolitical and religious rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran, the Saudi-led boycott of Qatar, and so on.

But the case for a security role is a vital one. Only security establishments and national militaries have the capacity to mobilize resources on the scale required. Only they can make the link between the threat of climate change and patriotic duty and convince ordinary voters that the sacrifices required are necessary for the future safety of their countries.

Integrating security into this debate would also bring with it a better understanding of how to address the risks involved. Climate change deniers such as the Heartland Institute are apt to call for absolute scientific certainty about climate change — a guarantee that any action will come far too late. On the other hand, some activists falsely assert absolute certainty about detailed future impacts — a certainty that simply cannot be justified scientifically.

One of the impediments until now to approaching this issue rationally has been that the issue of climate change has become miserably entwined with the cultural-political divide now splitting American society. In recent years, all too many conservative Americans have begun to deny climate change not on the basis of evidence or debate but because their cultural allegiance rules it out. “We aren’t the kind of people who believe in climate change.”

This is where the role of the U.S. military is so crucial. It is the one American institution that retains the confidence and respect of the great majority of Americans from both political parties. It is also an institution whose culture depends on a sober and realistic appreciation of threats and which can talk to conservative patriotic Americans with conviction and in a style they can understand. No “citizen of the world” will ever persuade a Republican voter to vote against his or her immediate interests. A U.S. soldier talking about threats to America would have no problem doing so.

The internal divisions in U.S. society and politics concerning climate change are obviously serious barriers to the security establishment’s playing a bigger role — as witnessed by the Trump administration’s NSS.

However, the sheer scale of the threat to the security of the country means that the U.S. military has an institutional and patriotic duty to instruct Americans concerning this threat, just as it has influenced them in the past on other threats falling within the military’s sphere of competence. Incidentally, this also involves education on the likely security consequences of mass migration, a subject on which liberals are as irrational in their way as conservatives are concerning climate change.

The second relates to the role of patriotism and nationalism in America. At present, climate change has been turned — quite unnecessarily — into an issue that divides Americans rather than unites themAt present, climate change has been turned — quite unnecessarily — into an issue that divides Americans rather than unites them. Nationalism is the only force in the United States and elsewhere that can motivate the masses to make sacrifices in the struggle against climate change not on behalf of abstract ideas of planetary responsibility but on behalf of a commitment to the future of their countries. This involvement of patriotism is vital, both because the economic sacrifices required will indeed be very considerable and because they will have to be made by present generations on behalf of future ones.

The military can play a key part in mobilizing these feelings and turning this struggle into one that unites Americans and reduces the divisions and hatred that are beginning to pose a threat not only to the working of the U.S. political system but even the long-term survival of U.S. democracy. Without this engagement, successful action against climate change will be impossible, and the consequences for the United States and the world will be disastrous.

Read more: http://foreignpolicy.com/2018/01/09/the-only-force-that-can-beat-climate-change-is-the-u-s-army/

I suggest one of the main reasons the US military enjoys the respect and support of the US people is because of the long upheld US military tradition of serving the Constitution rather than any particular political cause, a tradition of NOT intervening unnecessarily in US domestic politics.

Advertisements

270 thoughts on “Green Call for the US Military to “Instruct” Civilians to Address Climate Change

  1. With sentenses like the war against climate or the war for the climate, this is a normal development.
    Who is better to war than the military?
    Lets nuke the climate.

      • Yea, little old ladies and men are interfering with commerce by crossing the street too slowly or taking too much time at the checkout counters…

        Please understand my sarcasm.

        This militarized green horse crap needs to stop and treason charges levied.

      • Based on the author’s own definition of the problem, the solution is to completely suspend legal immigration into the US, just as it was between the years 1924 and 1965.

        Oh, and they can do the same to illegal immigration, too! And if any of those illegals go home for a visit, they’re not welcome back. Ever!

        All it would take is the Trump Wall, which would soon be known as the Democratic Wailing Wall. We might need a South and a North version, but fences make for great neighbors.

        With the immigration problem solved and the Democrats in decline, it will be a lot easier to make America Great Again!

      • “The Only Force That Can Beat Climate Change Is the U.S. Army”

        Perhaps the Greenblob wants to invade China???

      • The Green Mob has been predicting that massive waves of climate refugees are just around the corner for 30 years now.
        They have yet to find their first climate refugee.

      • +1. You are 100% correct. Here is a short video which shows the HYPOCRISY of America’s REAL ENEMIES. EVERY AMERICAN needs to watch this video.

        The plan…

    • The ‘Greens’ are indeed ‘Watermelons’ – green on the outside but Red on the inside.

      Only fascistic Big State control freaks dream of using the military to ‘re-educate’ the population with their political agenda.

      Use of the military against the civilians is unacceptable. The Greens need to back off the fascism right now.

      • The U.S. military is not an independent organization. It only moves when its leader tells it to move. If the author wants to get the U.S. military involved he will have to convince Trump to get involved.

        The author shouldn’t hold his breath waiting on Trump to declare human-caused CO2 a national security issue.

      • They are asking for a military coup d’état, a mutiny. Violent overthrow of our government. What are the current laws on sedition?

      • The greens should be careful about this kind of manuever. Too much tree hugging and hemp. Never know how someone irritated might attach them to the former with the latter.

      • Use of the military against the civilians is unacceptable.

        It would also be in violation of the COTUS, ……. a fact that would make little to no difference to the Obama-Pelosi-Schumer et el Democrat lefty liberals.

    • Should we point out that the military cannot be used against the people? It’s that little thing we call the CONSTITUTION. We now know the limits of this thinking.

      • I’m a former member of the United States Air Force and the son of another one and the grandson of an army man. you’ll be all swore contain the phrase to protect the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. Therefore if one were to consider climate deniers which I might add includes me my father and my grandfather but to include them as enemies of the Constitution, then military could be used against such people. As far as I know according to the paperwork that I signed as I recall now more than 20 years ago, what language was very clear and very specific. obviously the intent was any form of rebellion IE the Civil War the Whiskey Rebellion excetera. None the less there is a legal case for the military to be used against Americans. and again in our early history there was a rebellion of some kind starting with the Whiskey Rebellion every 10 years or so up until more or less the Civil War and the military was used in every case

      • An Englishman called Samuel Johnson once said “patriotism is the last resort of a scoundrel”. Does this qualify?

      • I think the Constitution designated all enemies, “foreign and domestic”.

        It sounds like the domestic variety are those that would round up free-thinking, scientifically aware people.

        These Green blokes aren’t worth salvaging.

      • “Mike January 13, 2018 at 9:07 pm
        I’m a former member of the United States Air Force and the son of another one and the grandson of an army man. you’ll be all swore contain the phrase to protect the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. Therefore if one were to consider climate deniers which I might add includes me my father and my grandfather but to include them as enemies of the Constitution, then military could be used against such people. As far as I know according to the paperwork that I signed as I recall now more than 20 years ago, what language was very clear and very specific. obviously the intent was any form of rebellion IE the Civil War the Whiskey Rebellion excetera. None the less there is a legal case for the military to be used against Americans. and again in our early history there was a rebellion of some kind starting with the Whiskey Rebellion every 10 years or so up until more or less the Civil War and the military was used in every case”

        So “climate deniers” would be defined as “the enemy” under what provision of the Constitution? The “climate deniers” are, after all, citizens subject to the protections and provisions of the Constitution.
        There is also this little thing called the Posse Comitatus Act
        https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1385

      • I’m pretty sure that posse-comitatus is just a law. (my latin is weak so I’m sure the spelling is messed up.)

