Guest essay by Eric Worrall
According to Professor Emeritus Michael Klare, trusted military leaders could “bridge the gap” by convincing climate skeptics.
A military perspective on climate change could bridge the gap between believers and doubters
Michael Klare
Professor Emeritus and Director, Five College Program in Peace and World Security Studies, Hampshire CollegeFebruary 19, 2020 12.54am AEDT
As experts warn that the world is running out of time to head off severe climate change, discussions of what the U.S. should do about it are split into opposing camps. The scientific-environmental perspective says global warming will cause the planet severe harm without action to slow fossil fuel burning. Those who reject mainstream climate science insist either that warming is not occurring or that it’s not clear human actions are driving it.
With these two extremes polarizing the American political arena, climate policy has come to a near standstill. But as I argue in my new book,“All Hell Breaking Loose: The Pentagon’s Perspective on Climate Change,” the U.S. armed forces offer a third perspective that could help bridge the gap.
…
“Changing weather patterns, rising temperatures, and dramatic shifts in rainfall contribute to drought, famine, migration, and resource competition” in Africa, General Thomas D. Waldhauser, then commander of the U.S. Africa Command, told the Senate Armed Services Committee in February 2019. “As each group seeks land for its own purposes, violent conflict can ensue.”
…
The military’s approach to climate change could bridge the divide between believers and doubters. People who assert that protecting endangered habitats and species is trivial next to health and economic problems, and that society has time to tackle whatever threats may develop, might be persuaded to take action when they hear from respected generals and admirals that the nation’s security is at stake.
This is already happening in some communities, such as Norfolk, Virginia, where base commanders and local officials have found common ground in addressing the area’s extreme vulnerability to sea level rise and hurricane-induced flooding.
…
Read more: https://theconversation.com/a-military-perspective-on-climate-change-could-bridge-the-gap-between-believers-and-doubters-128609
President Obama tried using the military to convince climate skeptics. How did that work out?
After all these years climate activists still don’t get us. Perhaps they judge us by their own followers, they’re still looking for leaders, magic influencers who can bring us into line.
in addition to the ‘Respected Military Generals’, they could roll out a few Admirals and Field Marshalls, some Circus Clowns and get Colonel Sanders to cater for the half-time break! The result would be the same. Loud Laughter.
The Captain and first mate Gilligan could chime in with how their “desert isle” is in danger of sinking .. or capsizing .. their future stolen .. eat, drink and make Mary Ann, for tomorrow we submerge.
I’m sure Dads Army could get a look in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0V3SqxUomwk
I hope this link works. Classic.
The Professor would just float the Island on Coconuts
I think Colonel Klink and Sargent Schultz could play a comedic role in “convincing” us climate heroes that they are going to win the war — NOT!
Excellent riposte to this utter nonsense
Greta and Attenborough are wearing thin so a few generals will do the trick 🤪
Like
General Motors
General Electric
General Insurance
General Obfuscation
General Hospital
Just stay away from Corporal Punishment (he can be a Major Payne in your Private Parts)
How about highly respected Gen. Flynn addressing congress , saying they stole his future and lashing them with a “how dare you?!” moment.
“Michael Klare, Professor Emeritus and Director, Five College Program in Peace and World Security Studies, Hampshire College”
The truly sad thing is, …… taxpayers have been forced to fund a 6-figure salary, plus entitlements, for such people as Klare, …… who contribute nothing to the education of America’s youth.
He has made a contribution. The problem is the contribution is negative.
Sounds more like retribution than contribution.
From Wikipedia: “In Fall 2019, Hampshire welcomed an incoming class of 13 students.” At least he is a low impact dolt.
And the only thing they could really do is try to shoot and bomb climate change?
I defy these guys to come up with any evidence of global warming having any effects on anything. I spent years examining all warming threat claims, always thinking that the next one was going to be real. Instead, I found that there simply cannot be an effects from warming because we are not warming. Then, I found Agenda 21 and the totalitarian/socialist goals of the UN, politicians, and plutocrats—all evil.
Charles you misunderstand Klare’s intent. In his back room discussions with UN Officials he wants the military to detain skeptics in Guantanamo for reconditioning.
Perhaps a General could demonstrate, via the Tidal Gauge records when Sea Level Rise, since starting in 1680 (Nadir of the LIA), stopped and Mann Made sea level rise began
The only problem I have with this proposal is, as soon as a respected general or an admiral starts blathering on as if he or she is the second coming of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez about CAGW and impending catastrophe due to CO2 in the atmosphere, I will lose all respect for them and they’ll no longer be respected military generals and admirals.
It’s a catch-22.
I wasn’t aware there was a First
“Strange as it seems, no amount of learning can cure stupidity, and higher education positively fortifies it.”
– Stephen Vizinczey
Hmmm. Except that I’m looking at the empirical data. Another talking head from a different source does not change the data and I seriously doubt that they are going to bridge the gap from a scientific standpoint – only from a position of authority.
It’s worse than that with the original data unsupportive of a crisis, then systematically fudged from its original state for falsifying effect. And there are far too few truth tellers for militant officialdom to be particularly aware of this and so take pains to honestly weigh the matter. Beyond that, there is the same temptation to embrace a meme that promises what Brits might call ‘a full employment scheme’ for the benefit of your own socioeconomic standing, just as has already sullied those who should have been science-oriented parties in this debacle.
The military senior leadership team will use any tool necessary to win the budget wars. If they have to greenwash their budget requests to get support from lefty politicians, they will.
Don’t assume anything a general says on Capitol Hill has anything to do with the truth.
Kill us! Oh, yes, that’s already been suggested. Imprison us! Well, I guess that’s been suggested by Mann & Cook. How about convincing data? I suppose since the first suggestions didn’t get us in line, generals will be needed. Obviously, since the data hasn’t cooperated, the generals are the answer!
“How about convincing data?”
