Kate Sheppard | HuffPost | 05/23/2014
WASHINGTON -- The House passed AN AMENDMENT TO THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BILL ON THURSDAY THAT WOULD BAR THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FROM USING FUNDS TO ASSESS CLIMATE CHANGE AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.
The amendment, from Rep. David McKinley (R-W.Va.), passed in what was nearly a party-line vote. The bill aims to block the DOD from taking any significant action related to climate change or its potential consequences. It reads:
None of the funds authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to implement the U.S. Global Change Research Program National Climate Assessment, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Fifth Assessment Report, the United Nation's Agenda 21 sustainable development plan, or the May 2013 Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866.
"This amendment WILL PROHIBIT THE COSTS OF THE PRESIDENT'S CLIMATE CHANGE POLICIES BEING FORCED ON THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE BY THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION," wrote McKinley in a memo to House colleagues on Thursday that was obtained by The Huffington Post. "THE CLIMATE IS OBVIOUSLY CHANGING; IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN CHANGING. WITH ALL THE UNREST AROUND THE [WORLD], WHY SHOULD CONGRESS DIVERT FUNDS FROM THE MISSION OF OUR MILITARY AND NATIONAL SECURITY TO SUPPORT A POLITICAL IDEOLOGY?"
RESEARCH SUGGESTS, HOWEVER, THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE HAS A NUMBER OF REASONS TO BE WORRIED ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE. THE DEPARTMENT SAID IN ITS OWN EVALUATION LAST YEAR THAT CLIMATE CHANGE PRESENTS INFRASTRUCTURE CHALLENGES AT HOME AND ABROAD. MEANWHILE, A MARCH PENTAGON REPORT FOUND THAT CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS ARE "THREAT MULTIPLIERS," AND THAT THE RAPID RISE OF GLOBAL TEMPERATURES AND ASSOCIATED EXTREME WEATHER EVENTS COULD EXACERBATE ISSUES LIKE "POVERTY, ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION, POLITICAL INSTABILITY AND SOCIAL TENSIONS -- CONDITIONS THAT CAN ENABLE TERRORIST ACTIVITY AND OTHER FORMS OF VIOLENCE."
Nor is climate change a threat that the Obama administration dreamed up to distract the DOD. A NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE ASSESSMENT ISSUED DURING THE GEORGE W. BUSH ADMINISTRATION CONCLUDED THAT CLIMATE CHANGE POSES A SIGNIFICANT THREAT TO NATIONAL SECURITY. AND JUST THIS WEEK, TOM RIDGE, WHO SERVED AS HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY UNDER BUSH, SAID THAT CLIMATE CHANGE IS "A REAL SERIOUS PROBLEM," ONE THAT "WOULD BRING DESTRUCTION AND ECONOMIC DAMAGE" IF WE IGNORE IT.
REPS. HENRY WAXMAN (D-CALIF.) AND BOBBY RUSH (D-ILL.) SENT A LETTER TO COLLEAGUES ON THURSDAY CALLING THE MCKINLEY MEASURE "IRRESPONSIBLE."
"SCIENCE DENIAL WILL NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM," THEY WROTE.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
Lars...since McCrory (whom I met once before and am shocked at how far he moved from the center) has presided over a group of people that, to call insane, is a complement to insane people. They sit on a coastal state and could care less about science. They even just implemented new rules to make it easier to arrest protesters at the State House, since they didn't like all the protests that were happening each Monday (called Moral Monday) - yes, they actually told people to shut up and they don't want their constituents opinion. The height of arrogance.
The idea of man caused climate change, formerly known as man caused global warming, is a fraud. Except for some dupes those who support it have ulterior motives of financial and/or power gains. The polar ice cap at Antarctica is growing, nor receding. The predictions of disaster have failed to come true over and over again. But the dishonest and the dupes continue to beat the drum for this fraud. Al Gore, jetting around the world leaving a gigantic carbon footprint, and reveling in the millions he has made from this scam, should be the poster child for this fraud.
rdotn38, YOU, sirrah, ARE A FRIGGIN' MORON !!! Normally, like elk has, I might engage you with evidence but it's obvious that you are too far down the "rabbit hole" to make any sense, at all, and I commend elk for taking on the challenge, but I'm not optimistic...
GLOBAL WARMING’S ‘USEFUL IDIOTS’
Why do ideologues who would leave the country vulnerable to catastrophe enjoy prestigious posts in journalism?
