Taxpayer Funded NGO Releases Yet Another Climate Doomsday Report

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

According to MSM you can trust the “THE CENTER FOR CLIMATE & SECURITY” because they are non partisan experts.

Report warns climate change could become ‘catastrophic’ global, national security threat

BY REBECCA KLAR – 02/24/20 09:16 AM EST

National security and intelligence experts warn that climate change could become a “catastrophic” threat to security and recommended quick action to be taken to mitigate risks, according to a new report released Monday.

“Even at scenarios of low warming, each region of the world will face severe risks to national and global security in the next three decades,” experts wrote in the report released by the National Security, Military and Intelligence Panel of the Center of Climate and Security, a nonpartisan security policy institute.

“Higher levels of warming will pose catastrophic, and likely irreversible, global security risks over the course of the 21st century.” 

The security threat assessment of global climate change warns that all levels of warming of climate change will pose “significant and evolving threats” to global security environments, infrastructure and institutions.

Read more: https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/484313-report-warns-climate-change-could-become-catastrophic-global

The report itself is available here.

I think the most ridiculous part of the report is a suggestion 1-2C of warming in Russia would cause serious problems.

… At 1-2°C/1.8-3.6°F of global average warming, the EUCOM area of responsibility will experience severe weather that threatens destabilization of its key economic sectors, rising regional inequality, and impacts on civil and military infrastructure. In this scenario, rising ethno- nationalist sentiments alongside rising migration waves pose serious threats to the alliances underlying existing security institutions.

At 2-4+°C/3.6-7.2+°F of global average warming, the EUCOM area of responsibility will likely experience prolonged drought and rising seas, leading to significant internal displacement, as well as an influx of migrants from neighboring areas. In this scenario, a breakdown in regional political, institutional, and security cohesion becomes likely. …

Read more: Same link as above

1-2C of warming in Russia might mean Northern Russia is slightly more habitable. Like Canada, most Russians live on the warm southern edge of their nation, because the North is simply too cold.

The section on human health quotes The Lancet;

… Climate change will pose serious challenges to human health, mainly by affecting delicate natural systems that make bodies more susceptible to stress and disease. Medical research increasingly demonstrates links between warming temperatures and increased vulnerability to heat stress, infectious diseases, extreme events, and pollution, as summarized by the now annual report on health and climate change published by the leading journal, The Lancet.67 …

Read more: Same link as above

The suggestion that warm weather compromises people’s immune systems is absurd. Humans are extreme tropical monkeys, we don’t have fur because our ancestors evolved in one of the hottest places on Earth. Across most of the Earth, humans need clothes to stay warm enough to survive. So it seems reasonable to infer that the human immune system is mostly still optimised to the hot tropical weather our ancestors experienced.

The report was likely paid for with US taxpayer’s money. The authors acknowledge the generous support of the Henry M. Jackson Foundation, which was set up by Congress in 1983. The Henry M Jackson foundation does a lot of good work supporting the medical needs of veterans, and also performs HIV research, so it seems a real shame they decided to waste some of their endowment and goodwill on yet another climate report.

66 thoughts on “Taxpayer Funded NGO Releases Yet Another Climate Doomsday Report

    • More importantly can we get reparations and free money as my country is suffering.
      I fear my country is sinking because of the weight of all the fear, you know it weighs heavy on the people.
      Please send money in brown paper bag to lighten our mood and lift the weight.

  1. The report warns of severe risks to national and global security in the next three decades but other ‘experts’ calculate we only have 12 years. Perhaps someone made a Math error.

    • Yes Teewee.

      Three decades timing is more than enough time to defer climate change action and let the next generation (if bothered by a few degrees increase) move a few hundred feet from current coastline or a few hundred hundred miles north. I’m sure the National Security, Military and Intelligence Panel of the Center of Climate and Security (what a name! AKA: NSaMIPotCoCaS) had typo and meant 3000 days rather than 3 decades.

  2. So I suppose we should all move to Maine? Florida must be a hell hole of crime and bad security. Why have we not been told this before?