Now you are going too far, G! You are requiring the impossible because there is no convincing data that humans are causing the Earth’s climate to change.
Obviosly, the professor doesn’t understand that there is no convincing evidence of human-caused climate change, so it doesn’t matter who says it exists, they are wrong. General, civilian, prince or pauper. They are all wrong if they claim there is evidence that humans are causing the climate to change because there isn’t any evidence.
Perhaps the professor could supply the evidence that convinced him that human-caused climate change is real and happening now. If it was legitimate evidence then it would be as powerful coming from the professor’s lips as from a militay general’s lips.
That’s what he doesn’t understand. He thinks there’s evidence, when there is no evidence, so he can’t understand why skeptics can’t see the truth as he sees it, but skeptcis *do* see the truth, it just doesn’t happen to be what the professor sees. Skeptics see that there is no evidence. If the professor wants to change that he needs to find that evidence. Good luck with that, professor. Skeptics have been looking for that evidence for decades and haven’t found it yet.
Tom, he hasn’t even thought out his own statement:
If it is not clear to me that human actions are driving it, then why should I listen to military brass afraid of rising sea levels near their bases?
Does the professor and his generals understand the concept of subsidence which is one of the proven drivers of rising ocean level in Virginia?
And the conclusion that the insignificant rise in temperature during a human lifetime is the cause of unrest and migration in areas of the world with oppressive and unstable governments is laughable!
Once again, proponents of radical action prove to everyone that they know nothing about the opposing position.
Someone should tell that what might make them more convincing is to be able to articulate the mainstream skeptical positions.
They have been manufacturing “convincing data” adviser as they can and that does not seem to have had the desired result either.
So let’s review:
Freshly minted PhD who knows more about lying and CYA than about what tree rings can tell us? Ixnay.
NASA career desk jockey whose main area of expertise is being wrong about confident predictions, then rewriting history to make it look like he is not a total buffoon? So solly, no way Jose.
Divinity school dropout who got a D in his only ever science class? Nope.
Middle school dropout who has a very uncharming scowl and travels the world in order to instruct everyone to stop traveling?
Um, no.
Dumbest moron ever elected to anything, even dogcatcher, telling everyone the world ends in twelve years unless she is in charge of the planet? ‘Fraid not.
So what are the odds the next brilliant idea by someone who is a clueless ignoramus on any topic relating to the physical world is gonna be able to convince people with an ACTUAL education that 2+2=5 and less warming than a person gets by breathing in their hands is gonna fry the planet?
Ugh…I hate pads…they autocorrect for no reason!
” manufacturing “convincing data” as fast as they can… “
No the military cannot convince me.
That’s what was said back in the day in Germany but had dire outcomes. “People …..might be persuaded to take action when they hear from respected generals and admirals that the nation’s security is at stake”. That was a perfect role for the Storm Detachment aka the Sturmabteilung or “SA”. Another good reason for the military to be kept out of politics.
Yep
Put the Military in charge and you have a Coup d’Etat
You are going against the theory so beloved by the left wing.
The left wing likes to think of itself as free thinking and anti-authoritarian. They think the right wing is authoritarian. Thus they think the right wing will listen to generals.
The problem is that Marxism is very authoritarian. That’s been demonstrated every time it’s been tried. The left wing will insist that is because it wasn’t done right. No. After that many tries, it is clear that Marxism is totalitarian at its core.
It could be that the left wing does not understand the difference between them and the right wing. (It could also be that they don’t even understand themselves.)
I can’t find the link quickly, but there was a study that found that conservatives could predict liberal attitudes but liberals could not predict conservative attitudes. That explains why they come up with crackpot ideas about skeptics.
“The left wing likes to think of itself as free thinking and anti-authoritarian. They think the right wing is authoritarian.”
This is so true, Bob. My ex-friend used to go on about how anti-authoritarian he was, and in the same breath, he’d extol the virtues of a nanny state abducting children from parents *he* deemed as irresponsible. I don’t think they can even see the hypocrisy, given the many contradictory positions they hold.
Double think.
My favorite was a bunch of hippies, going on and on about how free thinking they were and that they would never succumb to social pressure, as they stood there in identical tie-died tee-shirts, torn jeans, long hair and sandals.
Self awareness is not a skill taught in left wing families.
I have a friend who tells me he is socially a liberal, and a fiscal conservative. And a week later tells me he in in favour of a ” Living Wage”.
That link you remember is probably to the work of Jonathan Haidt. THe study is referenced in his book ‘The Righteous Mind’.
You are so right. Thank you very much. link
They also think that they are always right and when shown to be wrong – or lose elections – it is never the message but the way it was delivered. The UK really would have voted for a socialist Venezuela under Jeremy Corbyn if only they had got the message. Unfortunately we got the message so we didn’t.
The problem with them thinking they’re Right is the problem, They’re never right ’cause they’re Left
Well Ya’… another the Russian Navy picture again.
Their Black Sea fleet I think.
Putin loves the Climate Scam. He finances the West’s Econutters who are waging are Psyops War to drive up the price of Russian oil on the International market.
Putin’s stooges… the Western Left is. And they are too stupid to know it.
I believe you are correct.
Joel O’Bryan February 18, 2020 at 10:34 pm
Good catch.
Well we now know which military minds they are thinking of enlisting.
Of course if they can’t tell a Russian ship from a USN ship why trust them on anything.
michael
The picture is not from the source article. It appears to have been selected by Mr. Worrall or someone else on the WUWT staff – presumably to encourage your line of thinking.
This picture was used before in another post as a stock photo of warships. Most people couldn’t tell Krivaks and Karas from Arleigh Burkes and Ticonderogas if their lives depended on it,
Oil? What about natural gas for all the backup generators?
Closest ship I am going to say is a Kara class cruiser, with the next closest being I believe a Kashin class destroyer.
