Is Climate Change a National Security Issue?

[Bryce Rigthy]

This is a topic worth exploring. As the leading nation in the world in every way, shouldn't Climate Change be a top priority? I'm not talking about a bunch of tree-huggers saying "don't pollute" here. I'm talking about a sensible, sound policy supported by INDEPENDENT scientific research. No left wing or right wing think tanks need apply. Partisanship has no place in science, and sometimes National Policy needs to be set for the best results for all Americans.

If there are radical weather changes, it will definitely affect National Security. Tornadoes hitting cities; effects of earthquakes, Tsunami waves; all of this is fresh in the minds of Americans. Shouldn't we set up a Department of Ecological Security?

This is not a post about chemtrails. Please debate that elsewhere.

Thank you.

[jayreynolds]

If there are radical weather changes, it will definitely affect National Security. Tornadoes hitting cities; effects of earthquakes, Tsunami waves; all of this is fresh in the minds of Americans. Shouldn't we set up a Department of Ecological Security?

Bryce, weather changes radically from season to season and year to year. Record weather events stand from a hundred years ago, but yet new records are set every day, somewhere.

Perhaps you are confused about the difference between weather and climate. A visit to the dictionary is in order.

There is no connection between tsunamis/earthquakes and weather, or climate.

Volcanoes, however, have caused tsunamis and changed weather. When Krakatoa blew it's ass off in 1883, tidal waves 120 feet high devastated the same coastline of Sumatra now laid to waste. Around ten cubic miles of the island was blown airborne, and affected weather for several years. Any attempt to attribute "global warming" as being responsible for tsunamis or earthquakes is laughable, to say the least.

Check out a used bookstore for a 1970's era book that claimed the CIA had a secret report listing climate change asa National Security issue. The problem is that from the 1940's to the 70's, steadily falling average temperatures made it look like the earth was heading into a new ice age!

In their arrogant denial of nature's fickleness do men think they are Kings.
Jay

[Bryce Rigthy]

Perhaps talking down to people makes you a jerk. I would like to discuss the pros and cons of a Department of Ecological Security. If you have points to make, make them, but don't be a jerk.

That goes for everybody. I didn't say ecological conditions caused tsunamis. I said that the occurence of earthquakes and tsunamis made the catastrophic effect of weather and natural occurences fresh in people's minds. Could ecological conditions cause tornadoes or floods, or any other calamaties? Maybe it could!

Now stop being a jerk, and debate like a grownup, without condescension. Avoid sentence like "perhaps you are confused," and simply make your point.

[jayreynolds]

simply make your point.

WEATHER
The state of the atmosphere at a specific time and with respect to its effect on life and human activities. It is the short term variations of the atmosphere, as opposed to the long term, or climatic, changes. It is often referred to in terms of brightness, cloudiness, humidity, precipitation, temperature, visibility, and wind

Your premise was:
"If there are radical weather changes, it will definitely affect National Security.

I told you that weather is ALWAYS subject to radical changes. I suggested you learn about it, at least learn to define it. In general, weather events have little to do with national security. If you disagree, please cite an example of an actual incident in which it has done so.

In short, your premise is based on a poor grasp of the subject matter.


Shouldn't we set up a Department of Ecological Security?

No, I personally feel that there are plenty of other agencies prepared to deal with disasters and ordinary environmental concerns, from FEMA to EPA. Our government is far too bloated already.

I challenge you to cite one instance where an ecological matter was beyond the authority of an already existing agency.

I challenge you to describe what such an agency could do that existing agencies cannot..

ecological: [adj]characterized by the interdependence of living organisms in an environment
security: [n] a department responsible for the security of the institutions property and workers

[Bryce Rigthy]

WEATHER
The state of the atmosphere at a specific time and with respect to its effect on life and human activities. It is the short term variations of the atmosphere, as opposed to the long term, or climatic, changes. It is often referred to in terms of brightness, cloudiness, humidity, precipitation, temperature, visibility, and wind

Your premise was:
"If there are radical weather changes, it will definitely affect National Security.

I told you that weather is ALWAYS subject to radical changes. I suggested you learn about it, at least learn to define it. In general, weather events have little to do with national security. If you disagree, please cite an example of an actual incident in which it has done so.

In short, your premise is based on a poor grasp of the subject matter.




No, I personally feel that there are plenty of other agencies prepared to deal with disasters and ordinary environmental concerns, from FEMA to EPA. Our government is far too bloated already.

I challenge you to cite one instance where an ecological matter was beyond the authority of an already existing agency.