  3. Once more, someone show me any qualification that the author has to make any of the statements she makes–

    “Rebecca graduated from Binghamton University, State University of New York in May 2017. She graduated Magna Cum Laude, with a bachelor’s degree in English with a concentration in rhetoric.”

    https://www.rebeccaklar.com/about/

    ‘With a concentration in rhetoric’–what exactly does that mean? Notice that one paragraph has the word ‘rising’ in it 4 times? Concentration in (of) rhetoric indeed.

    Sounds like a specialty in BS to me. This floozie has slightly more knowledge than Greta, but not about climate science or its effects on anything. ‘Ignore’.

    • BTW–I used the abbreviation ‘BS’ to be rhetorically polite in my prose. Please use the full extension when reading it to be rhetorically correct in understanding my meaning.

      • “BTW–I used the abbreviation ‘BS’ to be rhetorically polite in my prose.”

        Just go ahead and spell it out. Bad Science is Bad Science. Oh! Wait a minute! That’s not what you meant, was it. Never mind.

    • > ‘With a concentration in rhetoric’–what exactly does that mean?

      Latin ‘retor’ menas ‘twisting’. Rebecca is an expert in twisting reality, in making well sounding noises with her mouth that can turn you around and move into welcoming hand of the global suicidal sect.

      • “all levels of warming of climate change”

        Wow, is climate change starting to warm. I guess that’s a example of rhetorical condensation.

        global warming + climate change => “warming of climate change”

    • It means Rebecca is qualified to write fiction or spend hours torturing students with her personal opinions regarding sentence and grammar structure.

      Rebecca’s proves she can write fiction.
      It is highly questionable whether she can write a good story. Her rhetoric and personal opinion writing apparently won out over facts, interest and reality.

  4. “…you can trust the “THE CENTER FOR CLIMATE & SECURITY” because they are non partisan experts.”

    “I think the most ridiculous part of the report…”

    No, What is ridiculous is thinking your partisan, non-expert opinion should be trusted instead of The Lancet.

      • Have you read the report you link to? 86 pages, nearly 300 references:

        “As national security, military and intelligence professionals with decades of experience, we have
        dedicated our careers to anticipating, analyzing and addressing security threats to the United States, with the goal of protecting all citizens from harm. That includes threats ranging from the proliferation and use of nuclear weapons, to the likelihood of terrorist attacks striking our shores.”

        Their conclusion:
        Based on our research, we have determined that even at scenarios of low warming, each region of
        the world will face severe risks to national and global security in the next three decades. Higher
        levels of warming will pose catastrophic, and likely irreversible, global security risks over the
        course of the 21st century.”

        To know-nothing bloggers like you and me I apply nullius in verba. But then your know-nothing, partisan blog opinion is not the same as a well researched paper, backed by solid evidence, written by a team experienced professionals. I suggest you go and re-read about the Dunning-Kruger effect because not only are you applying nullius in verba, you say the report is “ridiculous” implying you know better.

        • Now if i was a true lefty like you Loydo I would be thinking Covid19 was released deliberately as a distraction from the Climate Emergency. Hell COP26 may not even be able to happen as it’s a gathering of a large number of people from all over world and a huge risk against this backdrop. Perhaps it was even funded by big oil companies that would tick all the boxes.

        • All those retirement age fools moving somewhere warm when they retire, exposing themselves to an overnight climate shift of 2C+ when they move. If only they had the sense to listen to experts and stay put.

        • Loydo, given your past proclamations about global warming, I think it is hilarious that you are accusing other people of suffering from the Dunning Kruger effect.

          • Loydo, are you suffering from amnesia? Of course, there is another explanation for your lack of knowledge of your previous posting history. I think Loydo might be a collective name under which a group of science denying morons post because they are too ashamed to use their real names. You can disprove this hypothesis by revealing your true name. I post under my real name. Why don’t you?

        • Typical baseless claim by loytoy.