These are Cold War era ships so I am going to suggest the photo dates from the same period and likely to still be Soviet, not Russian.
The Black Sea fleet (which this is) still has all of those. The dead giveaway is the Headnet radars on the Krivaks – only the Black Sea fleet still has them.
This is a contemporary picture, and could be recent although I suspect it’s ~10 years old. Amusingly, the Democratic National Convention did a big bash celebrating “our brave soldiers, sailors and airmen” several years ago – this is the picture they used for navy ships, and the airplanes were all Russian too. #SMH
For the Democrats, those were their brave soldiers, sailors and airmen.
Towards the end of the cold war, most Democrats were more loyal to the Soviet Union than they were this country.
The military has no more legitimacy at replacing the laws of physics with conformance to a narrative then the IPCC has.
Yes, perhaps they should probably try Flo, the respected spokesperson for Progressive Insurance, before the generals, since as you point out the whole narrative is partly make believe.
I love Flo! 🙂
I don’t understand why you feel that way. When I have a question in science that I would like an answer for, the first thing I seek is “respected generals and admirals.” What more would one want than an authority figure at the top of the chain of command?
Singers, then actors, then failed presidential hopefuls; are my go-to choice of experts.
Watching ‘”Question & Answer” on ABC television to hear a two star retired army general Dunn state that every prediction on climate has come true, sinks that ship before it’s launched.
Respected military generals?
Respected by whom?
Back in the ’60s during the vietnam war student protesters didn’t really show a whole lot of respect. And how did the military gain their climate science credentials? Why is the military being invoked in a science and statistics debate?
chaamjamal
Underlying threat of violence.
chaam: Excellent point. I was wondering if Prof. Klare spoke to his eminent colleagues regarding whether “respected generals” even exist. Is there a group out there who despise and distrust the military MORE than college profs? Having framed the issue as “good scientists” v. “evil science rejectors”, he figures us evil rubes can’t think for ourselves, we say please give us some authority guy to tell us what to think.
Another case of progressive projection.
I’ll back a posteriori argument against argumentum ab auctoritate any day.
If US Naval minds are concerned about sea level rise around Norfolk, Virginia they could perhaps look at how much ground water is being pumped out from underneath their facilities.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-15309-5
Sea level rise is an empire-building gain for the navy, isn’t it?
Sea level rist increases the Navy’s domain. Very, very slowly.
Having spent around 32 years of my life around military circles, I will offer the humble opinion that a vast majority of these ‘generals’ they talk about….are dimwits and seriously lacking in judgement/common sense. This is the last group that you need on some stage in the act of lecturing people.
Mostly concur. From what I have seen coming out of C*#tberra, they are more likely to regurgitate whatever the senior public servants, who control the purse strings, and more importantly, their future career, say. And all those junior will nod sagely in agreement.
BTW, the picture at the top has warships, not military ships!
It’s the old oxy-moron – military intelligence.
“Believers and doubters”. That sounds like a religion. Perhaps that’s because “climate change” is a religion and is not science-based.
Will the generals do what they are used to do
and fight against the ennemy ??
😀
Sym-pathetic appeals have reached saturation. Em-pathetic appeals have reached saturation. I suppose they think that recycling appeals to authority will be a first-order forcing to reach critical mass.
Spike Miligan’s top oxymoron “Military Intelligence”!!!!!
LOL just said that above is that where it comes from or did he borrow it from further back in time?.
Professor Klare is not only a day late and a dollar short, he’s dead wrong! Just goes to show that leftists don’t bother to read history, even recent history, unless they intend to try and revise it.
What you propose Professor was tried many times already and hasn’t worked. A few examples that this truck driver dug up on the web based on his memory:
1. Retired Vice Admiral Says Climate Change Is Already Threatening National Security
By Alejandra Martinez • May 9, 2018 https://www.wlrn.org/post/retired-vice-admiral-says-climate-change-already-threatening-national-security#stream/0
2.Commander of US Forces in the Indo-Asia Pacific Affirms Climate Change Threat
https://climateandsecurity.org/2019/02/14/commander-of-us-forces-in-the-indo-asia-pacific-affirms-climate-change-threat/
3. Military Leaders Warn Climate Change is a National Security Threat
https://www.southcarolinapublicradio.org/post/military-leaders-warn-climate-change-national-security-threat
4. “Climate Change War” Is Not a Metaphor says retired Admiral David Titley
https://slate.com/technology/2014/04/david-titley-climate-change-war-an-interview-with-the-retired-rear-admiral-of-the-navy.html
5. 15 Military Leaders Who Say Climate Change Is A National Security Threat (05/30/12)
https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-nation/15-military-leaders-who-say-climate-change-national-security-threat
There’s more, including testimony before congress by military officers pushing the climate change hoax. But why bother? What the professor is doing is just more reflux and it still tastes just as bad as it did years ago.
One more for your list here : https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/12/29/dod-study-climate-change-will-destroy-us-in-2020/
Another list to remind all that ‘respected military generals’ (and admirals/air chief marshals/etc) are not infallible:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_disasters
Subjective.
Remember that for nearly every ‘massive military disaster’ there is another side celebrating their massive and total victory.
What we are really looking for is examples of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. These are actually a lot rarer. Rommel is probably a good example. On November 23rd his technical advantage in armour had basically managed to win Operation Crusader so on November 24th he took all his mobile forces off on the ‘Dash to the Wire’ on the mistaken belief the entire Commonwealth front was about to collapse.
It didn’t and when the finally came back the forces he had defeated on the 23rd had used the time to recover and repair and by 7th December Rommel was withdrawing to the west.
(On the flip side the CW returned the favour at Gazala the next year. Rommel had lead nearly his entire force in a big loop around the south end of the thick mine field defences and found himself on the Commonwealth side with no supply lines. Instead of concentrating an overwhelming force and possibly ending the Western Desert Campaign then and there, General Ritchie failed to co-ordinate, attacked piecemeal and was defeated piecemeal by the grateful Germans and Italians.)
