Washington Post: Will Happer to be Appointed to the Presidential Committee on Climate Security

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

According to the Washington Post, Climate Skeptic Will Happer will be part of a team President Trump is assembling a White House committee to scrutinise wild climate change claims being presented by government agencies.

White House prepares to scrutinize intelligence agencies’ finding that climate change threatens national security

By Juliet Eilperin and Missy Ryan

February 20 at 5:00 AM

The White House is working to assemble a panel to assess whether climate change poses a national security threat, according to documents obtained by The Washington Post, a conclusion that federal intelligence agencies have affirmed several times since President Trump took office.

The proposed Presidential Committee on Climate Security, which would be established by executive order, is being spearheaded by William Happer, a National Security Council senior director. Happer, an emeritus professor of physics at Princeton University, has said that carbon emissions linked to climate change should be viewed as an asset rather than a pollutant.

In late November, Trump dismissed a government report finding that global warming is intensifying and poses a major threat the U.S. economy, saying, “I don’t see it.” Last month, his nominee to head the Environmental Protection Agency, acting administrator Andrew Wheeler, testified that he did not see climate change as one of the world’s pressing challenges.

According to the NSC discussion paper, the order would create a federal advisory committee “to advise the President on scientific understanding of today’s climate, how the climate might change in the future under natural and human influences, and how a changing climate could affect the security of the United States.”

Read more (paywalled): https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/20/white-house-climate-change-national-security-panel

I saw Will Happer speak when I attended a Heartland conference. My guess is when this new committee becomes official, government employees who have made dodgy climate claims about national security in government reports will have a lot of questions to answer.

Actions have consequences.

191 thoughts on “Washington Post: Will Happer to be Appointed to the Presidential Committee on Climate Security

    • No, PaulH, this is terrible news. The news is, as we have known for some time, our Intelligence Agencies have been cooking the climate books for political reasons, as have other Federal Agencies.

      Dr. Happer is going to expose that and further erode national confidence in or governmental organs. A sad, but necessary task.

      • The citizenry should never have much if any confidence in the government organ. Further erosion of confidence can be seen as a good thing if those who’s confidence that is being eroded are those who’s confidence is excessive.

        • Correct. Any reasonably intelligent person should have completely lost confidence in goobermint orgs long ago.

          • I have tried to find any reasonably intelligent person to our government many many years.
            We have election this spring. I keep on searching…

        • The problem is that the more people distrust government, the more likely they are to vote for more government.

          “All we need to do is get our guys in office and everything will get better!”

  1. But there’s so little time left in Trump’s term. If he’s not reelected, this panel will have barely gotten going before it will be summarily quashed.

    • Have you seen the nut jobs running for the Democratic ticket? As long as the Democrats continue with their message of resist Trump, raise taxes, resist Trump, put people out of work, resist Trump, close down businesses…, they’re going to lose. As of now, Trump is on his way to a second term.

      • Unless demographics in the swing states works against him.
        Since 2016 those demographics have not been working in his favour, and it requires surprisingly few votes in key marginals to make a significant impact on outcome.
        Just saying.

      • “As of now, Trump is on his way to a second term.”

        I think that’s right. Trump is still holding his base together. I saw a poll the other day that said 85 percent of Republicans supported Trump’s efforts to build a wall on the southern border.

        Trump still has his base which amounted to about 63 million voters in 2016. So he is holding those numbers together at the present, and in addition his approval ratings have climbed steadily (up to 52 percent approval in the Rasmusen poll), and his ratings with both the Black Community and the Hispanic Community have increase from about 15 percent approval in 2016 to about 40 percent approval now. That has to be worth millions of additional votes.

        So Trump is headed in the right direction for reelection. And all this despite the most energetic attacks the Left can make against Trump, constantly calling him a rasicst, homophobe, zenophobe, and every other name in the book. Every day. All day long.

    • I sure wouldn’t bet money on what happens.

      Reagan had a legacy that the Democrats couldn’t undo. It is quite possible that The Donald will have enduring effects even if he is not elected.

        • Apply for a grant.
          The repair is needed because the science is settled, and we need to prognosticate.
          The repair will be expensive, because the repairer is in Hawaii, and will necessitate a fortnight-long stay.
          The repair needs to be supervised, and so you will need assistants – spouses and siblings, as well as children and grandchildren often perform these roles.
          Regular reports will be written; I believe they still sell postcards in Hawaii.

          Hope this helps.

          Auto

      • It’ll be another Electoral College election. California, New York and Illinois will go for the Democrat. It’ll take the rest of the nation to offset their votes (legit or otherwise).

      • Paul S – We will see based on voter fraud…

        Wisconsin turned the corner in 2016 and went for a Republican for the first time since 1984. Why? Voter ID that’s why. Besides a wall on our southern border, voter ID is the other thing that Democrats vehemently oppose. It’s all about power and votes.

        • You are a little behind the times, the governor of Wisconsin is a Democrat who was elected in 2018. Were not the same Voter ID laws in place during that election?

          • Phil, Steve was referring to Presidential elections, there were no presidential elections in 2018. Presidential year elections and non-presidential year elections don’t always draw the same people to the polls as the issues tend to be more local for the later elections then for the former.

      • Yes the Republican voter fraud is being uncovered, the North Carolina 9th district is particularly egregious.

        • Republican voter fraud! How scary! Rampant Florida voter fraud certainly had to be caused by Republicans I imagine.

          And the million illegals nationwide voted Republican too, I imagine….

        • That’s an improvement, not too long ago he was arguing that voter fraud was just a figment of the imagination.
          Now we just have to get him to recognize the Democrats long history of expertise in this area.

        • Now that the Republicans are implicated, let’s start nationwide voter fraud checks.
          Top of the list: Los Angeles, Detroit, Philadelphia, Chicago, Austin, NYC, and continue down the list of major cities. And in parallel, all of Los Angeles county and surrounding counties.

    • He’ll get a good majority in 2020. Dems should have had a retrospective on what went wrong and sought to right the ship. They chose to double down on their bad policies and to try to overturn the election result. The House will switch back to Republican too. All the the new women dems in the house apparently arent bringing anything new (new to the dems, that is))to the table. America isnt going to go for the extreme left and African Americans and Hispanics are enjoying big growth in employment. Trump is a shoo-in.

      • It’s far too early to make a reasonable prediction about next year’s election.

        Trump is deeply, irrationally unpopular in many areas of the country. The mask is just about completely off the media as far as their being agents for socialist revolution is concerned. That makes the calculation tricky.

        Thirty years ago, Dems locking arms with big media to openly push socialism would be a slam dunk for conservatives. After 30 years of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama centrist government (ok 28 yrs), and a significant fraction of the population with no memory of the Cold War failures of socialism or the positive aspects of Reagan policies, we face a situation where potentially over half of the electorate is hostile to conservative limited government, and unpersuadable because they only listen to now-openly-socialist news media.

        Socialism has been rehabilitated through historical ignorance. It’s no longer the case that we can say “that’s socialism” and automatically win the day if people believe the assertion. We do have Venezuela as an asset, but I am not sanguine about the prospects of a Trump re-election.

