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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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