(The CW then managed to turn what should have been an organised withdrawal into a panicked sprint and the Axis, trusting all to a non existent dice roll, gleefully advanced after them until their supply lines left them unable to either attack or withdraw.)
(not a lot of smarts in the Western Desert when you start to read closely)
“nother list to remind all that ‘respected military generals’ (and admirals/air chief marshals/etc) are not infallible”
Yes, for every winning general on the battlefield, there is a losing general.
Just ask Lee
Scientists can’t explain the science, so now they want people who spent their whole lives training how to break things and kill people to explain the science to us.
I wonder what they mean by “explain”?
Lucy….
I do think that a dialogue is possible, based – as any serious discussion of climate science must be – on the laws of physics and empirical evidence. If the generals agree that is a sound starting point then surely we are on our way to a profitable discussion.
If they don’t agree to this, then they are lousy military leaders – from Sun Tzu onwards it has always been a golden rule of military effectiveness to understand your enemy. If these generals can’t even begin to understand sceptics, then only an idiot would back them in this enterprise.
“Buy my book.”
It’s the ‘jumbo shrimp of military intelligence’. As a retired senior naval officer, I can tell you my mates are all pretty rational and realistic. The army? Mmmm. The RAF? Can’t say.
Hmm! where is my post on this subject Mod? It showed and now it’s gone?
Judging by Fridays for Future activities, they have an unlimited supply of virgins.
Instead of throwing traditional throwing into volcano, just send some virgins to every skeptic.
And now serious comment: I actually believe, that sexual exploitation of young women is one of the main driving forces of the so called left.
“Generals” from which service? Army, Marines, or Air Force? And what does he have against Admirals? They’re all Flag Officers! Somehow I doubt the professor even understand THAT fact!
We do indeed live in a topsy-turvy world. Here we have intelligent people seriously believing that military personnel must be more expert on climate matters than geologists, paleo-climatologists, meteorologists etc.
Do they perhaps believe uniforms give opinions more weight?
Shows what academia has done to it’s own credibility over the years, eh?
Main Battle Tanks adorned with solar panels and windmills?
Fighter aircraft towed like kites astern of nuke destroyers?
Are nuclear powered ships even allowed in this bizarre military scenario??
Respected Military Generals ……
Perhaps any “Respected Military General” that suggested that a war could be successfully prosecuted without making use of fossil fuels would find himself out of a job.
Just saying!
They could add solar panels onto reactive tank armor. Takes care of the recycling problem at end-of-life.
Let’s see.
Aviation: kerosene, lots of it, gas, diesel. And rocket stuff you don’t want to know about.
Marine: lots of diesel, kerosene, gas, bunker fuel, nuclear.
Troops, armored: lots of diesel, gas, whatever comes around.
Now let’s figure which army corps can remain operational in a carbon-free world?
My humble advice Mr. Professor, show the example, switch to hydrocarbon free drinks and quit buying stuff from that guy hanging by the campus fried chicken stand.
The Salvation “Army” ? LOL
“Us”?
That would be those not of the left/greens like you Loydo, so those who need indoctrination by Generals. So in Australia basically 90% of the population who won’t vote for this junk but there is probably 40% who will tell you they think about it (thoughts and prayers) so they probably only need a short period in a detention camp to bring them to their senses.
The picture shows a squadron of Russian warships of the past which no longer exist. A bit like climate change!!
Yes. Closest seems to be a Kara class cruiser and the next a Kashin class destroyer.
Cold War Soviet ships.
I remember when the majority of academia were doing all they could to get the military off their campuses. ROTC was persona non grata. ROTCs in uniform were mocked by fellow students and some professors attempted to besmirch them and anything military. Now they’re begging for their help in selling their scam?
The professor is deluded and grossly overestimates his own competence.
Perhaps they could talk about how sea level rise will affect their ships. 😉
A rising sea level lifts all boats (and ships), very slowly.
The same military generals that squandered billions in keeping the USA involved in wasteful wars?
Politicians are the ones who say whether the USA goes to war or not. The generals do what they are told by the national leaders. As long as it’s constitutional.
Who gets to decide which wars are wasteful and which are not?
Why do you believe you get to decide for the rest of us?
Respected huh?
A few years ago here in Oz we made a ‘respected’ army type ‘Australian of the Year’ for reasons that now escape me.
Then he went woke.
He went from a Respected Military Figure to Military Figure almost overnight.
Young Michael, I believe, has all this arse about. Military types don’t think in terms of solutions to causes. They think in terms of solutions to affects.
Scenario – Global Warming causes ‘nation A’ to attempt ‘military action B’.
The solution military types come up with are not ‘how do we stop Global Warming, but how to we apply military force to stop Nation A from attempting Military Action B and instead return to complying with our nation’s current foreign policy, or to put it a tad more crudely, “Who do we have to kill”.
The important parts are ‘Nation A’ and ‘Military action B’.
The ‘Global Warming causes’ part? Interchangeable as far as they are concerned. It could be ‘a radical government put into power by religious veal’ or ‘alien space pimples on the dark side of the moon’. The plausibility of the cause may drive just how deeply they study the problem, but at the end of the day their prime concern to coming up with the most force efficient plan to smite the enemies until they stop.
It might upset the more woke parts of society, but it is a safe bet that your nation has, at one stage or another, put thought into having to fight each and every other nation on the planet. Doesn’t mean they plan to attack, just they have put thought into the question. Tis what they do. Get over it.
Absolutely! The role of a military is to kill people and break their things. Too many people see them as a very expensive, international, meals-on-wheels program. While they don’t mind supplying things to allies when the chips are down, the preference is to do so only for national advantage. The military is not a charity organization, and international diplomacy is based on achieving national objectives. It’s great when other nations want the same thing you want, but the hard part is convincing them of it.
