Under Britain’s leadership, the 15-member United Nations Security Council this week for the first time addressed climate change as an international security issue.
"An unstable climate will exacerbate some of the core drivers of conflict — such as migratory pressures and competition for resources," said British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett.
Her concern was seconded this week by a blue-ribbon panel of retired U.S. military generals, whose study reinforced that climate change will be a "threat multiplier" abroad.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- American_Way on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
57 Comments
A few days ago a number of US military warned about security threats caused by displacement of populations. Maybe people are starting to wake up.
Hopefully, this can shift focus from the un-winnable debate about whether we humans are causing climate change, and let us begin to actively address what can be done about it.
Realistically, we cannot stop all human-generated pollution. Even if we did, the climate would still change. On an international level, there needs to be planning for working within the likely scenarios of that climate change.
The reduced availability of good quality drinking and bathing water could lead to problems right here in the U.S. Consider the following scenerio.
The Kansas National Guard invades Colorado to force Colorado to release the water gushing eastward from the Rocky Mountains in the Arkansas River channel. The Colorado National Guard meets the Kansas National Guard at the John Martin Reservoir just west of Lamar, Colorado which dams up the Arkansas River water and doesn’t let a drop enter Kansas.
Meanwhile, California Governor Arnold Swarzenburger (sp?) arrives with a brigade of California National Guardsmen to open up the Colorado River flowing southwestward toward Arizona and California forcing Colorado into a two-front war.
Meantime New Mexico and Arizona Governors join forces to attack … oh I just woke up, must have been dreaming!
“On Monday, Beckett noted, top U.S. retired admirals and generals warned in a new report that climate change is a “threat multiplier for instability.”* massive migrations* increased border tensions* greater demands for rescue and evacuation efforts* conflicts over essential resources—including food and water
These so-called threat multipliers are wolves in sheep’s clothing.
They already occur and have been occurring for thousands of years.
One of the few times I agree with the Russians, this subject does not belong in the Security Council.
It belongs in the economic development and planning committee.
The reason to attach it to the Security Council is “$$$$.”
Plain and simple, it’s about money and a chance at power grab.
As I have previously stated, there has always been climate change.
Perhaps we should put Nature on our “Enemies” list along with the terrorists.
Now we have a lot more of those little guys that used to carry the signs about “The End is Near.” But instead of carrying signs, they have been given an International Podium to spout their lunacy.
To the back of the breadline with you Repub
“They already occur and have been occurring for thousands of years.”
Prove that the changes are NOT occurring more RAPIDLY during the last few decades.And provide a credible scientific cause for the recent speed-up. Solar?
“As I have previously stated, there has always been climate change.”
Explain exactly HOW PAST natural climate changes can PREVENT human-caused changes.
Again, try to find a time in Earth’s distant past that was similar to about 200 years ago (1800) — temperatures, sea level, ice, CO2 around 280 ppm, etc.
And that ALSO, 200 years later, had CO2 JUMP to 380 ppm, large rises in CH4 and N2O, and the addition of potent non-”natural” CFC’s, HFC’s, SF6, etc.
But you CANNOT find a time period like that!
“Nature”, in the past 650,000 years, NEVER made changes to Earth’s atmosphere the way humans have recently.
I was waiting for these guys to show up at the enviro feeding trough.
Californians for Population Stabilization, are calling for a “reduction” in population…
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200704/NAT20070418a.html
I guess we can all guess how that “reduction” could be achieved , especially from the tyrannical command driven enviros.
First time for everything Cosmos.
What about earthquake faults?
Are they all alike and each new one has to be the same as the last one?Are some more damaging than others?
Was there instrumentation to precisely measure climate 500,000 years ago? Was there a 500,000 years ago guy sitting on top of a mountain taking CO2 measurements?
Was the sun always the same?
How about magnetic poles? Were they always located in the same place?
:)
Republican,I’m not sure what you think someone has to gain personally by advocating sustainable reduced greenhouse emissions. I might be mis-stating your position so sorry if it applies. Are you just saying that any attempts to reduce are cost prohibitive? thanks, kg
“Were they always located in the same place?”
As you know, they have switched several times.EVERYBODY PANIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Republican,
You cannot prove that climate changes are NOT occurring more rapidly during the last few decades.