Eric Alterman | May 21, 2014 | The Nation.
Before the big media verklempt-athon over the firing of New York Times editor Jill Abramson began, the paper of record saw itself involved in another controversy which, while not nearly as dramatic, was, in its own way, quite remarkable.
The plot went as follows: Times columnist Joseph Nocera twice attacked Warren Buffett, calling him “cowardly and hypocritical” for not confronting the Coca-Cola board of directors about an executive compensation package that Buffett believed was excessive. The premise of Nocera’s second column, however, proved inaccurate, as it was based on a flawed timeline of events. The Times issued a correction, but when Nocera was asked by the Times’s public editor, Margaret Sullivan, whether he planned to address the mistakes in his column, the pundit declined. It was only after Sullivan shamed him publicly in the paper’s pages that Nocera relented and added his own personal apology and explanation to a later column—a small but significant victory for journalistic moral and intellectual accountability. Too bad it required billionaire Buffett as the wronged party.
Another such example—also involving Nocera—didn’t end so happily. In February of last year, he launched a series of four attacks on opponents of the Keystone XL pipeline in which he caricatured the arguments of environmentalists and scientists (and repeatedly found himself forced to “clarify” his statements on the web). In one column, NOCERA DISTORTED A PRIVATE E-MAIL SENT TO HIM BY JAMES HANSEN, THE NOTED CLIMATOLOGIST AND THEN DIRECTOR OF THE NASA GODDARD INSTITUTE FOR SPACE STUDIES, IN ORDER TO MAKE IT APPEAR THAT HANSEN WAS ATTACKING CLIMATE ACTIVIST BILL MCKIBBEN. IN THE SAME COLUMN, NOCERA NOT ONLY IGNORED THE SUPPORTING MATERIAL HANSEN HAD PROVIDED BUT DEEMED ALL OPPOSITION TO THE PIPELINE “BONEHEADED,” PROCLAIMING: “LIKE IT OR NOT, FOSSIL FUELS ARE GOING TO REMAIN THE WORLD’S DOMINANT ENERGY SOURCE FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE, AND WE ARE FAR BETTER OFF GETTING OUR OIL FROM CANADA THAN, SAY, VENEZUELA. AND THE CLIMATE CHANGE EFFECTS OF TAR SANDS OIL ARE, ALL IN ALL, PRETTY SMALL.” AS IS TYPICAL WITH SO MUCH FAUX-SOPHISTICATED PUNDITRY, NOCERA’S COLUMNS ATTEMPTED TO DISCREDIT SUPERIOR EXPERTISE WITH IMPUTATIONS OF POLITICAL NAÏVETÉ. Killing the pipeline, he asserted, would not likely “change our behavior and help usher in the age of renewable energy,” as if this was the genuine view of Hansen and the countless scientists and environmentalists who oppose construction of the pipeline.
THE NOW UNAVOIDABLE IMPACT OF GLOBAL WARMING HAS BEEN MUCH IN THE NEWS OF LATE, WITH EACH BIT OF EVIDENCE MORE ALARMING THAN THE LAST. ACCORDING TO THE 2014 NATIONAL CLIMATE ASSESSMENT, THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE CURRENT ANALYSIS OF THE OBSERVED AND PROJECTED CONSEQUENCES OF CLIMATE CHANGE FOR THE UNITED STATES, WE CAN LOOK FORWARD TO “HEAT WAVES, COASTAL FLOODING, AND RIVER FLOODING” THAT WILL THREATEN NOT ONLY OUR ENVIRONMENT BUT ALSO OUR SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC SYSTEM. MEANWHILE, ANOTHER REPORT, THIS ONE FROM THE CENTER FOR NAVAL ANALYSES MILITARY ADVISORY BOARD, PROMISED ADDITIONAL CONFLICTS OVER FOOD AND WATER ON TOP OF ALL THE RELIGIOUS AND ETHNIC HATRED BROUGHT ON BY HIGHER TEMPERATURES AND THE DESTRUCTION OF ALREADY SCARCE WATER RESOURCES—TO SAY NOTHING OF THE INEVITABLE DAMAGE TO AND DESTRUCTION OF US NAVAL PORTS AND MILITARY BASES. MOREOVER, THE PENTAGON’S MOST RECENT QUADRENNIAL DEFENSE REVIEW, ITS PRIMARY PLANNING DOCUMENT, DREW A “DIRECT LINK BETWEEN THE EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING—LIKE RISING SEA LEVELS AND EXTREME WEATHER PATTERNS—AND TERRORISM.”