“Never underestimate the human capacity for stupidity when operating in groups.” Colonel Thomas Hammes.
The military would be the last place one should look towards for guidance and conciliation.
Toxic groupthink is endemic in the upper echelons of the military. The Bay of Pigs debacle, escalation of war in Vietnam are simple examples.
Toxic groupthink brought us the joy of the Global Financial Crisis and Toxic groupthink characterises the radical climate change alarmists position.
In a chilling and prescient book “Groupthink” published in 1972; the Yale Psychologist Irving L. Janis observed how panels of “experts” could make devastating mistakes.
“People on these panels, he said, are forever worrying about their personal relevance and effectiveness, and feel that if they deviate too far from the consensus, they will not be given a serious role. They self-censor personal doubts about the emerging group consensus if they cannot express these doubts in a formal way that conforms with apparent assumptions held by the group.” (Janis, Irving L. (1972). Victims of groupthink; a psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin.)
The pressure for conformity is enormous in Climate alarmist circles; the echo chambers of Twitter are replete with groupthinkers piling on to annihilate any deviation from the consensus. Deviants such as Professor Peter Ridd, formerly of JCU for example have paid the ultimate price for breaking away from groupthink.
I cannot imagine any conciliatory role for the military in the toxic groupthink closed shop of climate change alarmism.
“Be careful when you blindly follow the masses, sometimes the ‘m’ is silent.”..Anonymous
“The military would be the last place one should look towards for guidance and conciliation. Toxic groupthink is endemic in the upper echelons of the military. The Bay of Pigs debacle, escalation of war in Vietnam are simple examples.”
All those decisions were made by politicians. The military follows the directions of their national leaders.
The military would be one of the first places I would look to for advice. Sure, you can find a few CAGW believers among them, Obama appointed quite a few, but most of the military leaders have their heads on straight.
If we had done what the military leaders wanted to do during the Vietnam war: Invade North Vietnam and destroy their military forces; then the war would have been over in a matter of months instead of being a “war of attrition” that left the enemy in place in a safehaven, took many years, and ended up killing more people than an invasion would have killed.
Military officers are practical people. They like to get the most bang for the least sacrifice. Polticians don’t usually listen to the practical generals and end up screwing things up royally like they did in Vietnam.
Democrat politicians, I would hasten to add. Democrats were and are the problem when it comes to U.S. national defense and military activity. They are clueless and fearful and incapable of defending the U.S. for those reasons, and have demonstrated this on more than one occasion such as in Vietnam and in Iraq where they turned the aftermath of the war into a fiasco that has led to Iran dominating the politics and people of Iraq. We’ll see if Trump can turn this around. But don’t blame any of it on the U.S. military. They did their job.
The Vietnam War was actually won, then the politicians gave away the victory.
Yes, it was one of the biggest betrayals in history. The U.S. was morally and legally obligated to defend South Vietnam if North Vietnam ever attacked it again, but when North Vietnam attacked again in 1975, the Democrats controlled the Congress and refused to go to the aid of South Vietnam. That’s why you saw all the South Vietnamese running away. They lost hope after their only friend abandoned them to their fate.
What’s ironic about this was that all throughout the Vietnam war, the American generals were eager to find some way to confront the North Vietnamese military in a classic military battle where the Americans felt sure they would prevail (and they would have). But, of course, the North Vietnamese knew they could not stand up face to face with the U.S. military for long, so they fough a hit and run battle with U.S. troops, attacking and then disappearing into the darkness, frustrating our generals who were looking for big battles that favored the American military.
So when the North Vietnamese broke the peace treaty and attacked South Vietnam in 1975, they sent a substantial part of their military south in the attack and when they arrived in northern South Vietnam they and the hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese refugees who were fleeing in front of them, created a gigantic traffic jam all across northern South Vietnam to the point that the whole North Vietnamese military attack was halted and they couldn’t move forward and they couldn’t move backwards. They were sitting ducks.
The Democrats in Congress would not have even had to send American troops back into South Vietnam to destroy this North Vietnamese attack. All they had to do was order the B-52 bombers stationed at Guam and around the world to carpet bomb the North Vietnamese military and they would have wiped them out in a matter of days. They could have broken the back of the attack and North Vietnam’s military with one fell swoop from the air.
Of course, the Democrats never even considered honoring the peace agreement and told the South Vietnamese to go to Hell. Their delusional anti-war-at-any-cost thinking caused the death and displacemet of millions of South Vietnamese.
Democrats are not capable of defending the United States. They screw it up every time.
One must ask why these same people are happy to give China, the largest emitter of CO2 @ 30%, a free pass to emit as much CO2 they please up to 2030 and then wonder why some people are sceptical.
I don’t care who calls it roast beef, I’m still not holding my nose and swallowing. I know how to read the menu myself, thank you.
“Those who reject mainstream climate science insist either that warming is not occurring or that it’s not clear human actions are driving it. ”
It helps one to understand other people if you listen to them.
If he listened, he would know that this is hardly an accurate summation of the beliefs of the heathen he hopes to bring into the fold.
For one thing, “mainstream climate science” is not a science, it is a collection of suppositions, dubious conjectures, making stuff up, doomsday fearmongering, an appalling ignorance of history, and the worst case ever documented of selective attention.
Skeptics do not reject science, they reject the wrong ideas of bad scientists.
Warmistas, on the other hand, ignore that they are basing their fearmonger on a small amount of warming from what was the coldest period in 12,000 years.
They ignore that the world is in an ice age, and in fact even during the interglacial we remain at close to the coldest temperature in Earth’s history.
They ignore that cold is what is deadly, not warmth.
They ignore that vast areas of our planet are locked into a state of deadly perpetual cold, and that a large portion of the inhabited regions are seasonally cold enough to kill an unprotected person in minutes to hours.