          “To know-nothing bloggers like you and me I apply nullius in verba. But then your know-nothing, partisan blog opinion is not the same as a well researched paper, backed by solid evidence, written by a team experienced professionals”

          “well researched”?
          No.
          A very narrow research that ignores reality and focuses on make believe predictions.

          “solid evidence”?
          In all the time you’ve posted here, you have never posted “solid evidence”.
          Links to nothing, yes. Links to alarmist claims, yes. Links to badly conducted research with over the top alarmist conclusions, yes.
          Links to “solid evidence”, never.

          “team experienced professionals”?
          That is exactly was has been discussed here.
          The researchers/author document neither experience nor climate knowledge.

          • “In all the time you’ve posted here, you have never posted “solid evidence”.

            The difficulty he has is there is no evidence of human-caused climate change to post.

            He could prove that statement wrong but of course, he won’t, because he can’t, because there isn’t any evidence.

            So he promotes “authority figures” as a substitute for evidence.

        • “Their conclusion:
          Based on our research, we have determined that even at scenarios of low warming, each region of the world will face severe risks to national and global security in the next three decades. Higher
          levels of warming will pose catastrophic, and likely irreversible, global security risks over the
          course of the 21st century.””

          I wouldn’t want this group advising my military leaders if these are their conclusions. Based on what, I would have to ask them? We’re not even in a warming trend. What do they have to say about that? Apparently, these experts are easily duped and don’t need any actual evidence of catastrophic warming to make their decisions.

          They will have to eat their words. Watch and see. The “next three decades” they say. Well, let’s see what the next decade holds first, and when their prdictions don’t come to pass, including warming, then they will just move the goalposts. Delusional national security experts. What could be more dangerous?

    • Loydo, Quoting the MSM is not proof of anything, you know that; don’t you? But tell us more about those increased risks in the tropics, they are already warmer than the temperate zones.

      • All those poor fools who retire to Florida, they don’t know how much harm they are doing to themselves… /sarc

    • The Lancet? Y’mean the “august publication” that recently became a megaphone for a “disruptive” activist group that would like worldwide protein rationed to 1/5 of an EGG per week? THAT Lancet?

      All this crap is ramping up the hysteria for an increasingly improbable election of Socialist Bernie Sanders over President Trump. Expect it to peak on Earth Day 50, then regress to predictable yammering and growling among the obsessed true-believers. We need to be aware of our own bubble; outside of those of us who follow this issue due to business or scientific interests, vanishingly few of the general public think about it at all. Even fewer intend to take any kind of “climate action.” Basically, it’s all a noise machine.

      Nowadays a remarkable part of our “reality” is in fact “pseudo-reality,” comprised of “pseudo-events” entirely bought, paid for, created and disseminated by Corporate Media for their own interests.

      • “Nowadays a remarkable part of our “reality” is in fact “pseudo-reality,”

        Yes, it is. The political Left and Right live in completely different realities.

        The real world only works in one way. Yet we have huge numbers of people seeing reality work differently from other huge numbers of people.

        Those on the political Left have their reality created for them by mainly the Leftwing Meda.

        Since the political Right doesn’t have a media that “speaks for society” but rather speaks against them, the Right does not have their reality created for them by the Leftwing Media. I would say that the Right gets its version of reality from looking at reality itself.

        Only one of these versions of reality is the correct one. I guess we will see who has the majority opinion after the November presidential elections.

        I would urge all conservatives and other freedom lovers to get out and vote for Trump. We want the highest vote count we can get this time around to show the Left who owns this nation, and it’s not them.

  5. Eric, nice post but you’re being way too gentle with the sophomoric work of the author. A high school student could do a more intelligent analysis!
    What do you think of the theory that humans lost their hair due to extensive living in a semi-aquatic environment during the last period or two of glaciation? The best sources of food and water would be along the major rivers and oceans but any evidence would be under hundreds of feet of seawater now.
    We definitely evolved in a tropical climate and the evidence is seen annually in the disparity between deaths caused by cold and those cause by heat. There would be even fewer heat related deaths if the Greens had not been forcing so many into energy poverty and preventing the Third World from developing. Racists!!

