Guest essay by Eric Worrall
According to the defence chiefs it is dangerous for the President to ask a scientist to review the work of other scientists, when that work is used as the basis of official advice to the President.
Former Defense Leaders Warn White House It’s ‘Dangerous’ To Downplay Climate Change
March 5, 20198:37 PM ET
DALIA MORTADAIn a letter to President Trump, 58 former military and national security officials expressed deep concern about reported plans to create “a committee to dispute and undermine military and intelligence judgments on the threat posed by climate change.”
“It is dangerous to have national security analysis conform to politics. Our officials’ job is to ensure that we are prepared for current threats and future contingencies. We cannot do that if the scientific studies that inform our threat assessments are undermined,” the letter stated.
Signatories include former Secretary of State John Kerry, former Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, former Supreme Allied Commander Europe Adm. James Stavridis, and former NASA Administrator Vice Adm. Richard Truly.
…
Read more: https://www.npr.org/2019/03/05/700462955/former-defense-leaders-warn-white-house-its-dangerous-to-downplay-climate-change
The letter is available here.
I can understand the distress of the former Pentagon chiefs; How can anyone be expected to provide high quality advice when that advice is unexpectedly subject to a review process?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Changing the disastrous, elitist past policies of Climate Change is one key reason Trump was elected by middle America.
Thise Democrats are still in denial that the Obama Agenda was on trial in 2016… and it lost.
But it’s not “dangerous” to call for—nay, demand—peer review of one scientist’s claims by other scientists??
Fear and trembling ‘mongst Los Alarmistos.
==================================
The Military and Lobbyists (ex military, ex government) need big, dumb, blind, mindless government to survive. Chuck Hagel used to be a normal guy that like to shoot guns and do guy things. Washington brought out the inner elitist douchebag in him. When he’s done, nobody will like him, on either side of the aisle. Sad.
Chuck Hagel is the first Republican I ever referred to as an “appeaser”.
Yeah, I know he’s a Vietnam veteran but that doesn’t stop him from having an appeaser mentality. Just like John Kerry.
At least Hagel isn’t a traitor to his country. John Kerry consorted with the enemy while America was still at war, during the Vietnam war. Kerry testified before Congress and called his fellow Vietnam veterans war criminals. He consorted with the North Vietnamese in Paris during the war, in an effort to undermine the American war effort. He pretended to throw his Vietnam war medals away over the fence at the White House. It turns out he threw someone else’s medals. His are still at home. Read what the “Swift Boat” veterans have to say about Kerry.
Kerry is a worthless b******. Dangerous if he ever gets political power. Although that would apply to nearly all radical, delusional leftists like Kerry.
“According to the defence chiefs it is dangerous for the President to ask a scientist to review the work of other scientists, when that work is used as the basis of official advice to the President”
Information is a dangerous thing. It can confuse the current view of the world on which we base our policies. Let’s not go there.
An age thing? Time to retire maybe.
Churchill had an independent science adviser. His name was Frederick Lindemann also known as Lord Cherwell. He was an Oxford physics professor. He was born and raised in Germany to a British citizen father and an American mother. During World War One he became a pilot and part of the Royal Air force. He was also a aeronautical engineer. The military and government agency bureaucrats hated him, because he would call BS on incorrect science and engineering matters they tried to use to influence the policy of the Prime Minister. He carried a slide rule in his pocket, and would often check figures on the spot. He was indispensable to Churchill on scientific matters especially during the war. He wasn’t always right but he was almost all the time. Einstein admired him and he was an early supporter of Einstein against the “consensus.” He also was an instrument in getting important scientists out of Germany as the National Socialists took over.
I read the stupid letter. One question. Weren’t the “water shortages” in ISIS because the good guys seized the Mosul Dam and cut off their water supply? Stories in 2016 said there would be a “45 foot wall of water” flooding Mosul and Baghdad if the dam was breached by ISIS and that it contained the equivalent of “4.4 million Olympic sized swimming pools of water”. Climate change indeed.
Quote:“Climate change is real, it is happening now, it is driven by humans, and it is accelerating. The overwhelming majority of scientists agree: less than 0.2% of peer-reviewed climate science papers dispute these facts.”
The above drivel (political gospel)for decades has been brain-washed into our children at all our western schools (liberal indoctrination centers)..including at least Australia and Europe. “Now don’t tell me we’re not on the eve of destruction.”
As Commander In Chief, President Trump can evaluate data and analyses by methods he deems appropriate. If these methods include telling the Obama and Clinton administration lick spittle military midgets to ‘piss off’, more power to him!
Climate Change/AGW is agenda-driven political science, requiring skeptical review by disciplined scientists immune to the scaremongering emotional appeal of the ‘Climate Change’ agenda.
lol
So if they think global warming may yet bring us low, are these former defence chiefs, all rightfully concerned with the defence of The Union against any enemy, now suggesting that Trump might actually have been right when he speculated that the climate palaver was really just a hoax perpetrated by China?
Time to Mann the barricades perhaps. But with all due respect, at least these running-dog “Defence Chiefs” are described as being “former”.
It all kicks off next year!! OMG/sarc
2004:
A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a ‘Siberian’ climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver?fbclid=IwAR1pdfEKEi6k1bK0MPUJQx9aUmhsq64RnuEOVHtekSErFDFCRHkZTb3wiSo
Makes sense. Kerry is still stuck in 2004. He’s like the Jock in High School (or Uncle Rico), just knowing he’d be a “Winner” today if only he’d won that big game.
He surrounds himself with similar losers.