        Much depends on how Trump approaches the climate change question, and whether the economy stays strong. We can have hope because so far Trump has been true to the vast majority of his campaign promises, that he’s not going to flip flop on climate change, but that doesn’t mean that he can be persuasive on the topic. The winning formula is probably to hammer home the negative impacts of GND on our strong economy. That depends for success on there being an undeniably strong economy in October 2020. We can’t predict that twenty months out.

        • “Trump is deeply, irrationally unpopular in many areas of the country.”

          That’s correct, but we don’t really know how many people we are talking about here. It might not be enough to hurt his reelection chances.

          I heard a pundit on MSNBC say the other day that Trump’s supporters only represented 37 to 40 percent of voters. I don’t know if that number is accurate or not, but what I do know is that the Liberals think they represent everyone else, the other 63 percent.

          I think the numbers are probably something like 40 percent for the right and left and 20 percent in the middle.

          I love how the Liberals presume to speak for everyone. They say, “Americans want this” and “Americans don’t like that” as if they speak for all Americans.

          What they are really saying is, “Socialists want this” and “Socialists don’t like that”. They only speak for the socialists but presume to speak for all. It’s part of the arrogance of being an uppity Liberal.

          So the next time you hear Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Shumer haranguing the president for not having “American” values, just substitute the word “Socialist” for “American” and then you will have the proper context.

          • And another thing about Trump being unpopular on the Left. Just as the Fake News drives the hatred of Trump on the Left, the Fake News also gets the Right angry, too. Angry at the Lying Leftwing News Media and at the Democrat Party, and how they have thrown every obstacle they can think of in Trump’s way, and just as Leftwing anger might spur some extra votes come the 2020 election, anger will also spur some extra votes on the Right.

          • That is why the Leftist want to do away with the EC … so that all of their extra votes can influence other parts of the country. As it stands now, all those extra leftist votes in Cali and NY only impact CA and NY EC votes.

          • Phil ….. so, Trump confirms that he can make a mistake just like every leftist on earth!

            The EC is the single most ingenious creation of the founding fathers. It is the only mechanism that prevents mob rule (the Democrats call it democracy) and prevents a ruling class (Leftist Elitist Tyrants) from highjacking the country. If the political class ever succeed in replacing the EC, the US will be the next Venezuela within 4 years.

          • Yes, that’s true. And certain states are never going to vote for any of the clown car participants in the Democrat primary.

            Nothing Trump does or doesn’t do is likely to matter in California, Texas, New York, or Utah. But the problem is that Trump has to win all of the traditional swing states like Florida and Ohio, if he does not hold onto the three surprise states that he won in 2016 (Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin).

            I can’t see him pulling it off without a continued very strong economy and/or a left-leaning independent candidate in the race. Too many unknowns to make a prediction at this point.

          • “it’s not like he has LOST New York and California.”

            Trump ought to remove the wall on California’s southern border and funnel all the illegal aliens coming up through Mexico into California. That way, California can pay for all of their social needs, and their illegal socialist votes (after all, they come from socialist countries and are seeking welfare payments from the U.S. taxpayers) won’t make a difference in the presidential election since they will be voting in California.

            I’ll have to send this idea to the White House.

          • Democrat electoral fraud, eg motor voter registration, ballot harvesting and other corrupt practices borrowed from Mexico’s PRI, is spreading from CA to other states. OR Dems want to lower the voting age to 16, inspired by Nicaraguan Communists.

            Ballot harvesting enabled Sinema to “beat” McSally in AZ, just as it overturned the election of a half dozen or more GOP members of Congress in CA.

      • From here in oz I’m seeing the same signs as I did during the campaign for Trump with one exception, jobs , more people are employed and your economy is going gang busters .
        Trump will win a second term I’m just waiting to see the odds before making a bet .

  2. No, actions no longer seem to have any consequences.

    Nothing will happen except for more teeth gnashing and snarling by progressives and the so-called press.

    I wish government employees were held accountable for their actions – but we are a nation caught up in sensitivity and correctness, oh and investigations to stop anything from working. Thank goodness we went to the moon when NASA was still competent.

    Our government is no more capable of understanding the (non-)issues of CO2-driven climate change then an ant is capable of understanding photosynthesis. If a shadow suddenly blocks the blade of grass the ant is using, “quick, stop piling up sand as it is causing global dimming!” The ants then run around in circles screaming…

  3. The MSM is having a meltdown over this appointment… not really surprising I guess. They meltdown anytime something happens that is outside or against “The Message”, that they can’t ignore or poo poo.

    • I don’t really see any independent the never Trumpers can run that will hurt Trump enough to make him lose. No outside source can drive a wedge between the POTUS and his base. Only he can lose it. The never Trumpers have been exposed as being anything but conservative and will never have the power to effect events outside of the beltway they once did and thus are from here forward relegated to the role of the token fake “conservative” on the talking head panels of the leftist media.

      The sheer lunacy of the democrats has been on display for all to see. Their candidates compete to see who can say and propose the looniest leftist things or can’t go a day without displaying their bigotry.

      The total bias and immorality of the legacy media is undeniable. They remind me of a mindless mob as they rush from one false story to another hell bent on destroying the POTUS, anyone that may support him, or even a kid wearing a MAGA hat. Often based on no more than the blathering of idiots on social media. And the Democrats jump right on in an instant until the allegations are demonstrated to be obviously false and then suddenly they “need more information” before they can make a judgment.

      These people are so desperate, so hateful, so intolerant, that their derangement is expressed in one form or another nearly every single day of every news cycle for anyone paying even a little attention to see. I don’t think that even most of the millennials could have missed at least some of it.

      I have no crystal ball either but I can’t see a pathway for the legacy media to ever regain the influence they once had on politics and national opinion and THAT is a stake in the heart of the democrats especially when it comes to national elections in the long run. And BTW it will also be a stake in the heart of the Climate Change meme.

      • The great man President Trump has one thing he needs to do something about before 2020: US healthcare insurance arrangements. That issue apparently was behind the mid term results. He needs to keep his eye on it and get the houses together and do a deal. Maybe immigration reform for healthcare reform. Or something like that. I dunno, I’m an outsider. Just a thought.

        • “The great man President Trump has one thing he needs to do something about before 2020: US healthcare insurance arrangements.”

          Trump has been doing things to improve healthcare and make it less expensive throught several Executive Orders he has issued. One allows groups of people to negotiate insurace costs with any insurance company in the U.S., with injects competition into the mix that will lower prices. Good results are already happening. Prior to Trump’s executive order, people could only negotiate with insurance companies located in their particular state and no other. Since most states only have one or two insurance companies in residence, there is not much if any competition to lower prices.

          Trump has also done an executive order requiring transparency of medical prices so that people can compare prices for drugs and medical procedures from around the country. This will have the effect of inserting competition into the market.

          Drug commercials will be coming out shortly quoting the prices for their drugs.

          If Trump had a cooperative Congress, he could get the whole Healthcare System straightened out. Of course, he has a very uncooperative Congress at the moment. But that could change come the 2020 elections.