You cannot disprove the scientific theory, consensus, real-world observations, and common sense that human-added GHG’s are causing Earth to warm.
You cannot explain how past natural climate changes would prevent human-added GHG’s from causing warming.
You cannot provide any credible natural causes that explain the large amount of recent warming.
In short, you cannot defend your incorrect opinion.
My position is that Climate Change is natural and perhaps a small, imperceptible change is occurring that is man made. However, we can’t change the massiveness of natural climate change.
With that said, I’m all for alternative fuels, reduction in energy use and generally good environmental stewardship.
I don’t like out of control emissions, they should be reduced.
But I think signing a treaty that is seriously flawed like Kyoto is an economic mistake the U.S. will never recover.
What I don’t agree with is the Kyoto protocol and the U.N. sponsored taxes by a carbon exchange system.
I’m pretty sure we are smart enough in the U.S. to figure out what to do when it comes energy usage and how to manage our own taxes.
Well at lease, the military is taking action by assessing the potentials of global warming instead of continuously bickering about what the cause is.That is what I like about the military, shoot first then ask questions later.Has anybody found any good ATV vehicles made for global warming yet?You know something that can withstand blunt force winds, floats on water, has snow tracks for deep snow and ice, heating and air-condition, something that does not require gasoline.
“But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.”
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220
“At some level, it has never been widely contested. Most of the climate community has agreed since 1988 that global mean temperatures have increased on the order of one degree Fahrenheit over the past century, having risen significantly from about 1919 to 1940, decreased between 1940 and the early ’70s, increased again until the ’90s, and remaining essentially flat since 1998.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597
Cosmos I don’t want to harm the environment but it is far from a majority opinion that global warming is occuring and if it is that man caused it or can keep it from happening. The facts instead point to clyclical climate changes for many. There is support for both sides of this argument. Al Gore used his name recognition to push an argument that even he admits isn’t provable.
“Mr. Gore defended his claims by noting that scientists “don’t have any models that give them a high level of confidence” one way or the other and went on to claim–in his defense–that scientists “don’t know. . . . They just don’t know”
Lets just agree to disagree.
I watched a special on the pre-dinosaur era. It seems geological evidence points to a build up of CO2 due mainly to volcanoes and solar heating. What happened was it basically wiped out all living things except species that were able to burrow into the earth and live off roots, tubers, etc. There was very little free water.
It could happen again, and the consequences of it happening are something the world needs to prepare for. There really should be processes in place should some catastrophic event happens, be it global warming or asteroid or whatever. That seems to me to be a no brainer, but with the divide growing larger between certain nations, I doubt it could ever take place. I like reds words on the red/green show: “We’re all in this together.”
I was thinking at one time that “global warming” was so terrible but then I looked the politics of it and I figured out that maybe it is not such a bad thing. If places like Illinois, Michigan and Minnesota were not so friggin cold, more folks would live there and since they are Democratic leaning states that would be a good thing!
Republican,
“My position is that Climate Change is natural and perhaps a small, imperceptible change is occurring that is man made.”
So again, try to defend your incorrect “position”.
Climate scientists say that most of the recent observed warming is caused by human-added GHG’s.
1) Prove that they’re wrong.2) List what “natural” effects ARE causing most of the warming, if human-added GHG’s are only causing a “small, imperceptible change”.
And again, “cap and trade” is not a “tax”.
See the thing is Cosmos, I don’t have to prove anything now do I.
You don’t think signing the Kyoto Treaty will have bad effects on our economy? Think again.
Already France is trying to blackmail the U.S. by supporting the idea of a massive excise tax on U.S. goods and services.
Just think if we were part of teh Kyoto – U.N. cesspool.
Anytime the U.S. wanted to do something, the Kyoto collective (sounds Borg-like) didn’t like they could simply hold the U.S. feet to the fire by blackmailing them on a Kyoto issue.
I don’t want foreign governments that could be much different than ours to tell us how to run our economy.
In no way, shape, form or socialistic collective gangsterism.
Republican,
“… I don’t have to prove anything now do I.”
Thank you for finally admitting that you are UNABLE to defend your opinion re climate change.
You just type… and expect everyone to be gullible, and believe that it’s the truth.
ksgrm,
“Cosmos I don’t want to harm the environment but it is far from a majority opinion that global warming is occuring and if it is that man caused it or can keep it from happening.”