It is interesting to speculate what would happen if the DOD actually took climate change seriously. The armed forces, particularly the navy, have centuries of weather data they collected and could obtain more from their allies. They also have world wide assets to collect more weather data. If the intelligence community combined with the meteorologists to analyse all this data they would quickly determine that man made CO2 is not a problem. The security agencies could then start investigating the alarmists to find out who is rewarding them for lying.
Unfortunately the politicians in uniform controlling the DOD will never allow this.
@BillP
You got that right. When I was in the Navy (>30 years ago) we had access to weather data that, because we used them, made our weather briefings to the pilots classified Secret, so that certain countries wouldn’t realize how deeply we had penetrated their communications systems. Yes, the military has enough data to know that “climate change” is BS. However, as I have mentioned before, the upper echelon of the officer corps tends to be political creatures. That is why at the beginning of WWII they had to be quietly pushed aside in favor of those who could kick ass, such as Bull Halsey and George Patton. Neither of which in peacetime would have made it to one star.
The US Civil War lasted years longer than it needed to, in large part due to Lincoln having to put in and then drop a long procession of politicians in uniform for the Union army command, all more interested in playing politics than fighting battles. Only when field-promoted junior officers like Grant and Sherman came to the forefront did real progress start to be made.
Grant had a drinking problem before he was recalled from California. When this was pointed out to Lincoln he said “I like him-he fights.” Which is the reason I like Trump, not because he has great moral character but because he fights, in contrast to those limp spined RINOs.
The only positive about this latest lunacy is the realisation all public sector employees involved in government activities are as bad as each other irrespective of country. I used to think the UK was a unique case of civil servant stupidity. Thankfully as my knowledge increased it became clear all countries no matter where are cursed with public sector lunacies.
I always hoped the USA would be an exception but as this story shows and as it is not April 1st we are all cursed with incompetent public sectors.
Ron, I like it: Public Sector Lunacy, i.e., “PSL”. It sort of has a ring to it :<)
“Our officials’ job is to ensure that we are prepared for current threats and future contingencies. We cannot do that if the scientific studies that inform our threat assessments are undermined”
“Undermined” …
“Debunked” or “Exposed” are more appropriate.
Russia and China have however based their military and geo-political strategy around the science of climate change and the expectation of a thawing arctic…
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/as-russian-military-moves-into-thawing-arctic-u-s-strategy-shifts/
https://pure.fak.dk/ws/files/7120599/Russias_Strategy_in_the_Arctic.pdf
a recommendation from a respected, not leftist, think tank:
https://www.chathamhouse.org/expert/comment/nato-needs-strategy-countering-russia-arctic-and-black-sea#
China links:
https://thediplomat.com/tag/china-arctic-strategy/
Good, Let them waste resources waiting for the artic to thaw. We were supposed to be ice free in the arctic nearly a decade ago. Hasn’t happened yet, isn’t going to happen any time soon.
Griff
And I suppose the Russians and Chinese just gave up all that information on their military strategies did they?
More gullibility from you.
The only proper answer to that letter is “nuts”
The letter is clearly a crock, in my judgment, too.
Real? — Of course it’s real — climate change has always been a part of Earth’s dynamics.
Happening now? — Of course it’s happening now, as it ALWAYS has.
Driven by humans? — Attributed to humans, maybe, but stating that it IS driven by humans is scientifically unfounded.
Accelerating? — NO — that’s false, and data show this.
This whole sentence is a standard party line that I have read numerous times — mere parroting of a politicized manifesto.
Obviously, this is the same falsely based claim that has been clearly shown to be based on a bogus assessment of scientific opinion.
Undermine? … Dispute? — NO, what the intent is, and I quote:
However, these scientific and national security judgments have not undergone a rigorous independent and adversarial scientific peer review to examine the certainties and uncertainties of climate science, as well as implications for national security.
So, the claims of undermining and disputing appear to be defensive responses to being threatened
The military in 2004 I think it was released a report saying that within 20 years, England would be experiencing Siberian winters and millions starving if climate change not stopped.
“It is dangerous to have national security analysis conform to politics.”
They got that correct, shame the rest of the letter is doing exactly what they say it’s dangerous to have.
“Our officials’ job is to ensure that we are prepared for current threats and future contingencies. We cannot do that if the scientific studies that inform our threat assessments are undermined,” the letter stated.
Is Phil “Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.” Jones one of the writers of this letter? If the scientific studies conform to politics rather than science, and the actual scientific facts “undermine” them, that’s a good thing because it’s “dangerous to have national security analysis conform to politics”
As usual, the Climate Liars get it completely backwards. It is they who jeopardize national security. These former defence chiefs, or whatever they call themselves are flat-out traitors.
If they believe that “It is dangerous to have national security analysis conform to politics”, they should welcome the upcoming process of science review since everything up till now that was built on the UN IPCC process was exactly what they describe as dangerous. Whenever someone claims it is dangerous to look at the facts, it means the facts are not complementary to the person providing the warning.
If the science that supports their policies can be undermined, is it really science at all?
A second opinion is always advisable
It frustrates the heck out of me when listening to Bill Nye or Bill McKibben is considered “science” and the likes of Happer, Lindzen, Spencer, Curry are considered something “anti-science”. I wish more of our politicians would challange people to explain why they believe the one side, and what qualifies that as proper”science”. I too believe that “science matters”.
I’m pretty sure that when the left dost protest too much, the President doth double down…
I still can’t believe the arguments that are being presented here — the contempt, perhaps rightfully so, for our educational system here in the USA.