      • I’m pretty sure you who have doubt’s about what I wrote did not bother to look at the link provided with it that showed posse comitatus is part of the US code.

    • US Army General James ‘Canute’ Hansen said
      “We shall fight it on the beaches, we shall fight it in the UHI streets, we shall fight it at the poles and in the glaciated valleys, we shall fight it, with growing strength and confidence, in the troposphere, we shall fight it on social media, and on the news. We shall defend our climate models at any cost, we shall never surrender”

    • A nation’s military are there to safeguard the nation’s people and their constitutional rights. Apparently environmentalists see things differently. They would cancel democracy, free speech, economic growth, and almost any other personal freedom, while invoking marshal law to support their pet fantasy of preventing human caused global warming even in the absence of any conclusive proof it is a threat. It is important for voters to understand this mind set and ensure it does not gain traction. People should read or re-read 1984 by George Orwell if they want to understand the risks of letting this type of thinking turn into policy. Similarly a read of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged which outlines her view of the erosive impact of this type of thinking that she saw first hand during the Soviet years might be educational.

    • “Nationalism is the only force in the United States and elsewhere that can motivate the masses to make sacrifices in the struggle against climate change”

      The military is the only organization that can invoke Nationalism to benefit Internationalism to the detriment of the country’s right to self-rule?

  2. Not their mission and anyone that ever served would know that. And the very ones complaining about division within our society are those that are loyal to the bunch that admitted that they were dumping the interests of their traditional constituency of blue collar middle class for “identity politics”. Hard to fit anymore pure unadulterated BS in an article than the one above.

      • 1)Anyone who grew up in the central plains would call BS to this photo and story. When you freeze your face it goes a waxy grey not red. Indeed it was polite protocol in Winnipeg to tell a stranger he had a a frozen patch on his cheek or ear or nose!
        2) The way the kid is dressed is wrong for such bitter weather. Even if you were poor there are rags or shawls you could bundle a kid up with.
        3) 10 tons of coal in your living room wouldn’t protect a poorly dressed child on a long walk like this.

        We have to guard ourselves against fake news that even supports scepticism more than anything the marxbrothers can dream up.

      • Gary Pearse

        The image is from Yunnan province. This area normally has a subtropical climate. The temperature the coldest month in the provincial capitol Kunming is about the same as in San Francisco. Poor peple almost certainly don’t have any warm clothing.

      • Gary Pearse: His cheeks are not frozen—they are chapped, according to the article. I have seen hair freeze just as the boy’s did. He had no warm clothing. It was reported he had an unemployed father, who may have been at home. Many of these kids are literally home alone—their parents go to the cities to look for work. It’s interesting that you would think this is Fake News. The only thing it did was get warm coats for the kids and the world to realize China may not be a Utopia, as advertised.

      • Sheri: you are right about this boy having chapped cheeks and frost in his hair, but that was Garys point. That isn’t the same as being ‘frozen’. He doesn’t appear to have frostbite, which is what Gary described. What this boy and 10’s of thousands like him need are better winter clothing and care, which it sounds like in this one case have been actually provided. What he doesn’t really need are shiploads of coal, which would probably end up going to factories and the powerplants that supply them, not to heating the homes of poor people.

        Of course, if more factories are operating and more people had good paying jobs, they could afford to buy proper winter clothing for their children.

        ~¿~

      • The highest incidence of death from cold in Australia is in Queensland – our Florida. They just aren’t prepared for the occasional cold blast.

      • Is there a time and a place at which this ever-escalating insanity will reach as high as it can go? Sheesh-a-mighty. Here I sit in the Southern U. S. with the temperature outside my house at 16 degrees F. this morning. But it is January and at least in my lifetime, January has always meant cold weather…..And, right on cue, cold has arrived. And nothing is changing as I perceive it. So, warm me up, buttercup.

        Is the major part of the problem the fact that human beings are emotionally spring-loaded to be biased toward being easy to panic, have fear and worry even when there is no real cause for panic, fear, and worry. Do we first have to be unhappy before we’re able to feel happy? Heck, if you are willing to ignore enough truth and reality, believing that the world will end when the sun goes down…..or comes up…..can be made a believable hypothesis in which you can wallow to soothe your misery.

      • They always need something to be worked up about…and for some reason (God only knows) they want something we can do absolutely nothing about. If they want to change something, there are plenty of other issues they really could be making a difference on. *SMH*

      • “They always need something to be worked up about…and for some reason (God only knows) they want something we can do absolutely nothing about.”

        I’m not God but I’ll take a shot at an answer:

        Without a crisis of some sort somewhere in society who needs Progressivism? If no one needed Progressives, how would they get elected? If they couldn’t get elected, how would they use their position in government to gather for themselves power and wealth?

  3. Auther Anatol Lieven is a Brit based at Kings College, London. He obviously does not know much about the Constitution, or about the long traditions of the US military. Nor that it is not only conservatives that doubt CAGW and respect the military. US is about 1/3 independents and libertarians, who are not traditional conservatives in the US sense. The converse is, however, generally true: Progressives like Obama and Kerry back warmunism because it furthers their political goals. Most uni professors are progressives (think Naomi Oreskes),and they back because that is where their grants are buttered.

    • If he should threaten President Trump because he’s that lonely or stupid–he’ll get interesting headlines and a visit from the Secret Police post haste.

    • I am happy to know that our military recruiters still have physical requirements–including fitness–to serve. After all, the mission of the Army is not to spread climate propaganda; it is to kill people and break things. Anything that thwarts that goal must be avoided–including diversity goals and any other politically correct diversions from their mission, which is national defense.

    • Yes, the US Army will face major staffing problems in the future. The average health status of the youth is miserable in the US. I think there is no country in the world where obesity is so common among adolescents. This is a serious problem and in relation to China, which also struggles with such problems through the westernized lifestyle of urban youth (fast food, etc.). China still has a much larger reservoir of healthy youth in the rural areas for their army. That will get the US Army to taste. You can not go to war with high-tech alone.

  4. This threat comes from the direct impact of climate change on agricultural production..

    Is Anatol referring to the 14% increase in the greening of the earth? Because that is the only element of his screed that has any hard data to back it up.

    • At the risk of repeating my argument, here’s my calculations:

      Increased atmospheric CO2 over the past 50 years, according to some studies, has caused world-wide foodstuff production to increase by 15-25% (which isn’t surprising since trees, depending on variety, are now growing from 30-70% faster for the same reason).

      The math is simple: Currently, foodstuff production accounts for a seventh of the world-wide GDP of ~$70 Trillion, which would be $10 Trillion. Taking the lower estimate for increased foodstuff production (15%) of that would be $1.5 Trillion, which divided by a worldwide population of 7.5 billion (an admittedly high estimate) results in $200 per year for every man, woman and child on the Earth!

      That’s the annual contribution industrial countries (those that have substantially enriched atmospheric CO2 over the past 50 years) make indirectly to developing nations. Another way of looking at it: Since at least 2/3 of the world’s population is found in developing nations, the “annual payment” to them is $1 Trillion!!