They ignore that life flourishes in warmth, and dies graveyard dead in cold temperatures.
The pretend CO2 is a deadly and dangerous pollutant, and ignore that it is in fact the basic molecular building block of the entire biosphere, and that the amount of it in the air is precariously low…close to the level that will lead to the extinction of all life when the current interglacial ends.
They ignore that all of their predictions have failed to materialize.
They ignore that in complete opposition to everything they have been saying for three decades, the planet is providing an ever more bountiful supply of food for a growling number of people.
They ignore that poverty is at an all time low in human history.
They ignore that more people are living longer than ever, and remaining healthier while they are alive than ever before in human history.
They ignore that by every objective measure and metric, the world is getting to be a better place for people to live, that prosperous people take better care of that for which they have stewardship, and that our prosperity is based almost completely on our having and maintaining a continuous supply of abundant and inexpensive energy.
In fact they ignore all of reality, and live in an make believe dystopian world of fever dream fantasy, enforced ignorance, institutionalized propaganda, and imaginary problems that are perpetually and forever just over the horizon.
And they wonder why sane people are not cheering them on?
“Those who reject mainstream climate science insist either that warming is not occurring or that it’s not clear human actions are driving it. ”
It helps one to understand other people if you listen to them.
If he listened, he would know that this is hardly an accurate summation of the beliefs of the heathens he hopes to bring into the fold.
For one thing, “mainstream climate science” is not a science, it is a collection of suppositions, dubious conjectures, making stuff up, doomsday fearmongering, an appalling ignorance of history, and the worst case ever documented of selective attention.
Skeptics do not reject science, they reject the wrong ideas of bad scientists.
Warmistas, on the other hand, ignore that they are basing their fearmongering on a small amount of warming from what was the coldest period in 12,000 years.
They ignore that the world is in an ice age, and in fact even during the interglacial we remain at close to the coldest temperature in Earth’s history.
They ignore that cold is what is deadly, not warmth.
They ignore that vast areas of our planet are locked into a state of deadly perpetual cold, and that a large portion of the inhabited regions are seasonally cold enough to k!ll an unprotected person in minutes to hours.
They ignore that life flourishes in warmth, and dies graveyard dead in cold temperatures.
The pretend CO2 is a deadly and dangerous pollutant, and ignore that it is in fact the basic molecular building block of the entire biosphere, and that the amount of it in the air is precariously low…close to the level that will lead to the extinction of all life when the current interglacial ends.
They ignore that all of their predictions have failed to materialize.
They ignore that in complete opposition to everything they have been saying for three decades, the planet is providing an ever more bountiful supply of food for a growing number of people.
They ignore that poverty is at an all time low in human history.
They ignore that more people are living longer than ever, and remaining healthier while they are alive than ever before in human history.
They ignore that by every objective measure and metric, the world is getting to be a better place for people to live, that prosperous people take better care of that for which they have stewardship, and that our prosperity is based almost completely on our having and maintaining a continuous supply of abundant and inexpensive energy.
In fact they ignore all of reality, and live in a make believe dystopian world of fever dream fantasy, enforced ignorance, institutionalized propaganda, and imaginary problems that are perpetually and forever just over the horizon.
And they wonder why sane people are not cheering them on?
Excellent posts, Nicholas. 🙂
Oops!
I thought that first one did not post.
If you repost something and get a message that you have already posted that comment, then your comment has been accepted, it just isn’t displaying yet.
It is worth repeating, ad nauseum
I’m sure there’s plenty of concern for sea level rise at the Norfolk Naval Base. But the notion that sea level rise can be stopped if only we ban fossil fuels is ridiculous as well as totally ignoring geologic history.
Current Generals are all just seen as Politicians, sucking up, pandering, doing what their boss wants. For this to work, the general would have to be the level of an Eisenhower.
If Ike were alive, he would carefully weigh both sides of the issue and not just parrot what one side was telling him.
Given the evidence, there is a greater that 50% chance Ike would come out as an AGW skeptic and rail against the Climate Industrial Complex.
Great plan.
“Those who reject mainstream climate science insist either that warming is not occurring or that it’s not clear human actions are driving it.”
Another non-truth fabricated by the UN Propaganda Council.. The truth is that many, likely most, skeptics, who reject the propagandists and their “Control Initiative.” believe that the climate is cyclic, naturally variable and man’s contribution is minimal and beneficial.
We are currently living in a golden age supported by increasing CO2 and when the shoe falls humanity will be plunged into the next Ice Age. Then things will really become effed up. And because there is nothing the Governments of the world can do about warming; there will be nothing they can do to prevent the next Ice Age.
Most of the Generals, Admirals and Air Marshals I know of are complete boobs in anything but their own profession, and most are not very good at that either. Government work.
Someone should explain that most skeptics do not buy the “Argument from Authority” irregardless of who the authority is. Climate change believers lives are run by others and they think everyone works that way. That’s why fear is the only real weapon they have and once they hit a thinking person, not an emoter, even then their goal is often thwarted. They have zero understanding of skeptics, preferring to believe that simply pummeling them into submission is the only answer. It’s not science at all.
A) This is oddly reminiscent of leftists claiming tyrannical despotic societies are best at combating climate whatever.
B) I can think of few ways that destroy credibility quicker than military administrators proclaiming and proselytizing ‘climate nonsense’ well outside of their areas of expertise.
C) Obviously, Klare is another urban professor imagining things from the comfort of his couch..
The US top military ranks STILL have credibility?
With whom? As a retired airman, I can tell you anyone above O-5 is a politician in uniform, and O-5s are politicians in training. 90% of senior officers I met in my career had degrees in something other than science and engineering, and most are out of their element when having to discuss anything technical. What they are very good at is figuring out what they need to say to get their projects funded and playing to their bosses’ priorities. If the SecDef is a Warmunist, then all your proposals include addressing CAGW elements in them. You spend money on crazy stuff because the person controlling the purse strings believes it. Many of them come to believe crazy things because their careers depend on believing those crazy things.