    • I don’t think the evidence supports the view that we’re semi-aquatic. Certainly we have limited ability to swim, but we’re not that good at it.

      What humans are incredibly good at is endurance running, with a few years training most humans can run fantastic distances, 20 miles in a day. There is evidence our ancestors used persistence hunting to survive, chasing prey until it simply could not run anymore. Some tribes who have maintained their traditions still use persistence hunting.

      • Babies swim instinctively.
        If humans were non-aquatic, babies would drown not swim.

        Human blood is similar to sea water.
        Humans easily excrete excess salt. Other distance persistence hunters like the dog and wolf cannot.
        Which suggests that humans evolved eating salty foods; e.g. oysters, clams, crustaceans and other molluscs.
        That humans epidermally excrete salt suggests an environment where salt was flushed frequently from the skin.

        Persistence hunting is a social activity. Yes, one human can successfully perform persistence hunting, but failure occurs much more frequently than success. Especially since two legged animals do not have the solidly stable balance that four legged animals have naturally.
        In persistence hunting when the chaser falls behind, another member of the team takes over as chaser.

        Human feet are not well designed for long distance running without protection. Instead human feet are better suited to running on sand and crossing/hunting swampy areas.
        Better yet, human feet are dextrous allowing multiple applications such as foraging, climbing anything, flotation on wet/swampy ground, etc. etc.
        The huge question on human feet is why did we evolve with such complex walking extensions? Running animals do not need such complex constructs.
        Subsistence hunters frequently use their feet to find and harvest aquatic roots and animals.

        Swimming is an endurance activity.
        The act of treading water by humans is quite efficient. Again, it is a strenuous activity over a long period of time.
        While exposing humans to water dependent predators, swimming/treading deeper water frustrates most land predators; including persistence hunters.

        Animals that inhabit or hunt in muddy locations or otherwise delve into mud are frequently without fur or minimize fur.

        An unresolved question is why do humans grow such long hair on their heads?
        That is definitely not a chimpanzee trait. Fur over the entire body enables babies/youngsters to cling to their mothers. Human baby grips are impressive as mothers will attest.
        Long hair allows a child to hold onto the parent while swimming.

        Human noses are not perpendicular openings that face directly outward; e.g. chimpanzee.
        Human nostrils evolved to provide a definite canopy which directs water to flow past the nostril openings. Coupled with innate breathing control it allows humans to work in tumultuous water conditions.
        A lucky evolutionary trait as human noses further evolve to efficiently condition/filter air in environments from extreme altitudes to arid areas to polar lands to jungles.

        During the Civil War, many Southern soldiers grew up barefoot on the sandy/clay soils of Southern states.
        Winter was harsh on bare feet, but not as harsh as Northern rocky terrain; e.g. Gettysburg.
        Many of the Alabama soldiers who attacked Union troops on Little Round Top were barefoot. The extremely granite rock injured soldiers who grew up barefoot.

        Most animals running on rocky terrains evolve much harder feet structures.

        Then there is the question why human babies are nearly hairless? Human babies remain nearly hairless until puberty.
        Our closest genetic relatives the chimpanzees have babies that are covered in fur and remain fur covered for life.

        Many animals evolve scent systems.
        Humans tend towards a very foul odor, men especially. One can imagine what it must be like for a lion to bite an animal just a few shades less odorous than a skunk.
        Owls eat skunks, but owls do not have olfactory functions.
        Human scent systems make better sense when frequent submersion is involved.
        Later evolving into bathing. We know that society is certainly happier with clean humans.

        That construct about humans evolving as persistence hunters on land fails to explain many of these human traits.

        What is an incredibly lucky evolution is that humans are uniquely constructed so that simple additions/practices allow humans to live almost anywhere.
        One common requirement is water.
        Another common requirement is salt.
        Without access/consumption to both requirements, human life is not possible.

        • Brings to mind the “Mud Men” of tropical NewGuinea & countless times I’ve seen tribal people in hot regions who smeared themselves with muddy clay. Many Western women apparently rediscovered their ancestry
          & employ products that temporarily coat their faces, which they consider for cosmetic benefit.