          • Good results are already happening. Prior to Trump’s executive order, people could only negotiate with insurance companies located in their particular state and no other. Since most states only have one or two insurance companies in residence, there is not much if any competition to lower prices.

            Not true, competition across statelines was allowed in Obamacare but the states and companies didn’t want to do it. It allows states to create ‘health care choice compacts’ permitting insurers to sell policies to consumers in any state participating in the compact.

          • Try reading up on the many issues with these so called compacts.
            Yet another layer of government bureaucracy is not needed to allow cross state insurance. All that’s needed is to eliminate the laws that prevent it.

          • Not true, competition across statelines was allowed in Obamacare but the states and companies didn’t want to do it.

            I would argue it isn’t that simple. The provision you mention for selling plans across state lines is an empty (i.e., meaningless) provision for at least two reasons:

            1) In one of many efficiency failures of the Obama administration with regard to the ACA, HHS never implemented a rules framework that would allow insurers and states to build the partnerships provided for in the provision.

            https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/300711-insurers-arent-interested-in-selling-obamacare-across-state-lines

            The above article also touches on the second point below:

            2) Rather than a market based approach to selling policies across state lines that would benefit consumers and insurers alike, the provision only provides for a “business as usual under the ACA” approach. The best insurers could hope for (or so it seems to me) is a revenue neutral ROI for the additional work required to sell and maintain said plans. The worst case scenario (and probably the most likely) is a revenue negative ROI on their investment.

            This paper specifically argues against the market-based approach to selling across state lines in favor of the ACA approach. The main premise being:

            “Policies that would increase segmentation of health care risks, such as sales across state lines outside the regulatory floor the ACA provides, could adversely affect those without access to employer-sponsored insurance and those who have health problems. Sales across state lines would reduce premiums for those who are healthy at a given time while increasing premiums and reducing access to coverage for those with current or past health problems. Insurers would also be reluctant to offer comprehensive insurance policies in the nongroup market. The approach seriously underestimates the value of access to adequate, affordable coverage over time as individuals’ health care needs change.”

            https://www.urban.org/research/publication/sales-insurance-across-state-lines-aca-protections-and-substantial-risks-eliminating-them

            To translate the above, insurers can’t be allowed offer health insurance plans across state lines that their customers might wish to purchase, thereby giving them a competitive edge and thereby furthering the profit motive. Instead they’re forced to sell plans that at best likely won’t make them any money while doing more work to maintain those plans.

            Tom Miller of AEI commented as follows (link above): “It’s like a fake-out, and it’s not even a very convincing fake-out . . . [a]ll that’s saying is, you get to do something different as long as you do the same thing you’re doing before”

          • I agree that actually implementing compacts is far from simple. The key point is that the rules regarding health care are a state’s responsibility and states are very reluctant to surrender their authority. States have widely differing regulations and that is what causes the problem. I think it’s unlikely that the president would get away with an executive order that overrode the states rights in this area regardless of which party he and the states represent.

          • States have widely differing regulations and that is what causes the problem.

            States do have different regulatory environments, yes, but it cannot be true that these are the sole problem. In fact, these issues could be worked out between states and insurers, if they so desire.

            The fundamental issue at hand is that HHS never codified the ACA rules regarding the compacts, so that leaves states and insurers in a potential mess. Even if the two are able to form a compact, they can’t possibly know whether the compact will remain valid over time.

          • That is why President Trump is correct in allowing individuals to contact insurers on their own. Government regulation of voluntary commerce always leads to shortages and higher prices.

          • In fact, these issues could be worked out between states and insurers, if they so desire.

            As I recall at the time there really wasn’t much interesting them doing so. Clearly it’s possible since we can do so with respect to Medicare.

          • Fascinating how state laws forbidding the buying of health insurance from an out of state provider becomes:
            The insurance companies have no interest in providing out of state insurance.

            syscomputing detailed some of the problems with these compacts, yet you just dismiss that as details.

          • As I recall at the time there really wasn’t much interesting them doing so.

            Right, and there really still isn’t. But is it any wonder there wasn’t any interest then or now in working toward compacts without knowing the rules regarding them?

            Surely you’ll agree that from a business perspective, insurers and states need to know what the rules are in order to maintain stability and consistency when dealing with customers within the compact contracts? Otherwise, chaos ensues and everyone loses, as we saw with health care premiums skyrocketing after the implementation of the ACA.

          • Right, and there really still isn’t. But is it any wonder there wasn’t any interest then or now in working toward compacts without knowing the rules regarding them?

            It was bit of a chicken and egg situation, normally the feds, the states and the industry would work together but the lack of interest meant that it didn’t get off the ground.

          • It was bit of a chicken and egg situation, normally the feds, the states and the industry would work together but the lack of interest meant that it didn’t get off the ground.

            No, it wasn’t a matter of chickens or eggs. It is the elephant in the room in the form of a lack of governing rules from HHS that prevents the compact provision from being utilized. That’s the first problem and the main hurdle. The next is you can’t make any money from it.

            No business, ever, at any time, anywhere, for any reason, would begin to contract with customers in an environment where the business rules were unknown. That would be stupid and irresponsible.

      • “I don’t really see any independent the never Trumpers can run that will hurt Trump enough to make him lose. No outside source can drive a wedge between the POTUS and his base. Only he can lose it.”

        I agree with that.

        Trump has produced and he has produced things conservatives like very much. None of his potential Republican opponents would even come close. They can’t hit him on his performance so they will attack him on his supposed lack of morals, or call him a rascist, like the Democrats do. You see how far that got the Democrats. Not far at all.

        Now Trump is going out and campaigning against the discrimination and violence going on against Gays around the world. Does this mean Trump is not a homophobe? The poor Democrats are losing another issue to Trump. They’ll probably still call him a homphobe, they’ll just say this effort is a smokescreen to hide how he really feels about Gays. You can’t win with deliberate liars.

  4. I suggested that Angus Taylor, our Minister for Energy, inaugurate a similar Committee, composed of equal numbers of eminent scientists from the sceptic and alarmist sides, to advise him on the current state of ‘climate science’ and what the state of play is on the arguments for and against ‘unnatural’ global warming. No action – probably my letter never got to him and was dismissed by staff as a ‘denier’ letter which should never be seen by the Minister.

    Now the POTUS has done what I suggested to Angus. Good on him!

  5. I love the fact that Bill Clinton once called CO2 ‘plant food’, but only once.
    =============================================

  6. Get Freeman Dyson, of ‘grow giant trees’ and ‘when glaciers grow in Tennessee’ fame on the panel too. He’s got liberal credibility.
    ===============================

  7. The two journalists reporting on the science issue of atmospheric CO2 and global warming, Ms. Eilperin has a college degree in politics and Ms. Ryan a degree in English and Public Policy, they review for us their assessment of whether or not CO2 emissions are an existential threat to mankind now and in the future. Their article pre-empts that of the review of the convened scientific panel to be led by William Happer.

    In a field of such great uncertainty as climate change, whereby costly public policies are to be undertaken on the basis of unvalidated computer models, wouldn’t you think more fleshing out of the issue is necessary instead of head-long following the lemmings in front of you?