      I think fossil-fuel contributions to the biosphere is more than enough. Indeed, all that additional food has averted massive famine and starvation. They should be grateful rather than greedy.

      • If the world were to actually warm a degree or two because of CO2, that would be a huge boon to agriculture as well.
        We could grow crops in places where the can’t grow today, and grow two crops a year in places where there is now only time to grow one.

  5. How utterly terrifying, to suggest that a nation’s military be used on its own people to enforce highly distorted views about the cause of climate change.

    • The author doesn’t understand Americans or our system very well. His suggestion is a non-starter over here. The U.S. military will not be involved in saving mankind from human-caused global warming/climate change. Unless Trump wants them to do so, and I don’t think that is in the cards. In fact, I would bet money on it. A lot of money.

      • If Hillary had won, I could see more potential of this threat, with 8 more years of treason, PC and Eurosclerosis of the military. But she didn’t.

  6. I once heard a general say that climate change was a national security issue because airplanes can’t take off from a runway that’s under water. I don’t think I want him responsible for anything to do with climate change.

      • I’m pretty sure that the military spends a lot of money making sure the flight deck of your average carrier stays above water.

    • Yeah, we don’t need any clueless U.S. generals in the U.S. military, and unfortunately, we do have a few, but fortunately, none of them are in a position to do anything about it. And I imagine they are not making too much noise about CAGW now that Trump is in Office.

    • How many air force bases have runways that are only 1 or 2 feet above the high tide line?
      I’m willing to bet that the number is very small, single digits if not lower.

  7. Having failed to convince people by their arguments, Greens now envision using military force to force people to adopt their position. ‘Reality impaired’ doesn’t even begin to describe the Greens advocating using the military.

    • I knew there was a reason for the second amendment and my personal arsenal plus ammo plus reloading supplies. Now, not military grade aith a few exceptions. But plenty good enough for Green Mountain Boys/Swamp Fox guerrilla grade comeback.

  8. There is something called the Hatch Act that makes it a criminal offense to engage in ANY political work while an employee of, or on duty with, the US Government. Whoops!
    Besides that, which is more likely, significant climate change or a coronal mass ejection (or an EMP attack) that shuts off all power to anywhere in the US and prevents any food from reaching the cities? And also keeps fuel from getting to farms so more food and be grown?

    • Correct. And Fascism has a technical economic definition:
      Fascism – the State directs the Fruits of Production while the Means of Production remain in Private Hands.

      In the US it is the Democrats who want the fusion of Economy and State while the Republicans and Libertarians want Separation of Economy and State (which will one day be understood to be as essential as the Separation of Church and State).

      Thus, the Democrats are the ones with the fascistic economic agenda. Although must Democrats mix the fascist goals (involuntary ‘socialism’ which is the stealing of the citizen’s wealth by the elites that run government) of their party’s leadership with voluntary ‘charity’ – when they are not the same at all.

  9. Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    “the most promising avenue to convince conservative American voters and to generate genuinely serious action in the United States against climate change would be to firmly establish the link between global warming and critical issues of national security.”

    THE only “threat to national security” is draconian climate policy in the form of economy-destroying carbon taxes and green schemes and scams like windmills and solar panels that create energy poverty, sending jobs and real particulate pollution to “****hole” countries where slave labour and appalling environmental regulations rule.

    ALSO worth remembering that during the 1970’s “global cooling” scare, the CIA warned that (man-made) “global cooling” would bring – “Drought, Starvation, Social Unrest And Political Upheaval”.

    SAME “national security threats”, polar opposite temps 🤦‍♂️

    YOU cannot make this stuff up!

    https://climatism.wordpress.com/2017/03/17/the-climate-change-farce-explained-by-two-expert-scientists/

  10. The word INSTRUCT as advocated for the military is not defined, but the strong implication is that military force is involved. The ultra-liberals must be getting desperate if they advocate military take-over and control, given their historic anti-military bias.

  11. The ‘pro’ case has been presented by the ‘pro’ advocates. The ‘Con’ case has been presented by the ‘pro’ advocates through their own eyes and ears.

    This is too typical: I tell you what I think, and I will also tell you what my opponent probably thinks. You decide based on the two viewpoints.

    It is interesting that the ‘refugee’ implications are thinly disguised xenophobia happening as the result of ‘climate disasters’. They are trying to sell a globalist idea within an intolerant nationalism, presenting it as the only option for everyone getting along.

    Talk about a schizoid plan. Are we supposed to fear and exclude those who might come and eat our meals, or are we supposed to move to other countries and plan on being welcomed as well-heeled do-gooders saving the masses with our self-sacrifice?

    It doesn’t seem to have occurred to the advocates of this military solution that the coming chill and a descent into another ice age merits consideration at all. The military is usually far better at conducting risk analysis without interference than civilians. I suspect the military will be unwilling to hand control of the country to an unelected international bureaucracy without a fight.

  12. It’s considered quite important among non-authoritarians that the military answers to the civilian population, not the other way around.

  13. Greens have always been dangerous because they believe their cause justifies any means. Religious terrorists probably have a similar mindset.

  14. The military must make us “obey” the climate change advocates commands?

    I suppose it could work. Maybe the next time there is a democrat president and democrat congress.

    Which then says to you, why would I ever vote for a climate-change-beholden politician. Not a farken chance.

    I just don’t see how such a proposal can even be made. A person would have to be a complete nut job to even propose it. What about those that support the proposition then. It all just comes down to crazy people who should have no influence on anything. Cut-off their funding because we need less crazy people trying to influence anything.

  15. Progressives get aroused with the thought of using force over the people, whether it be using Islamic Sharia or Military might. Either way they want complete control over the citizen/taxpayer.

  16. Funny. The only government that the Communists do not like is Law Enforcement and The Military.

    • TheLastDemocrat

      And judging by the current witch hunt, Trump as well.

      Fingers crossed he rides the storm.

    • Actually, the loony leftist attacks on both the police and military are just another arrow in the quiver of the central-command-and-control elitists. Hamstring or even destroy all trappings of our modern society and make life so miserable for the average voter that they beg the politicians to save them. Don’t be surprised at all.

      • Correct. The Left has worked for a century to erode the beauty and accomplishments of Enlightenment Civilization (“Modernism”) so that things are so bad and people so demoralized that they will surrender their sovereignty to the control freak Post Modernists (Statist Collectivists).

        The leaders of the Left are quite evil, which convinced that they alone have monopolies on truth and virtue. These people are insane in a way that is not obvious unless you watch what they do and not what they say.

  17. It does not occur to most people that the military already has assessed the urgency of climate change and taken the appropriate actions, practically none. It is their job to be prepared. It is required for them to factually assess issues in order to survive, as much as possible. Not to say there isn’t a political bias happening there too, but certainly less than elsewhere.
    The military was the origin of the red team – blue team concept, for exactly this reason.
    The assumption of the article is that the military looking at all the facts would have to come to the “97% consensus” conclusion. Wrong.

    • It’s my understanding that the Navy was directed to worry about and prepare for rising sea levels during the Obama administration and I don’t think that this directive has been relaxed yet.

      • A rising sea level floats all ships. So the Navy response should be Sir, yes Sir. We will do nothing, because our ships float. But if you will send money. we will be glad to float all our shore facikities also. What, no shoee float money? Then carry on with ship procurement as authorized by Congress.