Please name the credible scientists who claim that:
1) GW is not occurring.2) Human-added GHG’s are not a major factor in the warming.3) Reducing emissions will not reduce the warming in the future.
I’ll help you out. You can find many of them here,http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/skeptic-organizations.htmlAnd ‘Who Are the Sixty?’http://www.desmogblog.com/patrick-michaels
Lindzen’s WSJ op-eds? Are you really that gullible?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/lindzen-in-newsweek/
Type “lindzen” into RC’s search box for much more debunking.
Go green! I do!
Cosmos this is from an earlier post:
“Mr. Gore defended his claims by noting that scientists “don’t have any models that give them a high level of confidence” one way or the other and went on to claim–in his defense–that scientists “don’t know. . . . They just don’t know”
As he said scientists don’t know, they just don’t know. This in itself should tell you to step back and see what doesn’t look kosher. Without proof postive we would we fools to enter into something like Kyoto.
I have just as much proof for my position as you have for yours. I furnished you proof of climate changes by cycle. If you choose not to accept them then stop asking for proof. You don’t have any yourself now do you.
Cosmos,
Just wondering…
How about presenting your credentials.
I mean you attack Dr. Lindzen from MIT who has a PhD in Meteorology and specializes in studying oceans.
Just what are your credentials Cosmos.
And in case you missed that Cosmos.
WHAT ARE YOUR CREDENTIALS COSMOS.
Good ol’ argument from authority. He has a Ph.D. so he must be right. Problem is the scientific results disagree with him. Freud says you want to have sex with your mom and he is a doctor. Therefore, according to your logic, you have incest fantasies. Oh well, conservative reasoning never made much sense.
Bad analogy Doug.
Cosmos is arguing the credentials of a scientist, but refuses to state his credentials.
I only argue the merits of Global Warming and of course against non-scientists like VP Gore.
That is a fair debate.
But for Cosmos to argue that someone is not credentialed enough to please him, I want to see Cosmos credentials.
So again…since you like to discredit Scientists Cosmos…
WHAT ARE YOUR CREDENTIALS COSMOS.
Climate change skeptics say it’s hard to get heard
http://www.reuters.com/articlePrint?articleId=USL1829984220070418
Scientist: Warming not caused by humans
http://www.al.com/news/huntsvilletimes/index.ssf?/base/news/1176974192195090.xml&coll=1
“WHAT ARE YOUR CREDENTIALS COSMOS.”Posted by: Republican | April 19, 2007 at 02:35 AM
LOL
Translation: please make a mistake cosmos and post some personal details that Republican can use to flesh out your name and more of your personal info, and from there threaten to or indeed post such personal details so that he can stifle your posts here.
cosmos knows this, I’m sure: giving Republican what he thinks he wants here would be a MISTAKE.
LOL
Cosmos doesn’t need credibility when the scientist’s claims have already been debunked. Many creationists have degrees, albeit not in biology, and their creationist myths are still myths no matter how many degrees at Regent University they rack up.
Keep in mind this is the same Lindzen who says there is no connection between lung cancer and cigarette smoking. He’s just a paid shill by corporations and puts money before science.
Pedant,
I wonder what Republican’s credentials are?
Republican,
You are very, very confused. I did not “discredit” Lindzen. All the climate scientists worldwide did that, by proving his IRIS theory was wrong.
So Lindzen now writes very inaccurate op-eds that are “published” by right-wing media.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/lindzen-point-by-point/
Gore’s statement that scientists “don’t have any models that give them a high level of confidence” was re SEA LEVELS (ice), NOT human-caused GW.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/06/ice-sheets-and-sea-level-rise-model-failure-is-the-key-issue/
IPCC’s reports include only published info, so are a few years behind the latest research.The ‘07 SPM says re sea levels: “Model-based range excluding future rapid dynamical changes in ice flow”
http://nsidc.org/news/press/20031219_speed_up.html“Scientists at NSIDC have found that glaciers around the area of the Larsen B Ice Shelf accelerated immediately after it collapsed early in 2002, and are still speeding up.”
Lindzen tries to twist the unknowns about ice into less “consensus” about AGW, which is completely false.
