August 13, 2009
time has arrived for the promoters of man-made global warming fears. As
the science of man-made climate fears continues to collapse, new tactics
are being contrived to try to drum up waning public support.
A series of inconvenient developments for the promoters of man-made global warming fears continues unabated, including new peer-reviewed studies, real world data, a growing chorus of scientists dissenting (including more UN IPCC scientists), open revolts in scientific societies, more evidence that rising CO2 is a boon for the atmosphere, and the Earth's failure to warm. In addition, public opinion continues to turn against climate fear promotion and even activists at green festivals are now expressing doubts over man-made climate fears and a Nobel Prize-winning economist is wishing for 'tornadoes' and 'a lot of horrid things' to convince Americans of a climate threat. (See "Related Links" at bottom of this article for more inconvenient scientific developments.)
The core of the claims made in the August 8, 2009 New York Times article by John M. Broder are stated as follows: “Recent war games and intelligence studies conclude that over the next 20 to 30 years, vulnerable regions, particularly sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and South and Southeast Asia, will face the prospect of food shortages, water crises and catastrophic flooding driven by climate change that could demand an American humanitarian relief or military response.”
The heart of the “national security” argument is merely a redux of the 1970's laughable scares about famines and resource scarcity. Those same baseless claims and fear mongering arguments are simply being shamelessly updated with a military uniform. It is sad to see members of our armed forces wearing their uniforms promoting such unsubstantiated and embarrassing drivel. (See: 'Just When You Thought Global Warming Couldn't Get More Stupid, In Walks John Kerry': 'Of all the ridiculous arguments in support of climate legislation, national security has to be the most idiotic' : Also see: Sound Familiar? 1977 CIA book warned a coming 'ICE AGE threatened to cause major migrations and mass starvations' )
Climate Depot's Inconvenient Rebuttal to “National Security” Climate Argument:
1) The "national security" angle is based on unproven computer models which even the United Nations IPCC admits are not “predictions.” UN IPCC lead author, Dr. Kevin Trenberth refers to climate models as “story lines.” “In fact there are no predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been. The IPCC instead proffers 'what if' projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios,” Trenberth wrote in journal Nature's blog on June 4, 2007. So the mighty New York Times is reporting that some members of the military, led by Sen. Kerry, are essentially playing no more than “what if” “war games!”
Memo to New York Times and Senator Kerry: Climate Models “predictions” are not evidence.
In addition, Ivy league forecasting pioneer Dr. Scott Armstrong of the University of Pennsylvania, found that the climate models used by UN IPCC to make these scary “predictions” or “what if projections” of the future, violate the basic principles of forecasting. “Of 89 principles [of forecasting], the UN IPCC violated 72,” Armstrong's research revealed on January 28, 2009. (Also See: Climate Models Likened to Sony 'PlayStation' Video Games & 'Tinker Toys' )
2) Aside from the fact that the "national security" angle rests on speculative doomsday scenarios, perhaps the biggest whopper of the new movement is the implication that we must pass the Congressional climate bill to "address" or "remedy" the problem and thus “avoid” future wars and loss of life. Left unanswered in this argument is how a climate bill that will have no detectable impact on global temperatures will help "solve" the alleged looming national security threat. Most shockingly, the Congressional climate bill would not even impact atmospheric CO2 levels according to the EPA!
3) The New York Time also makes the following remarkable assertion: “But a growing number of policy makers say that the world's rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest.”
NYT Claim: “World's Rising temperatures?”: Huh? Is NYT must not be privy to latest temperature data showing a lack of warming for a decade and global cooling in recent years and peer-reviewed analysis showing the 20th century was not unusually warm?
NYT Claim: “Surging Seas.” Why did NYT reporter Broder fail to do a moment's worth of research on the alleged “surging seas?” If only Broder had taken a moment to look at the latest data. See: 'No evidence for accelerated sea-level rise' says Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute – December 12, 2008; Report: Sea Level rise 'has stumbled since 2005' – Meteorologist Anthony Watts – December 5, 2008; Renowned Sea Level expert predicts sea level 'will rise in the 21st century by about 8 inches' - April 23, 2009 & Global warming may not affect sea levels, study finds - January 11, 2008; Plus see June 2009 comprehensive sea level report,)
Claim: “Melting Glaciers”: Contrary to the NYT's assertions,
many glaciers are advancing. See: Alaskan
glaciers at Icy Bay advance one-third of a mile in less than a year
; Argentina's Perito Moreno glacier advancing ; Hubbard Glacier in Alaska
Advances ; Western Canadian glaciers advance ; 'Weather variations, not
global warming cause Himalayan glaciers to melt' - August 8, 2009 ; Research
Reveals global warming not cause of Kilimanjaro glacier reduction –
September 24, 2008
4) The New York Times notes Sen. Kerry and others are “now beginning to make the national security argument for approving the [Congressional] legislation.”