  18. It would indeed be interesting to know exactly how the US military could be expected to force a political agenda down the throats of the voting public. This mope who wrote this little essay has no understanding of the US military at all. He should learn to stay in his own lane before he goes any further, and also learn to mind his own business. What a stooge!

  19. The military in Hawaii can’t even figure out what button to push for a ballistic missile warning test . Asking them to set the worlds thermostat seems ambitious . The green uniforms are a good first step but don’t they have some bigger real problems to deal with ? Lighting off NK nukes for example .
    Imagine what happens when pot is legal . Cool fireworks man .

    • Might have been on purpose ….now it’s on peoples minds …
      Things aren’t always as simple as they seem .

      • @Rob
        I’m sure “Demorat” was an intentional misspelling, but it obviously flew over your head. The other misspelling I suppose was not. However, if you think one misspelling in a comments section on a blog is a good indicator of intelligence, then afraid it’s you who is the idiot…you and the Demorat Hawaiian civilian government of course.

      • So Rob has now shown that he SUPPORTS this sort of totalitarian fascism.

        Keep yapping Rob.

        Your sympathies have been highlighted.

        And if you think telling me to STFU will have even the slightest effect you can think again.

        I don’t cow-tow to bullying, certainly NOT from low-life DEMORATS.

      • Still waiting for you to comment AGAINST the totalitarian fascism that the topic is about..

        Waiting

        Waiting

      • Still waiting for you to comment AGAINST the totalitarian fascism that the topic is about..

        Waiting

        Waiting

        EVERYONE can see you SQUIRMING, little worm. !!

      • Still waiting for you to comment AGAINST the totalitarian fascism that the topic is about..

        WHY THE CONTINUED EVASION, Rob. :-)

        Everyone can see it.

        They are all laughing at you. :-) :-)

        Keep digging……

        ….. Deeper and deeper into your own leftist totalitarian sewer. :-)

      • So SICK and EVIL that you have EXPOSED yourself as CONDONING the use of military to force your fascist control AGENDA.

        Mussolini would be proud of the way the Demorats have adopted his meme.

      • Come on Rob, stop squirming.

        Say that you DON’T CONDONE the use of military force to get your totalitarian agenda in place.

        Very easy to get out of the total MESS you are currently in. :-)

      • Linking to your own cowardly evasions.. .. pretty mindless of you.

        Do you or do you not CONDONE the use of military yo get your totalitarian agenda in place?

        Simple answer and you are off the hook. No more need for you to behave like a stunned mullet.

      • It seems that Rob FULLY SUPPORTS the use of military to ENFORCE the totalitarian AGW agenda..

        But is too cowardly to actually say so. !!!

        These are the sort of people we are up against. !!

      • The Demorats have bent the FASCIST mentality to their totalitarian anti-human control agenda.

        And nil-educated like Rob, can’t even see it….. but SUPPORT it whole-heartedly

      • HILARIOUS as Rob continues to refuse to answer.

        It is obvious he is TOO COWARDLY to admit than he FULLY SUPPORTS the use of the military to enforce the Totalitarian AGW agenda.

        Watching his manic evasions is quote hilarious.

        I hope everyone is enjoying the entertainment :-)

      • @Rob
        Liberals like to pretend that the term fascist can only be applied to right wing politics. However, in general fascism describes a political system that allows economic freedoms but not social freedoms…i.e. policing thoughts and beliefs. This article in this post describes exactly that, so describing it as fascist is correct, although eco-fascist or neo-liberal fascist might be more accurate.

        Now, beyond semantics, do you agree or not with the proposal? Or do you only care about defending the inept Hawaiian DemoRAT government and pointing out spelling errors?

      • Tell us all Rob…

        WHY do you SUPPORT the use of the military to enforce the Totalitarian AGW agenda. ?????

      • “http://www.slate.com/articles/life/fascism/2017/01/define_fascism_why_nailing_down_a_comprehensive_theory_of_fascism_has_been.html”

        “We readily accept that socialism or liberalism can mean many different things.

        The only thing that distinguishes fascism is its enormous negative moral charge.

        So yes, the AGW AGENDA holds very much with the one distinguishing feature of Fascism.

        Why do you support the use of military to enforce this most Anti-human, Anti-science, Anti-Life FASCIST AGENDA, Rob.

      • Why are you STILL avoiding answering WHY you support the use of the military to enforce the AGW totalitarian agenda. ??

        “The Fascist conception of the AGENDA is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist AGENDA — a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values — interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people.”

        Straight from the leftist Wiki. With one word changed, “State” replaced with “AGENDA”.

        Defines the AGW AGENDA to a tee. Wouldn’t you agree!

        Why do you support the use of the Military?

      • Rob:

        “Please stop using words you have no comprehension of.”

        “Please stop using words of which you have no comprehension.”

        There…fixed it for you. Please try to keep up next time?

        :-)

      • Left-wing Fascism….. from left-wing Wiki…

        “Horowitz argues that a tenet of “left-wing fascism” in the United States is a rejection of American ideals and the democratic system and an assertion of socialism as an idealized abstraction.”

        “In the late 20th and early 21st centuries, the term “left fascism” has been used to describe unusual hybrid political alliances. ……. opening up the opportunity for cult-like, irrational, anti-democratic positions that combine characteristics of the left with those of fascism

        The AGW AGENDA.. Writ large.

        Left-wing totalitarian FASCISM. !!

        And YOU not only CONDONE it.. you SUPPORT the use of the military to ENFORCE IT. !!.

      • Rob Bradley–you’ve amply demonstrated yourself to be a Nasty Democrat unwilling or unable to answer Andy’s question.

        Your next post will either be Strike Three or you’ll redeem yourself.

        The choice is yours.

      • Rob takes a walk, with his **** held firmly between his legs.

        Runs away from answering why he CONDONES / SUPPORTS the use of the military to ENFORCE the AGW AGENDA.

      • @Rob

        No. Totalitarianism is high government control both socially and economically, like North Korea.

        It’s apparent that your only weapon is semantics. You sound like an English lit major that’s in way over his head. Come back when you have an actual point to make.

      • “Thank you for interjecting sy computing, but your “correction” is not necessary.”

        Are you sure? You DO want to be consistent with your grammatical criticisms don’t you? Otherwise you might show yourself a bit of an hypocrite…or ignorant…we wouldn’t want that!

        (Note: I do NOT accept Bitcoin for my tutelage…sorry)

        :-)

      • “there is no such thing as a ” Totalitarian AGW agenda.””

        There very much is a “Totalitarian AGW AGENDA”

        Heck you even support the use of the military to ENFORCE it.

        Your cognitive dissonance is hilarious.

      • The whole AGW has , by its very won admission been aimed at breaking down capitalist societies and replacing them with a TOTALITARIAN ONE-WORLD GOVERNMENT

        There is so much direct evidence on this that only the wilfully blind-folded could deny it.

        And Rob would like to use MILITARY FORCE to make this happen.

      • “…because he is ignorant of what thee word means.”

        Oh dear…Rob…really? For you, I’ll even take a check…

      • Rob.. still squirming like a little worm.

        Why do you support the use of MILITARY to ENFORCE the AGW Agenda if its not totalitarian, and by very definition (a few posts above) a form of Left-wing Fascism?