I challenge you to describe what such an agency could do that existing agencies cannot..

ecological: [adj]characterized by the interdependence of living organisms in an environment
security: [n] a department responsible for the security of the institutions property and workers

I challenge you to be a human being.

I challenge you to let go of your huge ego.

I challenge you think about what we're talking about here. An agency such as this could, for example, monitor ecological change, and issue alerts to the general public that would save live. What do you have against saving lives? Do you like it when Americans die? Why do you hate America? Are you on the side of the terrorists?

You and your ilk make me sick. Smugly trying to give America to terrorists while our boys are overseas fighting for your right to pontificate like an idiot. George Bush doesn't think our government is too bloated to help good Americans live in freedom, I'll tell you that.

[whitemajikman]

I challenge you to be a human being.

I challenge you to let go of your huge ego.

I challenge you think about what we're talking about here. An agency such as this could, for example, monitor ecological change, and issue alerts to the general public that would save live. What do you have against saving lives? Do you like it when Americans die? Why do you hate America? Are you on the side of the terrorists?

You and your ilk make me sick. Smugly trying to give America to terrorists while our boys are overseas fighting for your right to pontificate like an idiot. George Bush doesn't think our government is too bloated to help good Americans live in freedom, I'll tell you that.


I challenge you to quit with your multiple personality posting...............?


WMM

[Bryce Rigthy]

I challenge you to quit with your multiple personality posting...............?


WMM

Do you have anything to say about the topic at hand? Or are you crying "uncle?"

[jayreynolds]

An agency such as this could, for example, monitor ecological change.

The US Geological Service already serves that function.

http://biology.usgs.gov/s+t/index.htm
Debate over.

[gaiacomm]

Lets see If the coast lines of the US had a 9.0 earthqauke and a wave swept inland 5 miles and killed 2 million people that is of concern. Even our warning systems are outdated that would give us 15 minutes? 2 million people leaving at once? You can't even get cooperation in Christmas shopping parking lots. Our National defense systems would be off line for a bit which would allow outsiders to penetrate and drop a bio weapon! (senario)

[gaiacomm]

The US Geological Service already serves that function.

http://biology.usgs.gov/s+t/index.htm
Debate over.


Manned by a bunch of inexperienced PHD students and lazy scientists that work 8 to 5!

[gaiacomm]

Bruce:

Just keep your thoughts coming and present them. There are those that appreciate good thought and data. Pay no attention to those that wish to only play in the sandbox and not build sand castles together!

[dewey189]

<George Bush doesn't think our government is too bloated to help good Americans live in freedom, I'll tell you that.>

That Bush doesn't think the government is too bloated is precisely why he's not a conservative. The last damned thing we need is another federal agency.

[gaiacomm]

<George Bush doesn't think our government is too bloated to help good Americans live in freedom, I'll tell you that.>

That Bush doesn't think the government is too bloated is precisely why he's not a conservative. The last damned thing we need is another federal agency.

Ok, and?

[jayreynolds]

I challenge you to cite one instance where an ecological matter was beyond the authority of an already existing agency.
I challenge you to describe what such an agency could do that existing agencies cannot..


Bruce, you said you wanted debate.
Bring it on.
I've shown that your premise wasn't worth a hoot.
I've shown that USGS already monitors ecosystems.
Do you have a credible rebuttal, or are you conceding the debate?

[whitemajikman]

Do you have anything to say about the topic at hand? Or are you crying "uncle?"


COLUMNIST


Sun, January 9, 2005

The myth of Kyoto

By Peter Worthington -- For the Toronto Sun


THROUGHOUT THE Cold War, until the final collapse of the Soviet Empire, there were always people in the West -- usually well-educated -- who believed in the good intentions of communism.

Universities were an incubator for Marxism and a benign view of Soviet altruism. When Sovietism became tainted after "aberrations" like crushing the Hungarian rebellion (1956) and the invasion of Czechoslovakia (1968), admiration was shifted to China and the humanitarianism of Mao Tse-tung. Until he was also discredited.

Such people tended to blame the West (i.e. the U.S.) for the Cold War, and figured if we disarmed, the Kremlin would also disarm, making the world safer.


When the Soviet Union imploded, I and others wrote that the types who once saw humanity in Marxism would now switch to the environment and see salvation for mankind in opposing those they felt were desecrating nature.

Out of this "instinct" emerged the Kyoto Accord -- the campaign to fight global warming which supposedly threatens the world, but is a myth.