ridiculous assumption that mankind could realistically reduce emissions
to alter future weather patterns has been exposed as "climate
astrology." It is truly an insult to our men and woman in uniform
to have Sen. Kerry and a small contingent of military brass attempting
to sell these spurious climate claims. If we suspended basic science and
reality and assumed Sen. Kerry was correct and the "undecided"
Senators may be swayed to support a climate bill based on these alleged
"national security" fears, how would a bill that did not impact
CO2 levels or temperature be the "solution"? Sadly, the New
York Times (and the ususally dependable Broder) did a completely one-sided
article on this issue based.
NYT reporter Broder could have noted that the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill is “scientifically meaningless” in terms of reducing temperatures. Broder could have noted that even Obama's EPA has conceded that the Congressional climate bill would not even detectably reduce atmospheric CO2 levels!! (See: EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson: “U.S. action alone will not impact world CO2 levels.”) So the question looms, why would “undecided” Senators be swayed to vote for a climate bill for “national security” reasons when the bill is purely symbolic?! Broder irresponsibly failed to inform NYT readers of these basic truths. (Also see: No detectable climate impact: 'If we actually faced a man-made 'climate crisis', we would all be doomed' & Climate policy reduced to 'magical solutions' -- 'all about symbolism...with little or no impact on real-world outcomes')
shameless quote of the day: “We will pay for this one way or another,”
Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, a retired Marine and the former head of the Central
Command. “We will pay to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today,
and we'll have to take an economic hit of some kind. Or we will pay the
price later in military terms. And that will involve human lives.”
Gen. Zinni needs to do his homework on global warming claims. Had the General done more research, he would quickly realize that the estimated 1.6 billion people in the world without electricity who are leading a nasty, brutish and short life, will be the ones who “will pay” for global warming solutions that prevent them from obtaining cheap and abundant carbon based energy. (See:1) It is a moral issue! – 'People cannot cook'...Chad's Global Warming Inspired Ban on Charcoal leads to 'Desperate' Families! - January 16, 2009 2) Black clergymen protest Robert Redford 'link his environmentalism to racism' 3) Poor Kenyans rebel as UK grocery store's “carbon friendly” policies may stop food exports – 4) African Activist: 'African life span is lower than it was in U.S. and Europe 100 years ago. But Africans told we shouldn't develop' because wealthy Western nations are 'worried about global warming': 'Telling Africans they can't have electricity and economic development – is immoral; 5) India: 'It is morally wrong for us to reduce emissions when 40% of Indians do not have access to electricity' ; 6) Obama Advisor Warren Buffett 'repeats criticism of cap and trade, saying it would be a huge, regressive tax')
Sadly, Sen. Kerry and Gen. Zinni's unfounded “national security” climate claims will be the object of public humiliation for them in the not too distant future.
a testament to the growing strength of the skeptical scientific case against
man-made climate fears that Sen. Kerry and retired VA Sen. John Warner
(who sadly embarrassed himself in his final year in the Senate promulgating
such "national security" climate drivel -- see: Fmr. Sen. Warner:
a building base of evidence that global warming is contributing to
much of the instability of the world today') have to resort to such transparent
and yes...laughable claims.
Science and history will issue a harsh judgment against Sen. Kerry and others for this silly "national security" argument. The reality is, global warming does pose a serious national security threat to the United States -- global warming "solutions"-- that is. The Senate is deliberating on a global warming cap-and-trade bill that will increase our dependence on foreign sources of energy, close refineries and cost American jobs. (See Bloomberg News: report from June 26, 2009: U.S. oil companies may cope with the climate legislation by "closing fuel plants, cutting capital spending and increasing imports." Bloomberg also reported that "one in six U.S. refineries probably would close by 2020" and this could "add 77 cents a gallon to the price of gasoline.")
Former Vice President Al Gore has touted the Congressional climate bill as a first step toward "global governance." "National security" will be a threat to the U.S. if it contemplates an international treaty which will inevitably lead to a loss of sovereignty for the U.S. as well as the imposition of some form carbon taxes. Americans should welcome a full debate about the merits of “national security” threat from man-made global warming. The more light that is shown on this line of reasoning, the more skeptical the public will grow. Dare we say: Bring it on.
Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!