        ANSWER the question, yellow-back…

        WHY do you support the use of military to enforce the AGW Agenda.?

      • How many beers?

        ““…because he is ignorant of what thee word means.”

        At least as many as thou hast…

        :-)

      • Rob needs some help to get over his COWARDICE in answering a simple question

        left-wing fascism is defined to a tee up above.

        Simple question little yellow-back troll….

        Why do you support the use of the military to enforce the AGW agenda?

        Do you have the guts to answer??

        My guess is you will just keep flapping around like a stunned mullet !!!

      • Oh my…look Rob, grammar lessons are one charge…logic is quite another…I’m sorry that’s just the way it has to be. First one is free.

        Lesson One: The Law of Non-Contradiction

        “However, Andy might need a lot of your help.”

        “sy computing, AndyG55 is a big boy…..he doesn’t need your help”

        We mustn’t contradict ourselves Rob. When we’re able to derive a contradiction from our belief system then those we’re attempting to convince of our position will quite rightly reject our arguments out-of-hand. After all, if we can derive 2 + 2 = both 4 AND 5 from the same belief system, what in the world are we doing!

      • Left-wing Fascism….. from left-wing Wiki…

        “Horowitz argues that a tenet of “left-wing fascism” in the United States is a rejection of American ideals and the democratic system and an assertion of socialism as an idealized abstraction.”

        “In the late 20th and early 21st centuries, the term “left fascism” has been used to describe unusual hybrid political alliances. ……. opening up the opportunity for cult-like, irrational, anti-democratic positions that combine characteristics of the left with those of fascism”

        The AGW Agenda, and its supporters, DEFINED to a “t”

        Add the totalitarianism of using the military, you have totalitarian fascism

        Its new, but unless the world wakes up, it may be coming to a street corner near you.

        Thank goodness the USA has Trump and not Hillary as President, or it would already be there. !!

      • Pathetic is refusing to answer a simple question

        WHY do you support the use of military to enforce the AGW Agenda.?

        Only a totalitarian lefy-wing fascist would do that.

      • Poor Rob.

        His whole existence is one of EMPTY COWARDICE.

        RUNNING and HIDING, even from HIMSELF.

        A left wing SJW for sure. TRIGGERED. !!

      • Poor Rob.. Cannot read .. cannot comprehend

        Left-wing Fascism….. from left-wing Wiki…

        “Horowitz argues that a tenet of “left-wing fascism” in the United States is a rejection of American ideals and the democratic system and an assertion of socialism as an idealized abstraction.”

        “In the late 20th and early 21st centuries, the term “left fascism” has been used to describe unusual hybrid political alliances. ……. opening up the opportunity for cult-like, irrational, anti-democratic positions that combine characteristics of the left with those of fascism”

        You are a cowardly left wing fascist, Rob…. . And you KNOW it.

      • Everybody knows the meaning of the word COWARD, Rob

        I have define left-wing fascism, which palpably OOZES from you

        Stop your mindless attention-seeking and your cowardly squirming and…

        ….. ANSWER THE QUESTION.

      • STILL the manic SQUIRMING and AVOIDANCE of answering a simple question.

        WHY ARE YOU SO SCARED OF ANSWERING , Rob ??

      • You are getting manic, like a 5 year old chucking a tantrum.

        Making a total FOOL of yourself.

        STILL the manic SQUIRMING and AVOIDANCE of answering a simple question.

        WHY ARE YOU SO SCARED OF ANSWERING , Rob ??

        WHY do you support the use of military to enforce the AGW Agenda, Rob?

        Those are the actions of a totalitarian fascist……. and you are very much far loonie left-wing.

        I am neither right-wing, or a fascist.

        I just want a mindless COWARD to answer a simple question.

      • You mistake a DESCRIPTION for name-calling

        ANSWER THE QUESTION ! Or the description sticks to you like glue.

        You have NOT put any argument, all you have done is childlike EVASION of simple questions.

        You have not even stated your position, because you don’t have the GUTS to do so.

        You are EMPTY !!!

      • Fascism was defined correctly already. State control over the fruits of production but private control over the means of production. Price controls, for example, are fascist instruments. Fascism has nothing to do with capitalism or classic american liberalism both of which are rooted in individualism (I.e. right wing) rather than collectivism (I.e. left wing). The environmental movement is left wing by nature, as is socialism, communism, and labour unions. This isn’t difficult stuff. Right wing was made into a boogeyman term decades ago. The term liberal was more recently bastardized into a pejorative. I am surprised no one has mentioned Mussolini, Gentile, and even FDR here. The first two were pretty much writing all about fascism and even hard at work putting it into practice in Italy for a couple of decades. They were pretty good buddies. So were FDR and Mussolini. They had lots in common before that whole ww2 and the holocaust thing happened and fascism became so 1930’s. Obviously the greens will try to use any of the instruments of collectivist (I.e. left wing) philosophy and government to achieve their goal of healing the planet. Since greens view the fruits of capitalism as an assault on the planet, fascism is logically a great model for them to try to implement as a means to their ends of ending the alleged assault on the planet.

      • Since the introduction of the (not) federal reserve there has been NO economic freedom.. So beware, digital money like bitcoin, is slavery. A cashless society is slavery. Direct taxation ( form 1040 ) IS slavery.

        If you want a free country start with abolishing the federal reserve who are funding the Big Brother state.

      • Rob, you are the one assuming that pointing out that Hawaii is a Demorat plantation is a political statement.

      • fascism doesn’t mean what most socialists claim it means.
        It’s a form of socialism, it doesn’t mean “anyone I don’t like”.

      • “Rud, it was a human error. ”

        Was it? Or was it someone deliberately wanting to raise a ruckus to get people freaked out to force Trump to concede to anything that North Korea demands? Could be either. I personally favor the latter as more likely in my personal opinion.

      • Rob Bradley January 13, 2018 at 8:47 pm
        Andy doesn’t know what “fascist” means.
        .
        LOL!!!

        In fact, I think that would be you, Bradley.

        To find out, try looking in a mirror.

    • Just because pot is legal in a state will not mean it is legal in the military, even for active duty service members posted in that state or who are citizens of that state serving in the reserve components such as the National Guard . Service members are not only subject to the laws of the civil authority but also to military law under the UCMJ AT ALL TIMES, even when not on active duty.

    • Hawaii Emergency Management Agency – a state level FEMA, with tsunami volcano earthquake etc alarm ‘buttons’ that are tested time to time under competent leadership.

      • Rob is apparently a 5 year old.

        Certainly a far-left fascist.

        What to use the military to enforce his cult religion.

      • I thought Haiti smelled like money to the Clintons.

        I’ve seen a number of Haitians interviewed over the last few days and it seems that one thing they have in common is they don’t like the Clintons.

        They think that instead of helping Haiti after the earthquake they had there, the Clintons went into Haiti to make money off the trajedy.

      • “your anus smells the same as Hatii”

        Ha ha. Rob, the Haiti Minister of Tourism would like to thank you for defending their fine country!

        Since I noticed on a comment string above that you’re a bit of a stickler for grammar and spelling, maybe you can answer this question: what is the plural of anus? I would guess that many parts of Haiti smell like more than one.

        P.S. You spelled Haiti wrong.

      • I doubt Rob is a person. Only a bot still in the beta development stage could put up such stupid comments.