  8. I’m not comfortable with the name ‘Climate Security.’ Has a Lefty ring to it.

    Of course, Trump could be trolling the Left with the name. He’s real good at that.

  9. I hope when this group defines their objective they also define “climate” and “climate change” and rigorously stick to them as they develop their report. I think there is so much difference in understanding of what climate is and what climate change means that most conversations or discussions leave many misunderstandings and wrong conclusions.

    • “Climate” has a definition already. Though it’s true that most conversations show people don’t even know what ‘climate’ means.

      And, of course, ‘climate change’ has no meaning whatsoever.

  10. Happer’s advancement is a practical step.
    The highly-agitated phase of the climate promotion as well as the overall ambition of the Left could be close to exhausting itself and collapsing.
    There are historical examples.
    The title of my article on the subject is “Ending Action: Financial and Political”
    This site picked it up, but put in their own headline:

    https://canadafreepress.com/members/1/BobHoye/1151

  11. Great. Better late than never but considering the importance of “climate change” with the populace it’s probably fantastic that it was addressed at all.

  12. I wish they would all just say man made climate change is real….

    …and then make China and India stop it

  13. Trump is very clever. He knows that timing is everything, and that the Dems have made it clear that they will make climate change a major issue this election cycle. His Committee will not only address previous reports, but also supply all Repub candidates with the arguments and facts (and background understanding) about climate issues. The press will have to cover the debates, and our message will no longer be ignored. The energy debate will be incorporated into the climate debate. Nothing but good news here.

  14. This committee will be a disaster for the bureaucrats pushing C.A.G.W.
    Simply by calling them, before the committee, to explain their claims and forcing them to define their terms,will destroy the narrative.
    The Cult of Calamitous Climate was created by the bureaus and this is the proper way to expose policy based evidence manufacturing.
    Lots of “experts” are going to be blaming their “scientific advisors” and boasting of their personal scientific ignorance…”Not my fault,the committee agreed”.

  15. This will be interesting.
    AOC will have her committee which half the Democrats want to kill anyway because she’s eclipsing their stars and they want to get her under control, and Trump will have his committee supposedly investigating government employees but perfectly positioned to rebut any claims coming out of AOC’s committee.

    Gotta love Washington politics…

  16. I hope Judith Curry will be appointed to the committee. She has said she would be willing to serve in an advisory role, not in an executive one.

  17. Seeing Will Happer and the committee asking government employees searching questions on outrageous claims about the effects of CO2 and climate on national security which have been put into government reports would be very refreshing to see.

    • You have nothing, griff.

      The fact you cite Desmog shows that.

      Happer is a well recognised non-partisan SCIENTIST, unlike many of your favourite AGW priests.

    • So someone that has been a long standing part of the government or an academic that has relied on government grants for their professional existence would be more impartial? Obviously NOT! At least Happer has helped to produce something useful which is quite the opposite of what useless people like you desire to be seen appointed to government positions.

      • Happer has long-standing government experience. He’s a long-term member of the JASON advisory group, in which he pioneered the development of adaptive optics. From 1991-93, he also served as director of the Department of Energy’s Office of Science, during the elder Bush administration.

        He is a real scientist of great achievement, unlike the GIGO computer gaming mathematicians and programmers of “climate (anti-)science”.

    • In other words, you can’t find anything against the man, so you are attacking one portion of his income stream.

    • He is a bright and shinning example of independent and impartial thought.

      He has a long track record of doing what is right, regardless of income.

      Per your highly biased blog reference, he has received less than $25K.

      Per the attempted Greenpeace set-up, he told them he didn’t want money … that they could donate to someone else … that what he does is a labor of love. See today’s hit piece on him per the NYT … they don’t go as low as you did with respect to the attempted Greenpeace set-up.

    • OK, I’ll bite, Griff. Anyone employed or paid by Greenpeace and other liberal NGOs, academia, governments, etc. are compromised?

  18. It’s a reaction to this :
    In February 2018, Dan Coats, Director of National Intelligence, in written testimony to the Senate Intelligence
    Committee, warned of “abrupt” climate change, and stated, “The impacts of the long-term trends toward a warming climate … are likely to fuel economic and social discontent — and possibly upheaval — through 2018.”

    Changes at DNI anybody?

    There you have it – “climate” is a threat to national security.

    As a wag said : It’s be a great country, if only they roofed it, never mind the wall.

  19. I see a mention of “Voter fraud”. How is that possible ? Here in Australia we have a simple system, still using the good working pencil to mark our ballot papers, and the results go through a computer after the result.

    So if anyone votes twice or more then we pick it up.

    Perhaps our simple labour intense system compared to the USA machine system has merit.

    MJE

    • “Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything.” – Joseph Stalin

      The US has voting by mail for weeks in advance. This provides an estimate about how much the ballot boxes need to be preloaded with ‘correct’ votes.
      Fresh immigrants are more likely to vote as desired, so a lot of effort is spent on getting them on the list.
      Invitations for moved or dead people can be held back and given to persons better able to use them.
      Boxes from ‘wrong’ voting neighborhoods sometimes get ‘lost’ in transit.

      The mailed votes (officially) only get opened and counted if they can conceivably change the result. So as long as the result is close, extra ‘correct’ ballots can be manufactured at a later date and exchanged (at night) with ‘faulty’ ones.
      In Florida, one County ‘forgot’ to call in the number of mailed votes, giving them the option to reprint unlimited numbers. They kept finding more and more until ‘wrong’ votes from Northern Florida could be ‘balanced’ out and the desired candidate won.

      • Quite right. That’s why Dimocraps violently resist any photo ID or in fact any modernization/upgrade of voter identification and confirmation. Keep it so primitive that fraud in its many forms is kept easy. Any other modern country has better voter ID/confirmation. The US “system” is kept primitive by Dimocrap/marxist design.

    • but we register to vote
      theres a huge outcry against people doing that in usa as far as i see..
      confusing cos they all have a soc sec number thats proof enough to use i would have thought, and cross referencable to address/state to prevent fraud.
      we only get our own mail vote forms sent out
      I gather people in usa can get their hands on MANY forms at a time if they pick them up
      negates one person one vote utterly.
      and yes evoting is insane for corruption risks
      though some twit is pushing it here

      • Some states require government issued photo ID so a social security card/number doesn’t suffice. There are some very dubious procedures used in some states in connection with these rules. For example, The state of Alabama issues free voter ID cards to voters who need them. These photo IDs are issued by driver license bureaus. However the state closed driver license bureaus in eight of the ten counties with the highest percentages of nonwhite voters, and in every county in which blacks made up more than 75 percent of registered voters!
        The N Carolina photo ID requirement was struck down by the US Court of Appeals which found that it targeted African Americans “with almost surgical precision”!
        Similar to the history of compulsory voting in Australia, wasn’t it introduced for white folk 60 years before it was extended to aboriginals?

        • However the state closed driver license bureaus in eight of the ten counties with the highest percentages of nonwhite voters . . .