Although I’ll agree that many 0-5s and above are political and got their rank by keeping their nose up the rears of those that could effect their promotions, there are still plenty of real warfighters who’s primary concern is the troops and their ability to make war effectively. Men that will not sacrifice their subordinates when the lawyers come calling because they recognize that warfare is a life and death issue and the fog of war still is a major factor thus it’s just not right to expect an E-5 making life death decisions under fire to constantly have his every move questioned.
Military Officers can suffer from Human-Caused Climate Change Derangement Syndrome, too.
I “liked” because it made me laugh.
last people Id trust to tell me jackschitt re climate
or the truth about much at all really.
The military uniform as a great effect on minds, as observed after the performance of Alexander “it’s Lieutenant Colonel” Vindman.
Just not on the ones that needed to be convinced of climbal warange.
The Democratic candidates’ proposed budgets to “fight climate change” are beyond enormous. Much of that money is likely to go the military. Read below:
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/12/democratic-candidates-presidential-climate-plans/
Good luck finding a general officer willing throw away his hard-earned reputation for the climate scam.
When you hit “general” level, you are a consummate organizational politician. If someone is supplementing the general’s retirement income at a sufficiently high level, I don’t doubt you could find one to go along.
Proof that Climate Change is a farce is that there is NO concentrated “existential” effort to build nuclear power plants for the production of electricity needed to power the world, all the EVs they want built that will double the amount of needed electrical power AND actually REDUCE CO2. More people die in one day from the flu than have died from the production of electricity by nuclear power.
More evidence that the First Church of Climate Change Hysteria is out of scientific evidence (if it ever had any that wasn’t produced by cooking the books). Sorry, garbage elite, generals and admirals won’t convince us.
If George Patton resurrects and tells me to get behind the warmist agenda, I’ll steal his pearl handled pistols.
Not pearl; ivory. Still on display in 2016 when I visited the Gen. George Patton Museum, Fort Knox, KY.
What part of “Nullis In Verba” don’t they understand?
Possibly all of it? Unless they keep their Latin polished up ready for use. Nil desperandum illegitimus carborundum.
I once listened to an Air Force general on the radio saying that climate change is a national security issue because airplanes can’t take off or land using runways that are under water.
Maybe he has overlooked that without fuel, they have a rather difficult time as well.
In WWII, we built runways practically overnight out of overgrown jungle.
So besides for the fact that the ocean is still just as far from the runways we built on Pacific atolls over 75 years ago as it was at the time they were built, the idea that we need to destroy civilization because we think we can control the level of the ocean is pretty nutty.
He also seems to have overlooked that if the ecoloons get their way in all they want, the military will be defunded without a second thought.
I think the biggest “problem” they have is their “science” is not compelling. there are holes you could drive a private jet through, they keep “adjusting” data, and people can feel that a degree here or there is not going to lead to catastrophe.
I think most skeptics have seen how those “in charge” of spreading climate doom are not making any changes in their way of life to mitigate climate impact, and view that as largely hypocritical.
The longer this goes on, the more it resembles Lysenkoism
Category: “Respected Military Generals Could Convince Climate Skeptics” for $400 Alex …
Answer: “What is a ‘cram down’ (AKA ‘cramdown’)?”
Since the vast majority of alarmists are left wing, they naturally assume that the vast majority of skeptics are right wing.
And as every true left wingers know, the right wing slavishly supports the military.
It seems to me that what they ignore most studiously about the conservative mindset on the military is, the idea of peace through strength.
They seem unable to comprehend that this is not only true, but proven true time and again, and that weakness merely tempts those who would use force to project their will on others.
One of the stupidest comments I’ve ever heard was some idealistic leftist proclaiming that it takes two to make war. When one side is willing to fight to take what they want, and the other side isn’t willing to fight back, what you have is slavery, not peace.
My father, rest his soul, was serving in the Army Air Corps in Boca Raton in ’46-’47. He was a radar instructor, and was there when the base was flattened by two hurricanes in September and October of 1947. I doubt any weather since impressed him much, let alone all the mewling regarding current conditions. I doubt his superiors would have been any more impressed by these arguments.
West Point professor Tim Bakken has a book released this week that goes into detail exactly why military leaders may be the last people we would want to get climate advice from. A review of the book in link.
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/west-point-prof-pens-blistering-takedown-of-u-s-military-academies/
(Release date in the photo caption appears to be an error.)
Problem: Skeptics aren’t convinced by appeals to authority.
Proposed solution: find a different authority to appeal to, one with absolutely no expertise in climate science.
Of course, the supposed problem isn’t a practical problem for their imagined crisis anyways. In the United States, CO2 emissions were reduced due to fracing making natural gas less expensive — and it’s the alarmists, not the skeptics, that have the people who want to outlaw fracing. The climate virtue-signallers have accomplish squat in actually reducing emissions all over the world–this is not the fault of marginalized and ignored skeptics.
Well most conservatives are pro military so it is an issue of fighting wars. But most Americans of all types feel the rest of the world can go ….. Well something not said in a kid friendly blog (and that includes most conservatives who are not globalists)
Well, so far we haven’t gotten a story as to the effects of “Climate Change” on hemorrhoids.
So, the same folks that maintain the holding of the world hostage to nuclear war and practice heavily polluting preparations for and execution of war are now seen as the best propagandists for the “Climate Change” scam?!
Now that’s funny.
Well what is missed by this professor is do American citizens care anymore about warlords in Africa or middle East? Americans are after 80 years ready to tell the world to go take care of itself.
Tldr. No
Longer? Because if shale revolution, The US has been a net energy exporter for a few months now. The US has a vested interest not in middle East peace, but quit possibly in middle East turmoil.