      • I see that Rob has given up trying to play an productive role in any discussion.
        All he’s capable of doing is insult those who don’t worship as he does.

    • chaamjamal January 13, 2018 at 5:37 pm
      “I am sensing desperation in the green camp. It is beginning to smell like a sh/hole.”

      Notice how the progressive globalists in Congress, such as Mitch McConnell, can’t tell the difference between a free English-speaking republic, and their own rear ends.

  20. The author of this fantasy piece must be a university professor . When Hitler didn’t get his way he used brown shirts so all the author is seeking is a color upgrade . Dream on .

      • Hitler was a “National-Socialist” and in the first Time of the war II a friend of Josip Stalin of the UDSSR. His political agenda before founding the “NSDAP” ( National-Sozialistische Partei Deutschlands” was nearer to the former “SPD”, he was a member, than to the former “Centrum” aka todays “CDU”. That you must have in mind, when you speak about Hitler. The word “ventennio fascista” is a italian word and describes the time of Mussolini. Hitler describes himself never as fascist.

  21. One of the major arguments of the loony activists has shifted towards climate change being the cause of international conflict and refugees. Sheesh! How do you argue against that? There are reams of data to suggest otherwise, but they are mostly subjective and the Greens are determined to believe what they want to believe. I guess the argument develops that stopping climate change will negate the reasons for a military, so in good Green fashion, turn the military to other uses like making the population want what the Greens want. Idjuts.

    • I needed to fix the first sentence, which reads:

      “The precise extent of human-induced climate change is unclear, but the basic science is unequivocal, as is the danger it poses to the United States.”

      To be scientifically accurate, it should read:

      The precise extent of human-induced climate change is unclear, but the basic science is unequivocal, as are the amazing benefits we are poised to reap from the modest warming and CO2 fertilization, leading to global peace and stability.

      There,,,fixed. Now the rest of the article becomes irrelevant. (sorry if someone has already made this very necessary correction.)

    • Harry S How do you argue against the argument that man-made climate change is responsible for global conflicts? Ask what has changed, and how does it differ from the last 5,000 years.

      It all reminds me of the George Carlin joke where he reports that “…archaeologists have discovered an ancient civilization in which the people had no skills whatsoever! Nothing was found anywhere near the site!”

      In other words, the claim is groundess; completely devoid of evidence. So ask them to produce the evidence.

  22. I know, let’s set up a military junta. Let’s relinquish civilian control of the military. Sure, that was a great experiment proved successful since ancient Roman times. But new situations demand that we give up tried and true advances in civil human governance. I say we need to return to the dark ages after the fall of Rome and before the Enlightenment. Those great times when the military called the shots; giggle, giggle – pun intended. But seriously, who better to call the shots than those that can shoot. And, by all means, let’s get serious about this: no more namby pamby trials by twelve jurors of one’s peers. Screw that. I say military tribunals for those climate miscreants. Let’s have judge, jury, and executioner all efficiently rolled into one to try and hang (bullets are too costly) those scofflaws.

    Can’t you just see how necessary this is? Well, can’t you? Can’t you-can’t you-can’t you? Waaaaaaa! Can’t you? It’s about military junta time.

  23. “equally importantly from the huge waves of migration that climate change is likely to cause” Is this guy a racist or is he being manipulative? I’m sure that if his liberal friends called him out on it he would say that he doesn’t actually believe that mass migration is a bad thing he only said that to get the attention of the right wing. It does raise the question, what else did he say that he doesn’t actually believe.

  24. It would appear that the ‘greenies’ think that the members of the military are interchangeable with the public school teachers. Hate to disappoint them.

  25. After the US Military have “Instructed” Civilians on the need to Address so-called ‘Climate Change’, what do the do with those stragglers who think that it is all a hoax? Shoot them?

    • The Left has killed around 270 million of their own citizens in peacetime. They did this not because they didn’t understand socialism, but because this was socialism working exactly as designed – to kill all dissenters who are standing in the way of the delusional ‘utopia’ (any system where the Left has total control).

      In the US people like Van Jones and even Oprah have talked about the need to simply kill anyone with a view the Left doesn’t approve of.

      Look at the historical record, the Left always harms the citizens and society it is in, sooner (North Korea, East Germany, USSR, Cuba, Venezuela) or later (Sweden, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Baa’thist Iraq, and now much of Europe).

      Socialism mass murdering people (‘democide’) is socialism working as intended by the hateful leaders of the Left. It is self-delusion to think otherwise.

      • Wanting to jail or kill anyone who disagrees with you or who gets between you and power, sounds pretty hateful to me.

      • It’s not hate Mark, it’s just “what needs to be done”. (Even scarier)

        A hypothetical: There is a small town with a dam above it. A man is carrying explosives to blow the dam and wipe out the town. You have a rifle. Do you shoot him? Of course, there is no moral quandary because you are “saving the town”. But you don’t hate the man involved, he just had to stopped to save the town.

        Imagine what your conscience would allow you to do if you are “saving the planet”? They don’t necessarily hate you, you’re just something in the way of the “Grand Plan” and needs removal for the good of all.

  26. So it would seem that the threat is not the weather per se, but rather being inundated by immigration from sh/thole countries?
    Hasn’t Trump already moved on this?

    • Yes, Trump is taking measures to fix the mass migration problem. He’s telling them they can’t come in. They are going to have to work out their own problems in their own countries.

  27. And this is why we SHOULD NOT be treating ANYONE that supports this EVIL Anti-human, Anti-life, Anti-CO2 with anything except contempt and derision.

    • Missed a major word..

      we SHOULD NOT be treating ANYONE that supports this EVIL Anti-human, Anti-life, Anti-CO2 AGENDA with anything except contempt and derision.

  28. Where are Nick, Toneb, griff etc commenting on this.

    Come on, show that you DON’T agree with this sort of enforcement.

  29. Has the world gone mad!!
    America like Canada has vast forests and farmlands as well as significant water systems that use much of the carbon they create and like Canada may be carbon neutral.
    Canadians like lambs to the slaughter are paying for carbon credits and unconstitutional taxes and fees for something that does not exist….crooked thieves and liars within government and mps who have shares in companies who will benefit directly through government intervention.

    • Canada has provinces that have huge supplies of hydro-power. So the residents of those provinces will not be as greatly affected by carbon taxes and/or cap-and-trade. Cheap electricity.

      Only parts of the U.S. have enough hydro-power. So much more difficult to sell carbon taxes and/or cap-and-trade in the U.S. Expensive electricity.

      • Then why does Toronto have the highest electricity rates of any North American city? Why does the province of Ontario have some of the highest priced electricity in North America?

        Your Hydro point only applies to Quebec, Manitoba and British Columbia, and only the former has what one could call ‘cheap electricity.’ Even then carbon taxes raise the cost of EVERYTHING that has any fossil fuel inputs – and in Canada that includes a lot of food that is transported very long distances in the winter.

        In the meantime, what the US may lack in hydro is more than made up for with natural gas and the whole issue could be settled with more nuclear power.

      • Barbara – it will not be cheap for long. Ontario is using it to subsidize solar and wind so the cost has skyrocketed.
        Manitoba is over borrowing to build dams which the prev gov “hoped” they could export. Now the users will be paying a lot more for Hydro to pay off the loans.