One might imagine that such threats would lead those concerned with the country’s security to take action—just as we did when threatened by the Nazis and Imperial Japan in World War II and by the Soviets during the Cold War. YET THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS DOMINATED BY, AND THE PUNDITOCRACY POPULATED WITH, KNOW-NOTHING IDEOLOGUES WHO ARE CHOOSING TO LEAVE AMERICA AND THE WORLD VULNERABLE TO NEAR-CERTAIN CATASTROPHE IN A MANNER THAT RECALLS THE ROLE OF #$%$ QUISLINGS AND STALIN’S “USEFUL IDIOTS” WAY BACK WHEN. TODAY, THESE VOICES SABOTAGE OUR SECURITY AS “ALL-STAR” FOX PANELISTS AND MAINSTAYS ON THE NATION’S MOST PROMINENT OP-ED PAGES.
Take George F. Will, WHO HELPFULLY EXPLAINS THAT THE REASON BEHIND THESE REPORTS IS A GLOBAL CONSPIRACY SO IMMENSE THAT IT ENCOMPASSES APPROXIMATELY 97 PERCENT OF THE WORLD’S SCIENTIFIC ESTABLISHMENT. “Scientists are not saints in white laboratory smocks. They have got interests like everybody else. If you want a tenure-track position in academia, don’t question the reigning orthodoxy on climate change. If you want money from the biggest source of direct research in this country, the federal government, don’t question its orthodoxy. If you want to get along with your peers, conform to peer pressure. This is what’s happening.” WILL’S WASHINGTON POST COLLEAGUE CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER TURNS TO THE PENTATEUCH TO EXPLAIN THAT WHAT SCIENTISTS ARE “ULTIMATELY…TALKING ABOUT HERE [IS] HUMAN SIN WITH THE POLLUTION OF CARBON. IT’S THE OLDEST SUPERSTITION AROUND. IT WAS IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. IT’S IN THE RAIN DANCE OF THE NATIVE AMERICANS. IF YOU SIN, THE SKIES WILL NOT COOPERATE.”
As my Altercation blog colleague Reed Richardson pointed out, THE POST’S EDITORIAL BOARD “HAMMERED REPUBLICAN SENATOR MARCO RUBIO FOR HIS SHAMELESS PERPETUATION OF CLIMATE CHANGE SKEPTICISM,” SAYING IT MADE HIM “UNFIT FOR THE PRESIDENCY.” At least Rubio has the Koch brothers and the hundreds of millions they plan to spend to ensure that no GOP candidate interferes with their multibillion-dollar fossil-fuel-based empire to explain his craven behavior. Why are Will and Krauthammer not considered unfit for prestigious posts in the media? Sure, their grandchildren will be ashamed of them, and posterity will curse them when forced to address the horrific effects of climate change. But why is it so damn difficult to hold them morally and intellectually accountable today, when there is still time to save ourselves and our planet?
Sentiment: Strong Buy
Re: "The idea of man caused climate change, formerly known as man caused global warming, is a fraud. Except for some dupes those who support it have ulterior motives of financial and/or power gains. THE POLAR ICE CAP AT ANTARCTICA IS GROWING, NOT RECEDING. ….." by rodent
ANTARCTIC GLACIER LOSS IS ‘UNSTOPPABLE,’ STUDY SAYS
Bryan Walsh | Time | May 12, 2014
New data has scientists at the University of California and NASA convinced WE'VE "PASSED THE POINT OF NO RETURN" WITH A SLAB OF ICE THAT MAKES UP 10% OF ANTARCTICA'S TOTAL LAND ICE VOLUME, ENOUGH TO RAISE THE GLOBAL SEA LEVEL BY 15 FEET IF IT MELTS
Researchers from the University of California, Irvine, and NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory have found that THE GROUP OF SIX GLACIERS ON THE ICE SHEET DIRECTLY DRAINING INTO THE AMUNDSEN SEA ARE RAPIDLY MELTING, AS WARMING OCEAN WATER EATS AWAY AT THE BASE OF THE ICE SHELF. THAT’S MAKING THE ICE AROUND THE WEST ANTARCTIC ICE SHEET INCREASINGLY UNSTABLE—AND THE RESEARCHERS COULD FIND NO CLEAR GEOGRAPHICAL OBSTACLE THAT WOULD SLOW DOWN THE RETREAT OF THE GLACIERS. Essentially, that means these glaciers—which collectively hold enough ice to boost sea levels by 4 ft (1.2 m)—”have passed the point of no return,” ERIC RIGNOT, A GLACIOLOGIST WITH UC-IRVINE AND NASA AND THE LEAD AUTHOR ON THE PAPER, SAID IN A STATEMENT. “THE RETREAT OF THIS ICE SEEMS TO BE UNSTOPPABLE.”