          According to the governor, the closures were due to budgetary issues, not in an effort to restrict voting. Furthermore, DMV offices were not the only place one could obtain a photo ID:

          “Alabama requires every voter to have a valid photo ID to cast a ballot. While a driver’s license is the most common form of ID in the state, Bentley said anyone without a driver’s license can go to any county register’s office and have a photo ID made and the closing of the DMV offices will not change that fact.”

          https://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/10/gov_bentley_says_decision_to_c.html

          Thus, voting rights were not restricted by the DMV closings.

          It seems the only “violation” the Obama administration could cite AL with was the following, from the DOT (note, “Transportation,” not “Justice”).

          “Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits entities that receive federal funding from discriminating on the basis of race, color or national origin in their programs and activities. Both the state of Alabama and its law enforcement agency receive federal assistance from the DOT.”

          It would seem, then, the best one could argue on the available evidence was a specious argument that AL was attempting to restrict blacks from driving automobiles.

          Even supporters of the notion that the closures were racially motivated appear to contradict themselves:

          “Maybe the governor didn’t intend to target minority citizens with the closures, but ultimately his intent is beside the point.”

          https://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2017/01/as_it_turns_out_bentleys_drive.html

          The N Carolina photo ID requirement was struck down by the US Court of Appeals . . .

          The 4th circuit is well-known to be left-leaning, so it’s no surprise voter ID would be struck down there. Not surprisingly, the astute voters of N. Carolina have decided the US Court of Appeals was incorrect in its opinion:

          https://www.wral.com/details-of-nc-s-new-voter-id-requirement-still-need-to-be-worked-out/17977588/

      • Phil. begs to differ with you.

        Regardless, there have been hundreds of cases where it’s been proven. The problem is that the way the system is set up, proving fraud is almost impossible, unless someone brags.
        Fortunately liberals aren’t too bright and they like to brag.

        There is no rational reason to oppose checking voter ID’s unless your desire is to protect cheating.

          • Once again, so what. Are you so desperate to find something disagreeable to say that you are reduced to that?

            BTW, thank you for helping to support the case that I’ve been making.

          • Hey sycomputing, per your “Heritage” site (which we all know isn’t biased (LMAO))….they count registration fraud in their count…….that isn’t “voter fraud.”

            Now, got an unbiased source?

          • . . . they count registration fraud in their count…….that isn’t “voter fraud.”

            Hey there Dave, long time.

            Did you mean the following type of registration fraud, or something else?

            “False Registrations
            Voting under fraudulent voter registrations that either use a phony name and a real or fake address or claim residence in a particular jurisdiction where the registered voter does not actually live and is not entitled to vote.”

            https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud/search

          • As trump said: “I will be asking for a major investigation into VOTER FRAUD, including those registered to vote in two states,”
            Embarrassingly that included his family members and several of his advisors, Bannon was also registered in a house in Florida where he didn’t live which is a breech of state law.

          • Embarrassingly that included his family members and several of his advisors, Bannon was also registered in a house in Florida where he didn’t live which is a breech of state law.

            I’m not sure which of his family members you’re referencing, but Bannon has been cleared with prejudice.

            From the Guardian, hardly a bastion of conservatism (in case Dave is still around):

            “’However, the investigation also revealed sufficient evidence that the subject intended to legally reside in Miami-Dade County,’ the document continues. ‘Therefore, at a minimum, there is reasonable doubt as to the subject’s guilt. Because the evidence is insufficient to prove beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt that the subject swore falsely on a voter registration application, the state attorney’s office is not pursuing charges. The matter is now closed.’”

            https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/30/steve-bannon-voter-fraud-charges-florida

          • I’m not sure which of his family members you’re referencing, but Bannon has been cleared with prejudice.

            Tiffany and Jared.

          • Gotcha!

            Well can you confirm they’ve voted in two states? The Daily Beast (another non-bastion of conservatism) argues it isn’t enough just to be registered in both:

            No, however Trump referred just to those registered in two states.

          • No, however Trump referred just to those registered in two states.

            Hmmm, yeah but in what context?

            “When you look at the people that are registered, dead, illegal and two states, and some cases maybe three states, we have a lot to look into,” Trump said in an ABC interview.

            https://www.apnews.com/80497cfb5f054c9b8c9e0f8f5ca30a62

            Does it follow from having “a lot to look into” that Trump meant actually being registered to vote in multiple states was the same as actually voting in those states?

            Not sure why the innocent former should necessarily presuppose the guilty latter . . .

        • I don’t see a problem with requiring voter ID, but I do object to making such a process discriminatory as some states have done. N Carolina commissioned a survey of the use of different types of ID and excluded those that African Americans were most likely to have, that’s one reason why their law was overturned.
          The process I’ve been through to vote is fairly straightforward, I certainly don’t see much opportunity for fraud, when I’ve voted it’s recorded that I’ve voted so I couldn’t vote again.

          • N Carolina commissioned a survey of the use of different types of ID and excluded those that African Americans were most likely to have, that’s one reason why their law was overturned.

            It’s not, actually. The reason SCOTUS didn’t review the case was due to procedural issues. It isn’t clear whether the NC law is unconstitutional or not:

            “The decision on Monday not to hear the case turned on procedural issues, not on the substance of the suit, so the court’s current leanings remain unknown. . . In his statement on Monday, Chief Justice Roberts said the Supreme Court’s decision to decline to grant the petition seeking review, or petition for certiorari, turned on that dispute.

            ‘Given the blizzard of filings over who is and who is not authorized to seek review in this Court under North Carolina law,’ the chief justice wrote, quoting an earlier decision, ‘it is important to recall our frequent admonition that ‘the denial of a writ of certiorari imports no expression of opinion upon the merits of the case.’”

            https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/15/us/politics/voter-id-laws-supreme-court-north-carolina.html

            We shall see as time goes on.

    • Well, here in Oregon, Kate Brown, said in court that she didn’t destroy extra ballots after election night ‘because we might need them later’, and that ‘destruction and security of the ballots were conflicting orders.’

      It has to do with people in position operating on a ‘higher’ morality.

      You can do whatever you want if no one is willing to stop you.

  20. Looks like that swamp drain has gotten clogged. Perhaps Happer can help to unclog it. He’ll need to use some industrial strength science, truth and logic, and some muscle. Is he up for it? We’ll see.

  21. I see a mention of “Voter fraud”. How is that possible ? Here in Australia we have a simple system, still using the good working pencil to mark our ballot papers, and the results go through a computer after the result.

    Not based on the popular vote but on an Electoral College which can be rigged by partisan gerrymandering of the districts. North Carolina, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Maryland were gerrymandered in favor of the Republicans at the last election, Pennsylvania had been in the presidential election but was redistricted by court order by the midterm. Also some states aggressively remove voters from the electoral roll, Georgia removed 340,000 voters from the roll on the grounds that they had moved, when in fact they had not. Also in the N Carolina 9th district a Republican operative arranged an illegal collection and completion of mail-in ballots. Do you still have compulsory voting in Australia?

    • The Dems just hated the fact that the EC was what won the election for Trump, conveniently “forgetting” that the EC could just as easily (and has) worked in their favor. The cries of “voter fraud” and “we need to abolish the EC” by the Dems were laughably predictable, and all part of the widespread Trump Derangement Syndrome still ongoing.