      • Here in the northeast, after much legal wrangling, route-changing, and some line-burying, Hydro Quebec will be building a supply line called “northern Pass down through parts of NH, VT, and in Mass. This, of course, is being touted as “clean energy”. A NG pipeline over from the Marcellus shale could have supplied a lot of that electricity, but I suppose that was too much to ask.

  30. Three things, first there is no reason to think there would be consensus in the military. Second, there is no reason to think civilians will listen to the military about civilian policy. Third, the military already has a full time job.

    I enlisted the navy in 1970 to get a technical education in nuclear power and see (sea) the world. Later the navy sent me back to college to finish my engineering degree and I became an officer.

    As a junior officer, it was impressed upon me the valve of questioning everything. I am a trained skeptic.

    Many year later I attended a presentation about ghg causing warming. The presenter was an attorney and claimed to have given the same presentation to Clinton and Gore. Very convincing, I was convinced in one hour.

    Well for about one day until I had a chance to look at the material provided in the presentation. I came to a different conclusion. While I am not a climate expert, I am an expert on certain environmental issues. For example, not exposing children to I-132 when making electricity with fission.

    There is a least a billion people who do not have access to clean drinking water and electricity. We have the technology. If I am going to shape political will that would be my advocacy.

    Sad to say but Jane Fonda is more influential than I am. Maybe if I had a 100 mph fastball and a good slider, my priorities might be considered. Even sadder is that actors, athletes, and journalists who disagree with the consensus better not exercise ‘free speech’.

    Finally, when I was in the navy; there was just not the time.

  31. This isn’t what the military is for and, as many others have noted, would go directly against the Constitution and every American tradition.

    So I’m surprised this Watermelon didn’t suggest that the military should bomb coal-fired power plants around the world to ‘fight climate change.’ But only with solar-powered planes and missiles flown from wind-powered aircraft carriers of course, with all vegan crews eating only locally sourced produce.

  32. Nationalism is the only force in the United States and elsewhere that can motivate the masses to make sacrifices in the struggle against climate change

    So says a Socialist. Now, let me think, what happened the last time those two concepts were combined?

  33. “a tradition of NOT intervening unnecessarily in US domestic politics.”

    Intervening in foreign countries is quite OK.

  34. “…convince ordinary voters that the sacrifices required…” huh… sorry, sacrifices? Nobody mentioned sacrifices before, soldier. Thought this was supposed to be a bloodless war. What losses have you failed to anticipate or explain that are required as part of this war on climate catastrophe?

  35. Oath of Enlistment for enlisted personnel.
    “I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.” (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

    Oath of Commissioned Officers:
    “I, _____, having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.” (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

    Notice that both swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, or IOW the people. Not a government or flag but the people!

    Don’t know how it is now but back in the early 80’s a survey was taken by a significant segment of the US Army enlisted and officers asking about taking what would be unlawful orders under that oath. The majority of young soldiers on their first enlistment tended to say they would follow the orders given. The majority of longer term soldiers/NCOs said they would not follow orders that were clearly unlawful. The pattern was the same for officers with Jr. Officers being more likely to follow the orders of the superiors without question.

    • “I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States”

      What do they do when the President has been the main domestic enemy for 8 of the last 9 years ??

      • His orders are subject to evaluation for lawfulness under the Constitution. As many a president, most prominently probably Abraham Lincoln learned, having the power to issue an order is not the same as having the power to enforce it.

  36. The military have a large intelligence organisation that is familiar with separating fact from disinformation; it also has numerous assets to collect unadjusted data. If it were to deploy a significant portion of this to study climate change it would rapidly conclude that the climate change alarmists are the domestic enemies it is sworn to protect the constitution from.

  37. Thank the lord for the gift of president Trump, I cannot see this happening for at least the next 8 years minimum and then some I hope.

  38. The reality is that, based on the paleoclimate record, the work done with modeling, and the physics of the climate system, the climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty of scientific rational to support the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is really zero. We have been experiencing weather cycles that are part of the current climate but are not a matter of climate change. The climate change we have been experiencing is so small that it requires a network of sophisticated instrumentation decades to detect it. Extreme weather events including droughts are part of the current climate. Even if we could somehow change our current climate we do not know how to change it in order to decrease extreme weather events. The best we can do is better prepare ourselves for the extreme weather events that have been going on for eons. This is the message that people should be getting but combat troops are not the best ones to be conveying this message to the general public.

  39. I suspect the Greens would be happy with an organisation that wore runes on their collars to make sure the prole tow the line with respect to climate change.

  40. The political left – a constituency that ordinarily loathes the military – having successfully compromised the mission and strength of the US military in the pursuit of feminist and LGBT, etc., purity, now wants further to compromise the US military’s mission and strength in the pursuit of solving a non-problem by means that would be mutinous and well as requiring all those who serve to violate theirs oaths and violate the Constitution.

    The left’s success in their corruption/destruction/perversion of mainstream religious denominations, and their success with selective (and erroneous) application of Biblical citations, have given them reason to be optimistic with this new notion from Lieven.

  41. And if you see what a state police force can do because they don’t like people to peacefully vote in a referendum…….

    just imagine what military could do.

    Of course this is just the spanish sh..h… we live in a ‘civilized’ EU country.

    • The problem we saw with the so called “referendum” was its illegal nature, and the intent to follow it up with a coup de etat, which would put several million Spaniards in grave danger due to the anarchy and potential for separatist violence, which could even degenerate into terrorism. Thus the state invoked Article 155 of the Spanish constitution, and called for elections, in which the three separatist parties failed to win a majority of the popular vote. :-)

      • You are part of the problem to defend a fascist state. We just wanted the same as the Basques but the state said No No No . Ok than we separate. You don’t like us so goodbye. And yes espanistan would have a BIG problem.

  42. The military’s expertise is in hurting people and breaking things.

    ‘America’s military is the only institution that can break the partisan deadlock on the worst threat the nation faces.’

    That sounds like a threat to me. Personally.

    ‘In recent years, all too many conservative Americans have begun to deny climate change not on the basis of evidence or debate but because their cultural allegiance rules it out.’

    This false characterization exists only in his mind. But isn’t the military more conservative than the general population? He’s going to use conservatives to convince conservatives not to be conservative?

    ‘This is where the role of the U.S. military is so crucial. It is the one American institution that retains the confidence and respect of the great majority of Americans from both political parties.’

    Profoundly ignorant . . . or a lie.

    “Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.”

    • “The military’s expertise is in hurting people and breaking things.”

      The US military with the help of our allies are exceptionally good at protecting our citizens and protecting property.

    • I suppose we could flood the Qatara depression and other low lying areas with sea water, make sure Lake Chad and the Sea of Azov get more runoff and cover a larger area…things like that could help.

  43. The desperation of the Greenie eco-fascists is becoming more and more evident every day, thanks to Trump. This absurd missive is a blatant and desperate appeal to “national security”. They desperately hope that by waving the US flag (irony much?) they can appeal to coservatives to come around to Climatism. It’s laughably desperate and absurd.

  44. That’s the problem with big government solutions. Whatever can’t be cajoled by indoctrination can be imposed by force. The whole problem with climate change is the fact the models have failed to correctly make predictions. In science that’s called falsification, and the public knows about the failures. Hence, the solution is to impose an involuntary solution to an imaginary problem.

