EPA Chief: Ask any U.S. soldier and ‘they will tell you’ ‘climate change’ is major ‘national security’ threat

EPA Chief: Ask any American soldier and they’d say climate change is major security threat

Speaking at the Virginia Coastal Policy Center, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy says,”‘if you go up to anybody in the military who’s been paying attention,” they would say climate change is a major national security threat.

ADMINISTRATOR MCCARTHY: “I think if you go up to anybody in the military who’s been paying attention as well, they will tell you that one of the biggest challenges to national security is the challenge of climate change. And, they are partnering with us to make sure that they’re delivering on their promise of addressing national security by changing the work they’re doing to reflect a change in climate as well.”

Virginia Coastal Policy Center
November 13, 2015


Related Links:


84 Responses

    1. Every time Gina McCarthy speaks she reveals herself to be in a job that is way beyond her kill level. She seems completely incompetent.

      How the heck did she get her job?!

    2. Evidently not on the planet Earth, where the satellite data show no global warming since 1998, and where the Antarctic ice is growing, not shrinking, despite rising CO2. The climate models completely missed this and therefore have no credibility. Maybe she’s from Mars? Oops, no global warming there, either.

        1. As I originally said, the satellite data show no global warming since 1998. See chart at http://testclimate.wpengine.com/2015/09/02/a-new-record-pause-length-satellite-data-no-global-warming-for-18-years-8-months/. As I also said, NASA just reported the Antarctic ice is growing, not shrinking. See http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/616356/What-global-warming-Nasa-Antarctic-ice-INCREASING-135BILLION-TONNES-year.

          You may also find this link of interest. It’s titled, “What I Learned About Climate Change: The Science Is Not Settled.” https://medium.com/@pullnews/what-i-learned-about-climate-change-the-science-is-not-settled-1e3ae4712ace .

    1. They are complicit in the scheme to obtain billions of hardworking taxpayer dollars under false pretenses. They all need to be prosecuted under RICO.

  1. What a ditz McCarthy is. I doubt you could find a single military person that would say that (unless they were ordered to). If anyone thinks radical Islam is not the biggest danger to the world, they are witless.

  2. Global warming will not rape you, or cut off your head, or crucify you on a real cross, or commit gang rape pedophilia with you, or sell you into slavery, or throw you off a building, or cut off your hands, or blow up major capitals like Paris.

    But jihadists will, and do, even as we speak.

    What stupidity! Perhaps Gina McCarthy needs to spend a month in central Iraq as a global warming missionary to ISIS before making another speech about what and whom our soldiers are trying to kill before they are killed first.

  3. If you ask this retired military officer I’ll tell you that “climate change” is a non-factor to the national security.

    Oh yes, I fully realize that I’m still subject to the UCMJ. What are you going to do Gina McCarthy? 1) You hold no military rank/position. 2) Any order to military members to espouse your climate change narrative is an ‘illegal’ order.

    1. As a retired military officer…what,…… supply? JCS briefs that AGW is one of the greatest threat factors presently looming. I think this assessment goes back to W, although it may not. My point is, as a military officer, you could know from your own threat briefings that this is so, and not be putting out the horse feathers you have just done?

      1. Mike, I too am a former military officer (surface line officer in the Navy) and a current emergency management director. “Climate change” is quite a long way down the list of my worries as the former and current. I worry more about the damned muslim fanatic jihadis, our own government, idiots like the kids at Mizzou and the New Madrid Seismic Zone. The only real climate disaster I see looming on the horizon is still probably 1.5 to 2 decades away and it doesn’t involve anything to do with warming.

        1. I do not buy that.  That climate change JCS briefing was to representatives of our government, who whilst temporarily residing in the beltway, come home and disseminate that info to their constituents.  JCS is in and of itself a hugely political organization and always has been.  However, they brief accurately and pragmatically in their assessment of threats.  It’s part of what they are paid to do. Their success depends on accurate rendering of what is going to affect the US.  How the threats are addressed, now that is altogether another story of epic political proportions.