One who combats the Kyoto/global warming myth is novelist Michael Crichton, whose new book, State of Fear, is a thriller laced with indisputable facts. Another is America and Europe by Canadian Craig Read. Both books should make those who espouse Kyoto feel foolish.

Kyoto, like global warming, is more political than scientific. Neither stands up to scientific scrutiny; both appeal to those who favour more state control and economic restrictions, and who favour redistribution of wealth and resources at the expense of the U.S.

New ice age

Warnings of global warming by the UN and select scientists are reminiscent of UN warnings around 1970 that a new ice age was approaching -- which it may well be, in a thousand years or so.

Like Crichton, Read notes that climate change is one of the least-understood sciences, involving the sun, atmosphere, oceans, land surface, ice sheets, the biosphere, cloud coverage, etc. -- all relationships impossible to gauge or predict in modelling programs by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which advises the UN.

The more one examines global warming, the less likely it seems that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions have anything but a negligible effect. The Kyoto agreement calls for developed nations to reduce CO2 emissions to 1990 levels, but okays poor countries continuing with fossil fuel emissions until they catch up to developed country emissions. Poor nations can even sell their "credits" to rich countries that can continue violating standards.

Does that make sense? Of course not. More, Kyoto seems an intricate scheme to redistribute wealth -- to hold back rich countries so poorer ones can catch up.

The U.S. has rejected Kyoto. That means it's dead.

No evidence

In fact, there's no evidence that CO2 is damaging to nature. Also, there is solid scientific evidence that CO2 lags average temperature rises by several centuries. CO2 levels were higher at the end of the last ice age (114,000 years ago) than during the much warmer period 43 million years earlier. CO2 levels are higher today than the relatively hot period 17 million years ago.

Scientifically, there seems little relation between CO2 levels and warmth. Cold summers and hot winters (and vice-versa) are far more likely to be cyclical -- nothing to do with SUVs or air conditioners.

From 1910-1945, temperatures rose slightly, then cooled between 1945 and 1975 -- when, inexplicably, CO2 emissions rose. Temperatures rose again 1975-2000, with the CO2 rise negligible.

I'm no scientist, but I recognize political agendas and wealth-redistribution schemes. And Kyoto and IPCC are recognizably political rather than scientific. SUVs and world trade are irrelevant to changes in the weather or climate.

What exactly is Kyoto? It seems aimed at reducing the energy advantage enjoyed by the U.S. It also advances the lib-left's influence on environmental control and media support. It enhances more government control over the economy, and limits independence and entrepreneurial projects.

These goals are reminiscent of discredited Marxism.

As in the bad old days of the Cold War, when the average working guy, more than the enlightened academic, knew instinctively that Marxism was up to no good, so working people today ignore the warnings of impending doom if Kyoto doesn't succeed.

First, cyclical weather changes are normal and inevitable. Second, a little more global warming this winter would be welcome.

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Toronto/Peter_Worthington/2005/01/09/852538.html (http://)


Why Would I Cry Uncle Mr. Multiple Personality Disorder.......? The Truth is winning........as the article above Illustrates........

Now the topic of this thread ...........Is Climate Change a National Security Risk.........

WELL ,I DO INDEED AGREE THAT IT IS,BUT IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GLOBAL WARMING AND THE ENVIRONMENT AND EVERYTHING TO DO WITH RADICAL ENVIRONMENTALIST POLITICS AND BAD SCIENCE AS MR. WORTHINGTON'S ARTICLE SUGGESTS.........

YOU SHOULD BE THE ONE CRYING UNCLE .....MR.MULTIPLE PERSONALITY DISORDER......



I challenge you think about what we're talking about here. An agency such as this could, for example, monitor ecological change, and issue alerts to the general public that would save live. What do you have against saving lives? Do you like it when Americans die? Why do you hate America? Are you on the side of the terrorists?

YOU ARE A TERRORIST

AN INTELLECTUAL TERRORIST BUT A TERRORIST ALL THE SAME..........

FALSE PROPAGANDA IS YOUR WEAPON OF CHOICE........

AND YOUR GOAL IS TO EFFECT POLICYMAKING DECISIONS IN THE HOPES OF ONE DAY REALIZING YOUR WARPED AGENDA............WHICH IS TO CONTROL GLOBAL POLICYMAKING DECISIONS WHEN IT COMES TO THE ENVIRONMENT .....NOT BASED ON HARD SCIENCE AND FACT BUT BASED UPON PURELY SELFISH AND DESTRUCTIVE REASONING.......WHICH IF IMPLEMENTED WOULD BE MORE DISASTEROUS POLITICALLY,ECONOMICALLY AND SOCIALLY THAN GLOBAL WARMING EVER COULD BE IN OURS...... AND OUR CHILDREN'S LIFETIMES.......