  45. I needed to fix the first sentence, which reads:

    “The precise extent of human-induced climate change is unclear, but the basic science is unequivocal, as is the danger it poses to the United States.”

    To be scientifically accurate, it should read:

    The precise extent of human-induced climate change is unclear, but the basic science is unequivocal, as are the amazing benefits we are poised to reap from the modest warming and CO2 fertilization, leading to global peace and stability.

    There,,,fixed. Now the rest of the article becomes irrelevant. (sorry if someone has already made this very necessary correction.)

  46. The precise extent of human-induced climate change is unclear, but the basic science is unequivocal, as is the danger it poses to the United States.

    The precise mechanics of how the universe operates is unclear, but the basic science is unequivocal, as is the danger it poses to your reality. But for three easy payments of a lifetime of work, we can assure you that your reality will remain intact.

  47. “The military can play a key part in mobilizing these feelings and turning this struggle into one that unites Americans and reduces the divisions and hatred that are beginning to pose a threat not only to the working of the U.S. political system but even the long-term survival of U.S. democracy.”

    Yup, there’s nothing quite like military rule to promote unity and democracy. Fortunately, at least at this point, most military personnel are likely to be loyal supporters of Constitutional rights and liberty.

  48. Yet the alarmists still insist it isn’t the thin edge of the wedge of totalitarianism. To my continued disbelief.

  49. Yes Sir!
    The science has spoken, Sir!
    The science says fight the deŋiers. Sir!
    Load up, environmentally friendly green ammo, we got a war to win!

  50. “However, the sheer scale of the threat to the security of the country means that the U.S. military has an institutional and patriotic duty to instruct Americans concerning this threat, just as it has influenced them in the past on other threats falling within the military’s sphere of competence. Incidentally, this also involves education on the likely security consequences of mass migration, a subject on which liberals are as irrational in their way as conservatives are concerning climate change.”

    First, war powers rest with Congress, and need to remain there (esp. in the case of the Middle East, in which Congress has given war powers to one President, and every President since has used it). The day Congress declares war on the Climate is the day they are removed from office.

    Second, our country is said to be a “country of immigrants”, and this means that we– of all nations –understand the potential evils of mass migration better than any other. It has been our experience that there can be a very very fine line — in fact no difference at all — between mass migration and human trafficking. That is why the US outlawed migration from certain countries at various times in its history. People were being moved for the purpose of free or next-to-free labor. And that is not good for anyone, no matter what the Jesuits and the Pontifex Maximus in Rome may say.

    Also, during the mid-nineteenth century, migration shifted from the Northwestern European countries to the southern and eastern European countries, and this meant that there were many people coming from the Old World, who had no conception at all of free, republican forms of government. And they tended to become ghettoized, in cycles of poverty and separation. Now that we have a massive drug problem, and an expectation of welfare payments to people who come here, this will worsen the cycles of ghettoization and crime, drug use, and anomie. The inducements to come here must never be welfare and hand-outs, multi-cultural quotas, and lack of accountability to the laws of our land. The inducements to come here are to individuals, to come here legally, and for opportunities to better themselves materially, intellectually, and spiritually, under the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution.

  51. “BY ANATOL LIEVEN | JANUARY 9, 2018, 12:45 PM
    The precise extent of human-induced climate change is unclear, but the basic science is unequivocal, as is the danger it poses to the United States.”

    What is unknown yet allegedly proven beyond question…

    Sounds like a sociopath warming up to their high/depression topics of the day.

    “BY ANATOL LIEVEN | JANUARY 9, 2018, 12:45 PM
    This threat comes from the direct impact of climate change on agricultural production and sea levels but equally importantly from the huge waves of migration that climate change is likely to cause, on a scale that even the world’s richest states and societies will be unable either to prevent or accommodate”

    ergo: the unknown unproven impacts to climate will;
    • a) do something direct to agricultural production; assumption by the up/down fear monger is that all impacts are bad or destructive…
    Which ignores better plant growth and increased yields.

    • b) directly impact sea levels; again unstated impacts but a clear intimation people will not like the new sea levels.

    • c) force huge waves of mass migrations; who/where from is still unknown.

    • d) Then the coup de grâce of CAGW caused climate change is to become climate change the richest states, nations and societies are unable to prevent…
    Just which rich state or society can prevent climate change today!?

    I believe the proper British slang term for this type of thinking is called “completely mental!”. In any case, the author of that claim should really get some professional help, or seclusion.

    Though, claim climate science authority and get a paid move to France is a possibility.

  52. FWIW: for those who believe that there may just be a modicum of truth printed on the pages of Wikipedia, here is the entry for our quoted author, one Anatol Lieven:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatol_Lieven

    Of course, in just speaking for myself, this Wikipedia entry is about exactly as I would expect for an author of such an anti-military big govt advocating article: a description of a self-anointed offish Euro-elitist.

    PS: my apologies if this has already been referenced … as I did not read all of the comments.

  53. Remember what Obama said in his last State of the Union speech:

    Look, if anybody still wants to dispute the science around climate change, have at it. You will be pretty lonely, because you’ll be debating our military … and 200 nations around the world who agree it’s a problem and intend to solve it.

    Now another SOB tells our military to “debate” the citizens!

  54. All the while, the Greens ignore that the US military is the biggest polluter in the world, uses more resources than the vast majority of countries combines, and leaves the largest carbon footprint in the world.

    Where are the Greens when it comes to Depleted Uranium? And why didn’t the Greens criticize Obama and HRC for destroying the $70 billion underground river built by Gaddafi to supply all of Africa with fresh drinking water? What about the illegal DU weapons that destroyed the fresh water aquifer used for this underground river? And where are the Greens when it comes to Fukushima?

    Just useless Soros pawns who cannot think for themselves.

    • Kelly
      You do know that all isotopes of an element are chemically the same?
      You do know that uranium is ubiquitous in the earths crust?
      You do know that U is found in all most all wells?
      You do know that U is not particularly toxic and harmful levels are well established?
      You do know that urine tests can identify if U is causing harm?
      Finally Kelly you do know that you have not established that drinking water standards have been exceeded or anyone harmed by U?
      Over the top rants lacking any scientific basis attacking the military is another reason the military can not defend over the top rants about climate.
      Aside: How did I do with the debating tactic of asking stupid questions rather than presenting facts.

    • I’ve been hearing Greens whine about DU for decades. Like most other things they whine about, they haven’t a clue. Metallic uranium is not very toxic. It’s radiation levels are barely measurable.
      Qaddafi built an underground river that was able to supply ALL of Africa? All the way down to S. Africa????
      Would you care to give the coordinates for this imaginary river you are so concerned about?
      DU is not illegal. DU cannot be used to destroy an acquifer. It’s real good at destroying armored vehicles, but that’s about it.
      I’ve been hearing Greens whine about Fukushima since the accident happened, and once again, there is no reason for them to do so.

  55. It must stick in the craw of every military person that they are being drug into Climate Change. I wonder what MOS (Military Occupational Specialty) that would align with.

  56. “Instruct,” as in a Public Service Announcement by the U.S. Army?
    It won’t work. I quickly lost my respect for the Surgeon General; I can just as quickly lose my respect for a Four Star General.

  57. Ever notice how progressives like to push their agendas on institutions where there primary members aren’t allowed to say ‘no’? Like schools and the military.
    They take their totalitarianism where they can find it.

Comments are closed.