[Update: Meteorologist Joe D'Aleo of IceCap.Us, notes that the new "national security" climate claims have a familiar ring to them. D'Aleo writes: "Take for example these excerpts from a 1977 book ”The Weather Conspiracy, the Coming of the New Ice Age” written for the CIA on the consensus of the climatologists of the time that an ice age threatened to cause major migrations and mass starvations."]
1- 'Consensus' Takes Another Hit! More than 60 German Scientists Dissent Over Global Warming Claims! Call Climate Fears 'Pseudo 'Religion'; Urge Chancellor to 'reconsider' views – August 4, 2009
2- Climate Revolt: World's Largest Science Group 'Startled' By Outpouring of Scientists Rejecting Man-Made Climate Fears! Clamor for Editor to Be Removed! – July 29, 2009
3- American Physical Society to review its current climate statement after a group of 54 prominent physicists petitioned APS revise – May 1, 2009
4- American Physical Society editor conceded a “considerable presence” of scientific skeptics exists - 2008
5- Polish National Academy of Science 'published a document skeptical of man-made global warming' – April 2008
6- Climate Fears RIP...for 30 years!? - Global Warming could stop 'for up to 30 years! Warming 'On Hold?...'Could go into hiding for decades,' peer-reviewed study finds – Discovery.com – March 2, 2009
7- Peer-Reviewed Study Rocks Climate Debate! 'Nature not man responsible for recent global warming...little or none of late 20th century warming and cooling can be attributed to humans' – July 23, 2009
8- Peer-Reviewed Study Demonstrates Anthropogenic Contribution to Global Warming Overestimated, Solar Contribution Underestimated - Geophysical Research Letters- March 3, 2009
9- March 2009 U. S. Senate Report: 'More Than 700 International Scientists Dissenting Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims'
11- Canvass of more than 51,000 Canadian scientists revealed 68% disagree that global warming science is “settled” – 2008
12- Japan Geoscience Union symposium 2008 survey 'showed 90 per cent of the participants do not believe the IPCC report'
13- Skeptical scientists overwhelm Prestigious Geologist conference in Norway in 2008: '2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC' & see full reports here & here
14- UN IPCC's William Schlesinger admits in 2009 that only 20% of IPCC scientists deal with climate
15- Climate Fear Promoters Try to Spin Record Cold and Snow: 'Global warming made it less cool' - July 27, 2009
16- 'Find ways to exaggerate': Nobel Prize-winning economist wishes for 'tornadoes' and 'a lot of horrid things' to convince Americans of global warming threat! - July 14, 2009
17- Professor William Calvin Unhinged! Calls on scientists to use 'interventional activism' to combat global warming! Climate will change our ways of doing science' - Claims 'long term thinking can be dangerous' – August 3, 2009
18- Economist disses farmers?: 'The big problem with climate change, frankly, is that farmers think it's a hoax' - August 3, 2009
19- MIT Climate Scientist Lindzen: 'Ordinary people see through man-made climate fears -- but educated people are very vulnerable' - July 6, 2009
20- Climatologist Dr. Spencer: 'where are all of the news stories about fact we've had no tropical storms yet this year?' - August 3, 2009
© 2009 Marc Morano - All Rights Reserved
Marc Morano is the executive editor and chief correspondent for ClimateDepot.com, a global warming and eco-news center founded in 2009. Morano served for three years as a senior advisor, speechwriter, and climate researcher for U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee as he also managed the award-winning communication operations of the GOP side. Morano, who has spent years researching climate change, environmental, and energy issues, traveled to Greenland in 2007 to investigate global warming claims. Morano was featured in a profile in the New York Times in April 2009. As Senate staff, Morano also attended the United Nation's climate eco-conferences held in Kenya, Indonesia, and Poland in 2006, 2007, and 2008. Morano authored and compiled the 2007 groundbreaking report of 400-plus dissenting scientists and the follow-up 2009 report of 700-plus scientists dissenting from man-made global warming fears.
Morano has held both White House and Capitol Hill Press credentials and a former member of the Society of Professional Journalists. He has attended and reported on numerous international eco-conferences as well as the 2002 UN-sponsored Earth Summit in Johannesburg, South Africa. Prior to joining the Senate, Morano worked for well over a decade as an investigative journalist, documentary maker, radio talk show host and national television correspondent. In 2000, his investigative television documentary "Amazon Rainforest: Clear-Cutting the Myths" created an international firestorm. His reporting has made international news, including appearances and coverage on CNN, Fox News Channel's The O'Reilly Factor and Hannity & Colmes, BBC TV, The New York Times, The Washington Post, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Post, US Weekly Magazine, web links from the Drudge Report, the entertainment show Extra TV, and Politically Incorrect w/ Bill Maher.
Web site: ClimateDepot.com
E-Mail: Not Available