See Absent super power. There are other issues and while I won’t say Zeihan is 100percent right he has very valid points.
Thje only military official i’m inclined to listen to on this is Gen Dwight D Eisenhower who warned of the scientific elites pushing a political agenda and defining government policy in the same way the military industrial complex were at the time he left office, and still remain doing so. This BS simply combines both, but to idealogues, it would give the the MIC the moral authority to stop ‘polluters’ with force.
“This is already happening in some communities, such as Norfolk, Virginia, where base commanders and local officials have found common ground in addressing the area’s extreme vulnerability to sea level rise and hurricane-induced flooding.”
Which goes to show how much these ringknockers in Norfolk actually listen to advice. Multiple recent studies, even from NASA and thr Corps of Engineers concluded the majority of that sea level ‘rise’ is down to subsidence.
What makes generals and admirals experts on climate change? GIGO — Garbage In, Garbage Out applies to everyone. In other words, they only hear from experts who only belong to the AGW camp. Have any of them had their staffs dig into the research? I dare say a casual reader of this blog is more informed than these generals.
No general, admiral, president, prime minister, politician or prince is a climate expert. They only absorb and regurgitate what someone else tells them.
Fall into line skeptics or we will sick the generals on you!
And then what? They will let another war ship be intercepted by a sea mammouth?
Or they will sink a frigate during a NATO exercice? (exercice at what exactly? amusing Putin? Russian propaganda?)
We’re not interested in appeals to authority or CGI enhanced propaganda. Just the facts, Ma’am.
And the fact that we have warmed a degree or two since the Little Ice Age is not enough to persuade us that the warming has to be stopped or reversed. We need real evidence that future warming is going to be harmful rather than net beneficial. What little warming we have experienced so far has been generally beneficial. I would like a little more of it.
Eric, I think you’re on to something I’ve really been missing: “Perhaps they judge us by their own followers, they’re still looking for leaders, magic influencers who can bring us into line.” I forget there are people who want to be led, who don’t want to have to think for themselves – who don’t think for themselves. They listen to people who they expect to do their thinking for them.
This isn’t true for 100% of them. Some of them want to be a leader of sheeple. They are dangerous. We have a lot of them running for President of the United States.
We’ve taught the bullies a lesson, if they dare to come back, it is no holds barred…..
Tired of being “nice”, we’re gonna scorch the earth, and salt the land.
Don’t doubt it can be done.
After serving in the USN this statement makes me laugh. The higher in rank you become the more of a politician you have to be for advancement and job postings. By the time one makes admiral they’re as much a politician as anyone elected to DC but their job doesn’t rely on voters it relies on congress. Is it any surprise they toe the political line on CAGW? It’s that or retire so no, they couldn’t convince me of anything just because congress has directed them to. Now if they provide undeniable proof along with their assertions I’ll listen. So they can convince me the sun rises in the east but convince me CAGW is real?
FYI-That gruff, no nonsense colonel/admiral you see riding herd over a scared flock of politicians in the movies doesn’t exist in peace time military. Probably does for those who came up the ranks during war time as competence becomes the most important reason to advance officers but they’ll quickly be drummed out when the war is over.
Climate Change is real; I need more tanks.
In an unrelated search today I googled the term “climate change skeptics”. I was surprised to find most of the links were about how to persuade skeptics that climate change is real, and man-made! They’re obsessed about it. Yet each new ruse they try only seems to bring more skeptics from out of the woodwork. 3 years ago skeptics were rare on twitter; now there seem to be a few dozen more every day coming out.
I find this article so funny. If you want to persuade someone about the science behind something you should begin by making sure you first understand it yourself; something no alarmist bothers with. The climate change scam must fail because even though it’s an elaborate scam applying many clever tricks to promote pseudoscience – in the end people can’t be forever conned.
Greenpeace and “sortir du nucléaire” (stop nuclear) convinced me anti nuk people were fools.
SkS convinced me warmists were fools.
The CDC convinced me vaxxers wrong fools.
Just reading that kind of crap should convince any one with a critical mind that it’s insane. Zero understanding of atmospheric sciences needed.
ng re: ” … convinced me … ”
Says the certified idiot.
I have NOT encountered anyone dumber on these ‘hallowed’ pages then yourself, ng.
A whip for the horse, a halter for the donkey, and a rod for the backs of fools! Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.
Proverbs 26:3
I see the Good Doctor is of Viet Nam-era vintage. If he were of the anti-war pursuasion at the time, I wonder if a few “Respected Generals” would have been able to change his mind on the war?
One again they think the key to convincing skeptics is who the messenger is. It doesn’t matter who the messenger is, it’s the message that’s important. And the skeptics aren’t buying the message (no matter who they get to deliver it) because the facts and data simply don’t support the unwarranted assertions of the message.
John
I think that, fundamentally, those who accept the premise of CAGW do so because they respect authority. Therefore, they believe that everyone thinks the same way and the solution is to find an authority that is sufficiently respected to change skeptic’s minds. It apparently doesn’t occur to them that skeptics want evidence, not authority figures. Authority figures are only useful for religions.
Klare was strongly pushing
Peak Oil few years back.
A lieutenant colonel was vainly rolled out at the Trump impeachment hearings. (“Finkman” – or some name like that.) We know he was a ‘lieutenant colonel’ because he rather imperiously corrected his cross-examiners on this major point of order.
This showed that, if the climate-changers want to convince sceptics, they’ll need to get someone with more clout that a lieutenant colonel.
But then, the cross-examinations could get interesting. . . . “Rear Admiral Finkman, how did you travel from San Diego to this hearing in Washington today . . . aircraft carrier?! . . . what is the carbon footprint of an aircraft carrier? . . . nuclear powered you say? Wonderful! . . . would you recommend this mode of transport to be used by all Americans? . . .”
The military would bring the intimidation factor; Either you believe in climate change or we shoot you.