Some other falsehoods in his op-ed:The Arctic was colder in the 1940’s than it is now.Greenland’s meltwater areas have been expanding.CO2 is not a “minor” infrared absorber.Peiser has admitted his study was wrong.Satellite data shows warming in the atmosphere.
You constantly discredit the other scientist Cosmos, don’t lie.
Unless you are better qualified than they are why are you doing it?
Just argue the topic and be done with it.
Dr. Huie is a scientist. I would never think of discrediting him just because I disagree with him.
But I bet you would if he was anti global warming.
There is also an economic issue to all of this. The goal will be achieved, but I think that goal will be better served if the U.S. does it rather than being under the thumb of the U.N. and their blackmail tactics.
If you don’t think the U.N. or other countries will try to use treaties to blackmail, then you better study your history.
Man is not causeing the Earth to Warm:
http://www.al.com/news/huntsvilletimes/index.ssf?/base/news/1176974192195090.xml&coll=1
Paul, your reference the opinion of Roy Spencer who also thinks the planet is only 6,000 years old. Anyone who denies the scientific fact of evolution really has no scientific credibility anymore.
Republican,
“You constantly discredit the other scientist Cosmos, don’t lie.”
So you believe that I’m personally discrediting Lindzen by pointing out that his “qualified” peers discredited his theory?
Your argument seems to be that only the scientists who directly discredited Lindzen can speak about it. Do they have to go door-to-door, no newspapers, websites, etc allowed?
Unlike you, I prefer to rely on the very strong, peer-reviewed climate science, not inaccurate op-eds in the WSJ.
IF you consider Lindzen an honorable, “qualified” scientist, then defend the many obvious errors in his op-eds.
What’s your MOTIVE for wanting to ignore the fact that Lindzen’s theory has been discredited, and his op-eds are error-filled?
Besides the obvious, your hatred of the U.N. and Koyoto.
Using discrediting factors as part of your argument means that you agree with the discreditor and will use it as a hammer, which you do.
I am challenging you to either put up your credentials in why you argue so hard for made made GW and discontinue the practice of discrediting scientists.
You are the one that is discrediting his name by bringing it up. You use the work of others to make your argument.
I have this feeling you couldn’t argue your way out of a freshman biology class because you don’t seem to have have any first hand knowledge of your own.
It’s a debate between non-scientists like myself and on occasion Dr. Huie, a Scientist.
You need to credential up or shut up.
Republican,
“You are the one that is discrediting his name by bringing it up.”
So you admit that you want to HIDE the fact that Lindzen’s qualified peers have discredited his IRIS theory. WHY?
Why don’t you attack his peers credentials?
Or defend the many obvious errors in his op-eds?
Ask Dr. Huie what he thinks about Lindzen’s discredited theory, and his very inaccurate op-eds.
Cosmos,
I could give a rat’s ass about op-eds.
You are discrediting a scientist.
Again,
WHAT ARE YOUR CREDENTIALS.
Republican,
Don’t you believe that Lindzen is an honorable, credentialed, and qualified climate scientist?
Then you SHOULD defend what he “publishes” in his op-eds.
Lots of good info, credible links, etc here,http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/Lindzen.htm
Cosmos,
You don’t get it, I don’t have to defend him or critique him.
HE IS A SCIENTIST!!!
So, Cosmos…
WHAT ARE YOUR CREDENTIALS?
Republican,
No, you don’t get it. The issue is, is he a CREDIBLE climate scientist?Should we believe what he writes and says? NO!
‘FACTSHEET: Richard Lindzen’http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=17
Repub, you are a silly rabbitt.If you are a scientist and don’t buy into the global warming hype, you are a dope.Please excuse me, I must fap for a while. Cosmo, care to join me?
Cosmos,
I’m not qualified to discredit someone who has PhD in Meteorology specializing in Ocean Climate Cycles.
And since you won’t give your credentials, you are not qualified either. That also includes using the words of someone who has not appeared before Court of Law to officially discredit one as a scientist because they are incompetent.
You are using trial by press and rumor.
Here’s the conservative’s way of thinking. If a thousand scientists doing a thousand studies and agree humans are contributing to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and one scientist who has been paid by the oil industry and produces no scientific studies and says something contrary then the lone, fringe scientist wins out.