        • I’m open-minded about the semi-aquatic-ape hypothesis; I read some Elaine Morgan books when I was younger. There is also a more recent hypothesis about the human genetic lineage coming from a mix of proto-pigs breeding with proto-apes, sometime around 12 to 14 mya; maybe sooner. Pigs are semi-aquatic, which would then explain further HOW the semi-aquatic ape evolved, which would eventually become the genus Homo which evolved (in my opinion) about 3 mya, which then became modern human a quarter-million years or so ago.

    • fur seals have flippers, yet have fur. Humans are a long way away from having flippers. Lack of fur means nothing in relation to aquatic adaptation.

      SR

  6. From the article: “Higher levels of warming will pose catastrophic, and likely irreversible, global security risks over the course of the 21st century.”

    According to actual temperature readings, there is no warming trend. It was just as warm globally in the recent past as it is today.

    The only way you get a warming trend is to take the actual temperature readings and put them through a computer where the trendline is drasticaly changed for political purposes into a “hotter and hotter” bastardized Modern-era Hockey Stick chart.

    This author and many others are basing their “warming” claims on a fraudulent global surface temperature chart that has no resemblance to reality. And then they make up all sorts of science fiction stories about what this imaginary warming will do to humans and the Earth.

    The Truth is out there. All you have to do is look at any unmodified (actual temperature readings) regional surface temperature chart and you can see that temperatures were just as warm in the recent past as they are today, and that means CO2 is not a major player in the Earth’s atmosphere, and that means CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) is a dead speculation.

    There’s no need to spend TRILLIONS of dollars to fix the CO2 problem because there is no CO2 problem.

    Actual temperature readings = No extra expenditures on the part of the world’s taxpayers because there is no problem requiring money.

    Fraudulent Hockey Stick chart = Waste TRILLIONS of dollars trying to restrict CO2 production for no good purpose.

    There are your two choices politicians. One choice doesn’t require you to bankrupt your nation. The other one does. Shouldn’t you make a little effort to find out which one of your two options is the correct course to take? You could save TRILLIONS of dollars and a lot of mental anguish if you decide to go with the “no warming trend” actual temperatures.

    So, what you politicians should do is request an answer to the question of which temperature record repesents the real global surface temperature profile of the Earth, the “no warming trend” profile, or the “hotter and hotter” profile.

    You can save yourselves a lot of money if you wise up and hold the Data Manipulator’s feet to the fire. Make them justify drastically changing the actual temperature record into a record that doesn’t look anything like what the actual temperatures report. Expose this fraud and save yourselves a lot of taxpayer money.

    Shouldn’t Data Manipulators have to show their work and justify their actions? I think so. They are paid with taxpayer money and they should have to explain why they changed the official global temperature chart into a Hockey Stick. A Hockey Stick that doesn’t resemble any regional temperatue chart on the globe.

    All the regional temperature charts say the same thing: It was just as warm in the recent past. The Hockey Stick lies and says we are experiencing the hottest weather in human history. The actual temperature readings put the lie to this hoax.

    Below is a U.S. and a China Tmax chart showing actual temperature readings. All regional surface temperature charts have this same basic profile with the temperatures showing it was just as warm in the recent past as it is today. This means there is no CO2 problem and no CAGW problem.

    US chart:

    https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2018/12/Figure-11.png

    China chart:

    https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2018/12/Figure-12-1.png

    And then we have this fraudulent “hotter and hotter” modern-era Hockey Stick chart which “disappears” the warmth of the 1930’s turning that time period into an insignificant period in the temperature record. By all rights, the 1930’s on a temperature chart should be on the same horizontal level as 2016, but as you can see, the Hockey Stick chart erases all that information and makes it look like temperatures are getting hotter and hotter and hotter, for decade after decade and we are now at the hottest period in history. It’s all a lie. No other temperature chart on Earth resembles the fraudulent Hockey Stick. It was made up out of thin air in order to sell the CAGW hoax. They couldn’t sell the hoax using the actual temperature readings. So they changed them. And have caused enormous trouble as a result.