Another new study in the journal Science by researchers at the University of Washington gives us an idea of how long that irreversible decline might take—and the news isn’t good. The researchers estimate that THE THWAITES GLACIER—ONE OF THE SIX ANTARCTIC GLACIERS ALSO STUDIED IN THE NASA PAPER—COULD COLLAPSE WITHIN 200 TO 500 YEARS. AND THE COLLAPSE OF THE THWAITES AND ITS BORDERING GLACIERS COULD LEAD TO THE LOSS OF THE ENTIRE WEST ANTARCTIC ICE SHEET, LIKE REMOVING THE KEYSTONE FROM A BRIDGE.
IT’S NOT NEWS THAT THE ICE SHEETS OF ANTARCTICA ARE MELTING AS THE GLACIERS THAT BORDER THE SEA RETREAT, ADDING TO SEA-LEVEL RISE. (Sea levels only rise when land ice melts into the oceans—the loss of floating ocean ice, like the shrinking Arctic sea ice on the North Pole, makes no difference on sea level.) But both of these new studies provide far more precise data on just what’s happening in Antarctica—and what will likely happen in the future. The NASA/UC-Irvine study, published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, is based on some 40 years of observation of the glaciers, chiefly using radar data from satellites. THE RESEARCHERS FOUND THAT THE GROUNDING LINE—THE POINT WHERE THE GLACIER FIRST LOSES CONTACT WITH THE LAND AS IT MOVES INTO THE SEA—IS RETREATING AS THE FLOW RATE OF THE GLACIERS INCREASES. AS THE GROUNDING LINE RETREATS, MORE OF THE GLACIER LIFTS OFF THE LAND AND FLOATS, BECOMING AN ICE SHELF. AS MORE OF THE GLACIER BECOMES WATERBORNE, THERE’S LESS FRICTION, WHICH IN TURN SPEEDS THE FLOW OF THE GLACIER. AT THE SAME TIME, THE GLACIER BEDS SLOPE DEEPER BELOW SEA LEVEL, WHICH FURTHER SPEEDS THE GLACIERS, LIKE A ROLLER COASTER GOING DOWN A HILL. “THEY ALL REINFORCE EACH OTHER TO MAKE THE RETREAT UNSTOPPABLE,” RIGNOT SAID.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had projected that sea level will rise by about 35.5 in (98 cm) at most by 2100, but that prediction will likely need to be revisited in the wake of these new studies. As the Science study shows, it will likely be a few hundred years before the glaciers along West Antarctica fully collapse and melt into the sea. That does give us plenty of time to figure out a way to rapidly reduce carbon emissions and slow the pace of climate change, which in turn can give us more time to deal with sea level rise.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
Re: "The idea of man caused climate change, formerly known as man caused global warming, is a fraud. Except for some dupes those who support it have ulterior motives of financial and/or power gains. ...."
rodent, you idiot or shill, 98% of the serious, peer-reviewed scientists disagree with you and of the other 2%, 100% of them are paid by the coal and oil industry folk.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
RESEARCH SUGGESTS, however, that THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE HAS A NUMBER OF REASONS TO BE WORRIED ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE. The department said in its own evaluation last year that climate change presents infrastructure challenges at home and abroad. Meanwhile, a MARCH PENTAGON REPORT FOUND THAT CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS ARE "THREAT MULTIPLIERS," and that the RAPID RISE OF GLOBAL TEMPERATURES AND ASSOCIATED EXTREME WEATHER EVENTS COULD EXACERBATE ISSUES LIKE "POVERTY, ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION, POLITICAL INSTABILITY AND SOCIAL TENSIONS -- CONDITIONS THAT CAN ENABLE TERRORIST ACTIVITY AND OTHER FORMS OF VIOLENCE."
Sentiment: Strong Buy