Lindzen is a paid employee of the oil interests and is paid to repeat their rhetoric. Unless Republican can point out a scientific, peer-reviewed study that overwhelms the thousands of studies that support the current scientific consensus then there really isn’t a debate.
Keep in mind Republican and Paul are in the same camp who think the Earth is 6,000 years old, there is no link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer and Saddam Hussein ordered the attack on 9/11.
Reality, the concept is foreign to the science deniers.
No Doug, I don’t believe the earth is 6,000 years old.
Nice try on ad hominem Doug, pathetic attempt actually.
Pot calling the kettle black? Where are your credentials in philosophy to accuse me of using an illogical argument?
Republican,
“And since you won’t give your credentials, you are not qualified either.”
You’ve got a very severe comprehension problem.
I’ve pointed out that Lindzen’s qualified PEERS discredited his theory. Three research teams worked on it — attack THEIR credentials, mine are irrelevant.
And I’ve pointed out multiple errors in one of his op-ed’s — Arctic temperatures, Peiser, etc.
Republican: “You are using trial by press and rumor.”
No, I’m using science, and facts.The scientists who discredited his theory are not a “rumor”. And anyone can easily find the facts proving the errors in his op-eds.
Good God you are boring, cosmo. Ponderous, really.
Yes Cosmos, you are a hypocrite. You state that scientists discredited him through an op-ed.
Since when is an op-ed piece a Scientific paper?
Where was the Scientific Panel Peer Review Board?
Hmmm Cosmos?
Like I said, trial by press.
Republican,
“You state that scientists discredited him through an op-ed.”
I did NOT state that.
My “And anyone can easily find the facts proving the errors in his op-eds” refers to the op-eds that Lindzen HIMSELF wrote.
“his” = Lindzen, not three teams of scientistS (plural, their)
Another sentence, close above,”And I’ve pointed out multiple errors in one of his op-ed’s — Arctic temperatures, Peiser, etc.”
More errors from Lindzen listed upthread,http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/04/climate_change_.html#comment-67033538
Don’t worry Cosmos, the reality based community knows you are right and Lindzen has been discredited on this issue. Republican doesn’t want to accept the inconvenient truths because that may mean he might have to act with responsibility some day.
It is kind of scary that the seasons we have came to know and the specific climatic conditions we have become accustomed to each region having will probably change. Since it is not a fast and readily obvious change that is hard to accept for many people.
Again Cosmos are you freaking dense?
OP-EDs are not Scientific Papers!
Get a grip on reality Cosmos or get ignored.
Republican,
“OP-EDs are not Scientific Papers!”
100% correct. They’re not peer-reviewed, and they can contain as MANY falsehoods as the author wants.
The WSJ uses Lindzen’s inaccurate op-eds to misinform and confuse the public re AGW. It works too… ksgrm quoted and posted 2 WSJ links upthread.
Then your beef is with ksgrm not me.
I do not like your game playing Cosmos.
We’re done, for good.
Repubican,
“Then your beef is with ksgrm not me.”
Then don’t attack me for making very valid points about Lindzen’s errors and credibility problems.
If you cannot defend your opinions, don’t post them.
“I mean you attack Dr. Lindzen from MIT who has a PhD in Meteorology and specializes in studying oceans.”Posted by: Republican | April 19, 2007 at 02:01 AM
So what does the Party of God suggest we do about human induced climate change?
Republican,
“I do not like your game playing Cosmos.”
My posts were straight up, with no “game playing”. Climate scientists do NOT agree with Lindzen’s IRIS theory, and his op-eds ARE error-filled.
So don’t blame me for YOUR problem(s).
The report at http://securityandclimate.cna.org/ is very detailed.
Also good are the ‘Voices of Experience’ sections. For example, page 16,Vice Admiral Richard H. Truly, USN (Ret.) who was a test pilot, aviator, former NASA administrator, shuttle astronaut and the first Commander of the Naval Space Command
“One of the things that struck me on my ?rst day in space is that there is no blue sky. It’s something that every human lives with on Earth, but when you’re in space, you don’t see it. It looks like there’s nothing between you and the surface of the earth. And out beyond that, it looks like midnight, with only deep black and stars.
But when you look at the earth’s horizon, you see an incredibly beautiful, but very, very thin line. You can see a tiny rainbow of color. That thin line is our atmosphere. And the real fragility of our atmosphere is that there’s so little of it.”