    Bogus, Bastardized Hockey Stick

    https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2018/12/Reference-Figure-1.png

    • Global Warming weakened them in the summer and they couldn’t adapt.

      You have to think like Nick Stokes, it’s all in how you phrase things to be good at the Climate Shell game 🙂

  7. For each non-profit, pro-climate-catastrophe organization, there should be a non-profit-climate-reality organization. I have a few name suggestions:

    * The Center for Climate Intelligence
    * The Center for Climate Rationality
    * The Center for the Eradication of Climate Stupidity
    * The Center for Legitimate Climate Research
    * The Center for People Having a Clue about Climate Facts

    Each of these could be a haven for a couple of folks to act as CEOs and earn their grant-funded 50 K a year, and travel the world on the patrons’ dimes to actually teach real people real stuff about real climate dynamics.

    I have a tendency to put my guard up, when I see the numbers and letters, “501(3c)”.

    • The problem is there is no doom to sell. Why do you think religions push the fire and brimstone when the real story is supposedly about salvation. Look at a news service count the number of articles about bad things and then count the number of articles about good things …. bad news sells.

  8. “… Even at scenarios of low warming, each region of the world will face severe risks to national and global security in the next three decades. Higher levels of warming will pose …”.
    Unless they would claim that the Great War, Russian Revolution, Great Depression, WW2 and Cold War were caused by global warming, they must have discovered that the planet has finally reached the ideal global average surface temperature viz. 14.9C.

  9. I wish heat-related mortality wasn’t racist. And, for that matter, wasn’t sexist.

    The team of K. Knowlton (2007) posit that in NewYorkCity ~23.1*Celsius was ideal for lowest risk; as per “Projecting heat-related mortality ….” While in Shanghai 26.7*Celsius was ideal for lowest risk according to the team of H.D.Kan (2003); as per “Temperature & daily mortality in Shanghai….”

    A compilation of big Chinese cities heat-related deaths from 1986-2005 broke the paradigm down by gender. Apparently for women this impacted 22 per million of them & yet only 10.1 per million of males.

    Apparently heat-related mortality also discriminates by age. In the same period that urban China data revealed that 25.1 per million people who were beyond working age succumbed & yet only 7 per million people who were working age succumbed.

    Air conditioning exposure while working seems to me the logical significant factor in the issue of ameliorating temperature heat induced physiological stress. As a natural born USA gringo I shall henceforth work to awaken my government representatives to the fact air conditioning is a human right.

    • “Apparently for women this impacted 22 per million of them & yet only 10.1 per million of males.”
      Did women die at a greater rate because they had to wear clothing that covered more of their bodies, or because they spend more time in the hot kitchen? Or both?

      SR

      • Hi S.R. – As I understand the theory of heat-related mortality the issue is increased physiological responses required. Among the identifiable ones are respiratory & circulatory.

        Thrombosis supposedly has a greater chance of occurring since enduring high temperature increases both the viscosity of blood& the blood platelet count, among other dynamics. As per W.R. Keatinge’s team (1986 ) “Increased platelet and red cell counts, blood viscosity …during heat stress … and mortality ….”

        Now those cited parameters were for English subjects & their specific test data points were also for a quite high (41*C) experimental temperature. However, the trials were attempting to understand why national 34.6*Celsius heat wave (& no cooler than 20.8*C) were followed 1-2 days later with a notable increase in deaths.

        So, without personally knowing why Chinese women reportedly were (are?) statistically more vulnerable to heat-related mortality I am inclined to believe you have suggested at least one logical explanation. They presumably are more likely to do the cooking & in urban areas perform the tasks indoors, where they are exposed for a significant time period of elevated heat – which 15 to 35 years ago in China was unlikely in an air conditioned kitchen. And as you also suggest, doing so more covered in their clothing than a household male might be.

        In Gringolandia the traditional homesteads had/have cooking areas separate from the dwelling house. These kitchens were/are roofed & , although try to be protected from prevailing inclement weather, basically provide open access for passive ventilation.