YOU AND YOUR AGENDA ARE THAT NATIONAL SECURITY RISK............

WHICH NEEDS TO BE DEALT WITH HARSHLY AND WITH NO IMPUNITY........

CAN YOU SAY UNCLE....?.....BRUCEY BOY........

NOW THAT I HAVE ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION ANSWER MINE........

WHEN WILL YOU QUIT USING MULTIPLE PERSONALITY POSTING AND MULTIPLE I.D.'S ,,,,,,,,,?

AS THE WEBMASTER OF THIS SITE COULD VERIFY VERY EASILY........AND HAS ON OTHER THREADS OF THESE VARIOUS FORUMS WITH OTHER ABUSERS........

WMM

[gaiacomm]

Interesting.....

[Insurrectionchemistry]

Humm----looks like Bryce got wise and decided to leave the discussion where the inmates are in charge of the asylum. Smart. We told him there were some nut cases on the loose, and he appears to have found them.

How about a science question.

Take an infinite volume of air with the current levels of CO-2 and then the same volume of air with a 1 % increase in CO-2 level and compare the maximum temp. of both using the spectrum illumination from the Sun. Then add a reflector of water as an ocean and do the same.

IMHO,
is

[gaiacomm]

Interesting.

[dewey189]

Gaiacomm wrote: <Ok, and?>

Good mornin'! I'm not sure how to respond!!!

[halva]

Humm----looks like Bryce got wise and decided to leave the discussion where the inmates are in charge of the asylum. Smart. We told him there were some nut cases on the loose, and he appears to have found them.

How about a science question.

Take an infinite volume of air with the current levels of CO-2 and then the same volume of air with a 1 % increase in CO-2 level and compare the maximum temp. of both using the spectrum illumination from the Sun. Then add a reflector of water as an ocean and do the same.

IMHO,
is

It is absolutely utopian to imagine that anybody with even half a brain would stay for more than a day or two at these threads. Unless, like me they have other reasons for staying here.

Raynolds thinks he is achieving something 'tying' me 'down' here.

Let him think what he likes.

And let others realise that such is the game going on here.

Interested in playing? No?

I don't blame you.

[gaiacomm]

Gaiacomm wrote: <Ok, and?>

Good mornin'! I'm not sure how to respond!!!


That's Ok!

[FrancisQ]

Bryce, weather changes radically from season to season and year to year. Record weather events stand from a hundred years ago, but yet new records are set every day, somewhere.

Perhaps you are confused about the difference between weather and climate. A visit to the dictionary is in order.

There is no connection between tsunamis/earthquakes and weather, or climate.

Volcanoes, however, have caused tsunamis and changed weather. When Krakatoa blew it's ass off in 1883, tidal waves 120 feet high devastated the same coastline of Sumatra now laid to waste. Around ten cubic miles of the island was blown airborne, and affected weather for several years. Any attempt to attribute "global warming" as being responsible for tsunamis or earthquakes is laughable, to say the least.

Check out a used bookstore for a 1970's era book that claimed the CIA had a secret report listing climate change asa National Security issue. The problem is that from the 1940's to the 70's, steadily falling average temperatures made it look like the earth was heading into a new ice age!

In their arrogant denial of nature's fickleness do men think they are Kings.
Jay


Well this is absolutely shocking! In your arrogant denial of the state of this planet will you still think you are king 20-30 years down the line...I wonder?

[Sam Ayyam]

There is no connection between tsunamis/earthquakes and weather, or climate.From my dim recollection of recent reports I heard on Air America, the pentagon has been studying climate change, which does of course means that it is a national security concern.

I disagree with your unproven supposition that earthquakes and tsunamis have no effect on weather or climate. Chaos theory, popularly known as "the butterfly effect" says that a small perturbation in a system can snowball into a massive change. Many precedents come to mind: A skier's sneeze can cause an avalanche; airplaine contrails can cause clouds, and possibly even precipitation, to occur; a small amount of a catalyst can produce an enormous amount of product; a single small spark can cause an explosion; a whisper in one's ear can lead to a lie in a newspaper destroying someone's life. This is a very general principle.

We came from chaos and so shall we return to it.

[gaiacomm]

Interesting!