          1. Well Mike, I’m glad you think the JCS brief “accurately and pragmatically “deals with climate change. Please point out, specifically, how the JCS brief deals with climate change in a specific situation in a reasonable and logical way instead of depending on ideas and theories. I’ll wait…

            1. Well, here is one link, not entirely cogent, but fortuitously in my queue this AM. http://www.refinery29.com/2015/11/97666/bernie-sanders-climate-change-isis-terrorism-democratic-debate And there is this, which contains discussion and talks given by various notables, amongst them Adm Mullen and other JCS members and high ranking officers.   I am of course, not in any hope of convincing you of anything, it appears your mind is closed to the idea of AGW and it’s effect on previously, perilously balanced countries, both politically and in the natural world.  Take away Syria’s barely adequate rainfall, and the agriculture it did have which kept a lid on things socio-economic.  That is now gone due to consecutive years of AGW inspired drought. Also believe Sri Lanka, is losing swathes of land to the sea, and as a result is becoming quite creative in its attempts at accommodating, much like the Dutch, rising sea levels, and attendant loss of land.  On our own way north coast, native villages are being inundated by the arctic ocean.  I digress, read for yourself. http://climateandsecurity.org/2014/02/20/on-the-record-climate-change-as-a-national-security-risk-according-to-u-s-administration-officials/ Are these folks above reasonable and logical enough for you?
              If not, try these? Seattle Times article goes back to W’s admin. http://www.theglobalist.com/national-security-and-climate-change/
              http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/military-leaders-join-chorus-warning-of-climate-change/ It does not take a genius, simply a person with an open mind to discussion of the consequences of AGW, to see the peril peoples are put under by AGW.  Desperate, ignorant people, do things, anything, to try to mitigate their circumstances, making them ripe for foment by radicalism of any stripe.

              #yiv2202786114 a:hover, #yiv2202786114 a:hover span {color:#1188d2!important;}#yiv2202786114 .yiv2202786114button-cta:hover {color:#ffffff!important;background-color:#1188d2!important;}#yiv2202786114 .yiv2202786114button-cta:hover span {color:#ffffff!important;}#yiv2202786114 #yiv2202786114outlook a {padding:0;}#yiv2202786114 body {width:100% !important;}#yiv2202786114 .yiv2202786114ReadMsgBody {width:100%;}#yiv2202786114 .yiv2202786114ExternalClass {width:100%;display:block;}#yiv2202786114 @media screen and (){#yiv2202786114 html {}#yiv2202786114 .yiv2202786114content {width:100%;}#yiv2202786114 table {border-collapse:collapse;}#yiv2202786114 h2.yiv2202786114headline {font-weight:700;font-size:20px!important;margin-bottom:5px;}#yiv2202786114 .yiv2202786114button-cta {display:block!important;padding:0!important;}#yiv2202786114 div.yiv2202786114header {padding-top:20px;}#yiv2202786114 div.yiv2202786114footer {padding-bottom:20px;}}#yiv2202786114 #yiv2202786114 p.yiv2202786114mod-tools a:hover {color:white!important;background:#8c989f!important;}#yiv2202786114 @media screen and (){#yiv2202786114 td.yiv2202786114avatar, #yiv2202786114 td.yiv2202786114spacer {width:38px!important;}#yiv2202786114 td.yiv2202786114avatar img, #yiv2202786114 td.yiv2202786114spacer img {width:28px!important;}}”Well Mike, I’m glad you think the JCS brief “accurately and pragmatically “deals with climate change. Please point out, specifically, how the JCS brief deals with climate change in a specific situation in a reasonable and logical way instead of depending on ideas and theories. I’ll wait…” | |
              | |  Settings | |
              |   |

              | |

              | |
              A new comment was posted on Climate Depot
              | |
              | |
              Well Mike, I’m glad you think the JCS brief “accurately and pragmatically “deals with climate change. Please point out, specifically, how the JCS brief deals with climate change in a specific situation in a reasonable and logical way instead of depending on ideas and theories. I’ll wait… 8:54 a.m., Monday Nov. 16 | Other comments by ScienceABC123 |   |
              |   | Reply to ScienceABC123 |   |