      • The ‘cries of voter fraud’ were mainly by Republicans although the only evidence of systematic voter fraud is the action of Republicans in the 9th district of N Carolina . Democrats do bring up the ‘voter repression’ issues and gerrymandering which clearly favor the Republicans. Wisconsin has been mentioned, its districting is clearly gerrymandered, in the last election there Democrats won 190,000 more votes statewide but the GOP won 63 out of 99 seats! Democrats won the governorship and AG so in the lame duck session the Republican controlled legislature passed laws restricting their powers.

        • “The ‘cries of voter fraud’ were mainly by Republicans although the only evidence of systematic voter fraud is the action of Republicans in the 9th district of N Carolina ”

          This huge scandal turns out to have been one guy who hired a second party to collect mailin ballots. I think the guy that did the hiring is the father of the Republican candidate, and the Republican candidate just testified against his father in this case.

          Anyway, it’s not like it is a huge Republican voter fraud conspiracy. It’s one dishonest guy. Who got caught.

    • Phil. if you can explain how gerrymandering impacts how many electoral votes a state has, I would love to hear it.

      • Phil. did not say gerrymandering affected the number of electoral votes a state has. MarkW, please learn to read.

        • Keith,

          Bruce Cobb was talking about the Electoral College & the rationalization of those that blamed the EC and voter fraud on “their loss”.

          Phil replied by talking about gerrymandering in specific statewide elections.

          MarkW tried to remind Phil that he was going off the rail.

          You, through your bias, could not see this.

          (maybe you should re-read the comment by Bruce that Phil was responding to … or you could tell Phil that he needs to read … or you could admit your hypocrisy)

          • DonM, Bruce Cobb did not mention “the number of electoral votes a state has.”

            The person that went off the rails is MarkW, complaining about a topic that wasn’t even under discussion.

            Oh, and Phil. was correct with respect to voter fraud……only case that showed up was Republicans in North Carolina.

          • Keith, Phil claimed gerrymangering rigs the EC without specifying how. There’s realistically only 2 ways that such rigging could happen (if you know of a third way, please list it):
            1) by determining who gets the EC votes. The states phil specifically mentioned are all statewide winner takes all. how the individual districts are shaped has nothing to do with it, which leaves us only
            2) by determining how many EC votes a state gets. Mark already address how that is wrong.

            So Keith, as you keep defending Phil’s statement, why don’t *YOU* tell us how gerrymandering affects the EC in the states Phil mentioned.

          • No, Phil never mentioned the EC.
            *SNIP*
            EC = Electoral College
            Phil said:
            Not based on the popular vote but on an Electoral College which can be rigged by partisan gerrymandering of the districts.

            No answer the *SNIP*question or admit you are defending the indefensible:
            So Keith, as you keep defending Phil’s statement, why don’t *YOU* tell us how gerrymandering affects the EC in the states Phil mentioned.

          • previous attempt to reply hasn’t shown up yet, so apologies if this turns out to be a duplicate

            No, Phil never mentioned the EC.

            Reading comprehension isn’t a skill you posses, is it Keith?

            EC = Electoral College

            Phil said Not based on the popular vote but on an Electoral College which can be rigged by partisan gerrymandering of the districts

            Now that I’ve explained the obvious to you, can you answer the question:
            So Keith, as you keep defending Phil’s statement, why don’t *YOU* tell us how gerrymandering affects the EC in the states Phil mentioned.

            Other wise I’ll have to take your silence as admission that you know what phil wrote was nonsense in regards to the EC (Electoral College for the willfully dense)

          • I suspected the profanity in the second SNIP was the reason the post hadn’t shown up. Mods, you can deleted my second attempt at a reply, though I stand by my characterization in the first SNIP. when one shows such a lack it’s an observation not an insult to point it out.

          • I was responding to Bruce’s comment about voter fraud “cries of voter fraud” and pointed out that that was a Republican trope and that Democrats instead raised the issues of gerrymandering and voter suppression. In replying to Bruce I did not refer to specific statewide elections. You apparently are referring to my response to Michael.

          • I’ve quoted several times what I am referring to. Since you seemed to miss it all the previous times, here it is again:
            Not based on the popular vote but on an Electoral College which can be rigged by partisan gerrymandering of the districts

            Please explain how you think gerrymandering of districts rigs the Electoral College in the states you listed – all of which are statewide winner takes all the EC votes states.

          • Oh, and in case it wasn’t clear Phil, this sub-thread hangs off the post I was referencing. Your reply to Bruce is a separate sub-thread off the same referenced post.

            IE the post Phil. February 21, 2019 at 4:47 am (which I took the quote in question from) has two follow ups, one from Bruce (February 21, 2019 at 6:19 am) and one from MarkW (February 21, 2019 at 7:27 am). This sub-thread is the follow-up from MarkW, what you just mentioned (“cries of voter fraud”) is the sub-thread that is the follow-up from Bruce and a slightly different topic to what we’ve been discussing in this sub-thread.

        • And I quote:

          “Not based on the popular vote but on an Electoral College which can be rigged by partisan gerrymandering of the districts. ”

          Gerrymandering doesn’t impact the Electoral College.

          • Now show me where Phil. says: ” gerrymandering affected the number of electoral votes a state has.”

            What Phil said was “but on an Electoral College which can be rigged by partisan gerrymandering of the districts.” Which is total nonsense for the states he listed (if you believe otherwise then please explain how gerrymandering has anything to do with the electoral college in those states). The electoral college, as it’s currently implemented in most states – allots the electors to the winner of the popular vote for the ENTIRE STATE (IE it’s winner takes all), how the districts are laid out has nothing to do with it (the only exceptions are Maine and Nebraska – and those aren’t in the list of states phil accused of “rigging” in that way and their total EC votes are miniscule). MarkW was apparently asking a rhetorical question to try to make sense out of/highlight the nonsense – since how the districts are laid out has no impact whatsoever on who gets the EC votes (in the states Phil mentioned), if it’s “rigging the outcome” it must be doing so some other way and changing the number of EC votes is as good a guess on Phil’s nonsense as any.

            Now what gerrymandering can do, is affect which congress critters get elected in that state, but that not an Electoral college issue at all. So, to repeat, in the states phil mentioned gerrymandering has no effect on the EC (and indeed that is true for of all the states bar Maine which has 4 EC votes only 2 of which get determined by district and Nebraska with 5 EC votes, 3 of which get determined by district – not much room for “rigging” by gerrymandering in those two states – and those district determined votes are barely a blip in the EC total – Trump’s margin in the EC was much wider than the total of the potentially effected EC votes).

          • Keith, I know you have a pathological need to disagree with me whenever possible.
            However, please read what I wrote.

            The Electoral College cannot be rigged by gerrymandering as Phil. wrote.
            The reason for this should be simple enough for even you to understand.
            The number of votes a state has is based on it’s population, and it’s population alone.
            Gerrymandering impact which parties get how many Representatives, but the number of Representatives stays the same.

          • MarkW, you posted: “Phil. if you can explain how gerrymandering impacts how many electoral votes a state has, I would love to hear it.”

            Phil. made no mention of the how many electoral votes a state has.

          • Gerrymandering impacts the way a district votes.

