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.
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.