        My region gets seasonal tropical daytime heat & all I can say is that in “my” countryside air conditioning is rare; yet there are a lot of mobile old grandmothers (70s & even 80s), more in fact who outlived their old husbands. So, in my view, the concept of an extra 1.5 – 2.0* Celsius higher temperature being a risk factor for mortality seems like it needs more context than just linear assertions by proponents of the concept.

  10. I just founded a CENTER OF GOOD PEOPLE ALWAYS BEING RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING, acronym GOSTUPID.

    It means, everyone opposing me/us is literally Hitler.

    For everyone else, who doesn’t want to be like a Hitler, please send money.

    Our secure Nigerian account is: ADHLNGLA12345678

    We have minimal climate impact because your money will travel only once in one direction.

    We do not employ any carbon base live forms.

  11. That’s not doom and gloom-
    This is doom and gloom…https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02323/full

    And the author’s qualifications ?
    He’s a musicologist at the University of Graz, Austria…https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Parncutt
    He’s studied a bit of physics but mostly to do with music rather than the excitement or otherwise of CO2 molecules.

    He’s also previously called for the death penalty for “global warming deniers” so not likely to engage in rational debate

    • From wiki: … proposed restricting the death penalty to individuals who cause more than one million deaths, and claimed that influential “global warming deniers” could fall into that category

      I propose the same for all comunists mascaradng themselfs as climate experts. Comunism is deadliest ideology known to mean.

  12. “To know-nothing bloggers like you and me I apply nullius in verba. But then your know-nothing, partisan blog opinion is not the same as a well researched paper, backed by solid evidence, written by a team experienced professionals. ”

    In machine learning, it is well known that large neural networks do worse than small ones when faced with too little data. It’s called overfitting, which is not so different from overthinking. Humans may well be applying too much brain power to climate change, which suffers from a lack of data. In this domain, the intellectual performance of many experts could be worse than that of a few people with average intelligence.

    This also reminds me of “The Hell of Good Intentions” by Stephen Walt. He describes how large groups of national security experts with sterling credentials produce horrible results, justified by reports just like this one.

  13. That report is now mentioned on the web site of Scientific American: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/national-security-experts-call-for-eliminating-greenhouse-gas-emissions/
    “To avoid disruptions that could lead to conflict and displacement, the world must rapidly reach net-zero emissions, a new report says”
    I live in Massachusetts- and this state is trying to move in that direction very quickly. I keep asking state legislators how it can even happen. Where will the energy come from? Hundreds of thousands of acres of solar “farms” installed on fields and destroyed forests in this tiny heavily populated state? Thousands of wind turbines covering all the hills? Who will pay for this transition? Do any of the legislators and environmentalists pushing the cause want a huge solar farm or 500′ wind turbine next to THEIR home? Of course I get no answers. In addition, there is a big push on now from the greenies to end all logging in the state “to save the planet”. I’m a forester, so I don’t like that idea! When I ask where will we get wood for construction, furniture, paper products- they don’t reply. The greenies here hate all fossil fuels, hate nuclear, hate pumped storage, hate biomass (which I think is awesome to improve the forests), and now many are even saying they hate large industrial solar and wind (they start to say this when such projects are planned near THEIR homes). It will be very strange when the 6 million people in this tiny state revert to the stone age lifestyle.

    • “The greenies here hate all fossil fuels, hate nuclear, hate pumped storage, hate biomass (which I think is awesome to improve the forests), and now many are even saying they hate large industrial solar and wind (they start to say this when such projects are planned near THEIR homes).”

      The common denominator is: Hate.

  14. I have solved the whole climate issue. Today is Ash Wednesday so all we need to do is give up “carbon” for lent and the whole issue will be resolved. Only another 39 days to go…….

  15. “Report warns climate change could become ‘catastrophic’ global, national security threat”

    Please get back to me when the title reads “Report warns climate change is a ‘catastrophic’ global, national security threat”

    Until then, pigs might fly if they could grow wings.

Comments are closed.