            Which outside of Maine and Nebraska has ZERO to do with the Electoral College vis-à-vis who gets the EC votes for the state. Maine and Nebraska only have a total of *FIVE* EC votes (2 for Maine 3 for Nebraska) that are district dependent, which rather limits how much “damage” can be done by gerrymandering. and neither state was in the list of state Phil was pointing to.

          • Phil. made no mention of the how many electoral votes a state has.

            No, he claimed gerrymandering affected the electoral college in some unspecified way. Since gerrymandering has ZERO effect on winner takes all states (which all of the states he listed are) vis-à-vis who gets the EC votes for those states, it must effect it some otherway.

            Since you are defending Phil’s statement, rather than argue against Mark’s guess as to what Phil meant, please explain how gerrymandering affects the electoral college in the states phil listed if it’s not in who gets the EC votes (state-wide winner takes all doesn’t care about districts) and it’s not in determining the number of EC votes a state has (as I think we all agree it does not).

          • Keith, what in your “opinion” was the purpose for even bringing up the Electoral College then?

            MarkW, I’d be very surprised if he actually does try to answer your question. When I asked him a similar question he pretended to not understand the EC was shorthand for Electoral college and completely avoided answering the question. I expect he’ll either quietly leave the thread without ever answering it or continue dancing around the issue without ever addressing the question.

          • My response about the Electoral College was to Michael who is apparently Australian who said:
            Michael February 21, 2019 at 2:15 am
            I see a mention of “Voter fraud”. How is that possible ? Here in Australia we have a simple system, still using the good working pencil to mark our ballot papers, and the results go through a computer after the result.

            So I pointed out that it was an Electoral College system not a popular vote and pointed out several ways in which voter fraud takes place. One of those by the way was the N Carolina 9th district fraud which coincidentally has been decided today, the court has ordered a new election. The Republican candidate himself also said today that there should be a new election. The Gerrymandering fraud predominantly effects the House and is tilted in favor of Republicans as I illustrated. As pointed out I made no reference to the number of Electoral College votes, however it is quite possible that being a voter in a rigged district is a disincentive to voting. In the case I stated, Wisconsin, the EC was decided by 0.77% (10 EC votes), Michigan was even closer, 0.23% (16 EC votes), Pennsylvania was close too, 0.72% (20 EC votes). That’s a swing of 92 votes, enough to swing the presidential election. There is no way of knowing what the effect might be but there’s no way thatch gerrymandering should be allowed. Losing the popular vote in a state where you have gerrymandered the districts so that you win two thirds of the delegates is fraud. That three of the four closest state elections in 2016 were states where significant gerrymandering took place could is troubling.

          • That may be what you intended to say, however it isn’t what you actually said.
            Regarding gerrymandering, it really is amusing that only Republican gerrymandering offends you.
            How dare those dastardly Republicans use the methods that have kept Democrats in power for generations.

          • The Republican candidate himself also said today that there should be a new election.

            Yep and he’s not looking good to win again (if he truly won the first time):

            He told those gathered in court that he has suffered two strokes since the election and is “struggling” to get through the hearing.

            https://www.foxnews.com/politics/embattled-gop-house-candidate-mark-harris-takes-stand-after-emotional-testimony-from-son

            Not a wise admission to make on the stand when you’re going to have to run again is it? I hope Republicans have a good conservative candidate in the wings to replace Mr. Harris!

            I dunno, it just seems to me it’s always better to win or lose fair and square than to have to play the game again due to suspicion of cheating. Not that this is all Mr. Harris’ fault.

            Or is it?

          • Regarding gerrymandering, it really is amusing that only Republican gerrymandering offends you.

            No I’m opposed to all gerrymandering, no matter who does it, it’s just in the current electoral cycle that it’s mostly Republicans. It’s also got much more sophisticated with computer aided designing of districts, I grew up with impartial redistricting and that’s what I’d like to see.

          • I dunno, it just seems to me it’s always better to win or lose fair and square than to have to play the game again due to suspicion of cheating. Not that this is all Mr. Harris’ fault.

            Although in court his son said that it was and that he was aware of the dubious nature of the guy who did it for him because the son warned him about it!

            It seems unlikely that Harris will run in the do over.

          • When it was shown that electoral shennanigans were responsible for Al Franken’s win, the courts wouldn’t even listen to any requests for a do over.

          • Although in court his son said that it was and that he was aware of the dubious nature of the guy who did it for him because the son warned him about it!

            Now you’ve disappointed me Phil . . . didn’t you forget the “Or is it?” that I included as the last sentence in that paragraph?

            And we were doing so well . . .

            🙂

          • MarkW February 21, 2019 at 3:53 pm
            You say you are opposed to all gerrymandering, but you only complain about Republican gerrymandering.

            I was using those as illustrations of what might happen in close elections, the three I quoted were all within 1%, Maryland is the one I’ve heard of where a gerrymander is being litigated but that wasn’t close, 66% for the Democrats. I’m opposed to that one too.

          • So I pointed out that it was an Electoral College system not a popular vote and pointed out several ways in which voter fraud takes place.

            which is a non sequitur as being an EC system vs a popular vote system (for Presidential elections) as those “several ways” have nothing to do with the EC.

            As pointed out I made no reference to the number of Electoral College votes

            No, what you did do was claim gerrymandering rigs the EC. How it does so is left to the reader to figure out as you never specified any way in which it does so. And logically there are only two ways it could do so (neither of which apply in the states you listed): 1) By determining who gets the EC votes – the states you discuss are all “winner takes all” so gerrymandered districts have nothing to do with it and 2) by determining the number of EC votes the state dishes out – again that isn’t how the EC works so again gerrymandered districts have nothing to do with it.

            In short, what you said (regardless of what you meant to say) in regards to the EC was total nonsense.

    • Not based on the popular vote but on an Electoral College which can be rigged by partisan gerrymandering of the districts. North Carolina, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Maryland were gerrymandered in favor of the Republicans at the last election, Pennsylvania had been in the presidential election but was redistricted by court order by the midterm.

      Phil you are talking nonsense. 48 out of the 50 states are “winner takes all” meaning the winner of the state wide popular vote gets all the EC votes – the individual districts and therefore Gerrymandering has nothing to do with who gets the EC votes in those states. All of the states you mention are among the 48 so your claiming partisan “rigging” of the EC in those states is utter and total nonsense. The 2 exceptions (Maine and Nebraska, which you didn’t name) make up a total of 9 EC votes, only 5 of which are determined by district (2 in Maine and 3 in Nebraska) with the rest going to the statewide winner. there’s not a lot of gerrymandering tomfoolery that can be done with only 2 and 3 districts. At worse, if you are really skilled at gerrymandering, you could potentially flip a total of 3 EC votes (1 in Maine and 2 in Nebraska), that’s a drop in the bucket compared to the winner takes all EC votes available across all 50 states. Funny thing is, it’s the Democrats, not the Republicans, who have suggested doing away with the Winner Takes All system that most of the states use.

  22. This is really good news, and I look forward to some ‘cages’ being well rattled before very long… }:o)

    I hope Mr Happer has his ‘tin hat’ on, because there are going to MSM ‘hatchet jobs’ raining down on him!

    Let’s just wait for the cry of “DENIER!” to go up from the swivel-eyed global warming alarmists in the MSM…

    I see that Griff has already popped up on here trying to smear Mr Happer as being in the pocket of Big Oil.

    A bit rich from someone who is reputed to be in the pocket of Big Green – ‘pot calling the kettle black’.

    • To Ron Stabb
      Thank you for the link. It is indeed an outstanding interview.
      Something I will keep and make available to high school students regarding climate change and CO2. The questions were very well prepared and so were the answers. Easy to read and understand.

  23. And, at the risk of stating the obvious, the left is doing everything it can to block Happer’s involvement,
    with the vocal support of the media.

    Peer behind the curtain?
    Perish the thought!

    • Keith – it sure looks like Phil brought up the EC in his answer to this question posed by Michael:

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/02/20/washington-post-will-happer-to-be-appointed-to-the-presidential-committee-on-climate-security/#comment-2636188

      Question (Michael): “I see a mention of “Voter fraud”. How is that possible ?”

      Answer (Phil): “Not based on the popular vote but on an Electoral College which can be rigged by partisan gerrymandering of the districts.”

      I’m just not sure how to interpret Phil’s answer other than exactly how Mark did.

    • Keith, why do you have to lie about something so easily checked.

      “Not based on the popular vote but on an Electoral College which can be rigged by partisan gerrymandering of the districts.”

      In the very first sentence (not counting the quote).

      So Keith, are you embarrassed?

      BTW, I love the way you drop this post way down here, away from the rest of the conversation. Perhaps you were hoping nobody would notice.

    • You brought it up MarkW, asking Phil a question about the EC when Phil never mentioned the EC:

      Stop lying keith, It was previously pointed out to you that Phil did indeed mention the EC, here is the exact quote from Phil the started all this: “Not based on the popular vote but on an Electoral College which can be rigged by partisan gerrymandering of the districts.”

      And *were* were asked several times in that other thread
      “So Keith, as you keep defending Phil’s statement, why don’t *YOU* tell us how gerrymandering affects the EC in the states Phil mentioned.”

      instead of answering the question, you ran away from that thread and came here to continue your lying, claiming Phil never mentioned the EC when he most certainly did as shown in the above quote (where I bolded the words “electoral college” to help you see it). Those actions of your speaks volumes about you, none of it good. So care to try peddling your lies again?

      • “And *were* were ”

        should read

        “And *YOU* were ”

        “thread” should have been “sub-thread”.
        —–
        Bottom line, distancing yourself from the sub-thread doesn’t stop people from going back to the sub-thread and checking the facts for themselves, and the fact is Phil, not MarkW, brought up the Electoral College. MarkW merely tried to make sense of what Phil had stated. Since Keith disagrees with Mark’s interpretation of Phil’s statement, he’s been asked to give his own interpretation of the state and has refused to do so by lying with his claim the Phil never mentioned the Electoral College.

    • You brought it up MarkW, asking Phil a question about the EC when Phil never mentioned the EC:

      Mark’s post that you link to was dated February 21, 2019 at 7:27 am, which is a couple hours after the post of phil’s that Mark was replynig to
      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/02/20/washington-post-will-happer-to-be-appointed-to-the-presidential-committee-on-climate-security/#comment-2636272
      in which Phil said “Not based on the popular vote but on an Electoral College which can be rigged by partisan gerrymandering of the districts.”

      Phil brought it up, Mark was merely reacting to what Phil said about the Electoral College. That you keep claiming otherwise after multiple people have shown you otherwise makes you a liar.

  24. FROM:

    Page 5 of Report on Effects of a Changing Climate to the Department of Defense January 2019
    Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment
    As required by Section 335 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115-91). https://climateandsecurity.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/sec_335_ndaa-report_effects_of_a_changing_climate_to_dod.pdf

    … there is a table of present and future vulnerabilities of 79 US military installations

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/cvjan4mh7s3mm4o/ClimateNationalSecurity.png

    From this table, it seems obvious why Trump said, “I don’t see it.”

    Not only do I myself not see it, also I do not see any indication of how future projections were made, and I do not see any mention of data showing NO EXTREME TREND in any of the climate-related events considered.

    Reporting vulnerability is simply a CHOICE of focus for reporting vulnerability — it says absolutely nothing about any worrisome trend that will increase vulnerability. Just mentioning the word, “climate” in a defense assessment of military vulnerability is merely a shift of attention to something that has not received such attention before. An attention shift is NOT a new phenomenon of climate — it is a phenomenon of report-compiling focus.

    My house needs a new roof — it is vulnerable to rainy weather. It’s been this way for a while. In twenty years, if I don’t replace it, then it will be even more vulnerable … to the same patterns of precipitation that have existed for decades. … Nothing to do with human-caused climate change … Nothing to do with any worrisome trends in climate. … Just a statement of what I’m focused on at the moment.

  25. The intelligence report cited in the linked article:

    https://climateandsecurity.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/worldwide-threat-assessment_dni_2019.pdf

    … mentions “climate change” four times, and three of those times are in one short section that merely parrots the IPCC prognostications of extreme events for which real-world data show positively NO EXTREME TRENDS. The other mention seems IPCCeezy sleezy, as well.

    In other words, zero credibility, unless you abide by the IPCC Bible.

    • From the report, this is the sum total of our government’s assessment of the security dangers of climate change:

      “Environment and Climate Change
      Global environmental and ecological degradation, as well as climate change, are likely to fuel competition
      for resources, economic distress, and social discontent through 2019 and beyond. Climate hazards such as
      extreme weather, higher temperatures, droughts, floods, wildfires, storms, sea level rise, soil
      degradation, and acidifying oceans are intensifying, threatening infrastructure, health, and water and
      food security. Irreversible damage to ecosystems and habitats will undermine the economic benefits
      they provide, worsened by air, soil, water, and marine pollution.
       Extreme weather events, many worsened by accelerating sea level rise, will particularly affect
      urban coastal areas in South Asia, Southeast Asia, and the Western Hemisphere. Damage to
      communication, energy, and transportation infrastructure could affect low-lying military bases,
      inflict economic costs, and cause human displacement and loss of life.
       Changes in the frequency and variability of heat waves, droughts, and floods—combined with
      poor governance practices—are increasing water and food insecurity around the world,
      increasing the risk of social unrest, migration, and interstate tension in countries such as Egypt,
      Ethiopia, Iraq, and Jordan.
       Diminishing Arctic sea ice may increase competition—particularly with Russia and China—
      over access to sea routes and natural resources. Nonetheless, Arctic states have maintained
      mostly positive cooperation in the region through the Arctic Council and other multilateral
      mechanisms, a trend we do not expect to change in the near term. Warmer temperatures and
      diminishing sea ice are reducing the high cost and risks of some commercial activities and are
      attracting new players to the resource-rich region. In 2018, the minimum sea ice extent in the
      Arctic was 25 percent below the 30-year average from 1980 to 2010.”

      Blathering nonsense I wouldn’t accept from my then-teenage daughters.

Comments are closed.