              |   |


              | ScienceABC123’s comment is in reply to Mike Palaima: |
              |   |
              | | I do not buy that.  That climate change JCS briefing was to representatives of our government, who whilst temporarily residing in the beltway, come home …Read more |
              | |

              | |

              | |
              | You’re receiving this message because you’re signed up to receive notifications about replies to pressman123. You can unsubscribe from emails about replies to pressman123 by replying to this email with “unsubscribe” or reduce the rate with which these emails are sent by adjusting your notification settings. | | |

              | |

              1. Okay, so you sent me a bunch of articles of politicians and some military people claiming the climate change is a threat to national security. That’s not what I asked you.

                I asked you to “point out, specifically, how the JCS brief deals with climate change in a specific situation in a reasonable and logical way instead of depending on ideas and theories.” You merely tried to silence me with a massive dump of other people’s opinions.

                You claimed that the JCS brief dealt “accurately and pragmatically” with climate change. It’s obvious that you don’t know what those two words mean. I suggest you look them up in a dictionary. Until you learn to use words as defined in the dictionary it will be impossible to have any meaningful conversation with you.

                I’m done here.

                1. Or it could be that I am being a to willing Sisyphus here?  Neither you, or me, or, many of us know what the military is doing, on a day to day, practical level in their planning to mitigate the effects of climate change, in terms of a AGW as a threat.  I can spend some time and research, but, so can you?  I suggest you do so, since my discussion with you has fallen short, by your lights, why would I wish to continue?  Your ‘obvious’ observations are meaningless, to me, or anyone you could be approaching in such a manner. Here is a start for your research? http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB932.pdf

                  1. Mike, let’s look at the science, rather than all this other political nonsense. If you’re going to believe “Climate Change” is such a serious threat, do you not think it may be prudent to try to understand the pro and con SCIENCE arguments, rather than the political ones?
                    Unfortunately, our president, like you, is also lacking in that area.

                    President Obama, during his recent trip to Alaska, referred to two receding glaciers as examples of “climate change”. His (and the IPCC cohort) use of the term “climate change” means significant global warming due to human activity, because of increasing co2 level, mostly related to fossil fuel usage.) However, one of those
                    glaciers, “Exit”, has been receding since about 1750, a century before co2 began increasing and two centuries before co2 could have had any noticeable impact on temperature. Neither did Obama or the major news media bother to mention that several other Alaskan glaciers, including “Hubbard” and “Taku”, have been advancing. Obviously both phenomenon cannot be attributed to global warming, although it is true that some alarmists now (seriously!) claim that co2 increase can result in simultaneous warming and cooling!

                    Suppose there were no receding glaciers anywhere. Would that not indicate that our current warm period has ended and the next ice age is underway? The average duration of ice ages during the past 1.3 million years is 90,000 years. The warmer intervals sandwiched between ice ages (interglacial periods, one of which we are now enjoying) average just 10,000 years. We may therefore be nearing the end of our current interglacial. Instead of concern about floods in NY City, try wrapping your mind around what actually was happening just 12,000 years ago – a mile high glacier parked on the Big Apple
                    for tens of thousands of years was finally melting.

                    The claims of a “97% consensus” have been thoroughly debunked.
                    Among other problems these unprofessional “surveys” counted many
                    skeptics as part of their supposed consensus. These “surveyors” posed ambiguous questions (resulting in skeptic responses agreeing with “believers” positon) so impossible to distinguish between the IPCC cabal, which claims human activity is the PRINCIPLE cause of global warming, and most other respondents who merely
                    acknowledged that increasing co2 MIGHT have SOME impact on global warming. Had those surveys been designed (and handled)
                    by unbiased professionals the result may well have shown that skeptics were actually in the majority, but it matters not, since scientific truths are not dependent on vote counts. See the links
                    below for more details:



                    Lighting a match may have some impact on global warming, but the effect is unlikely to ever be measurable. The Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect is well known, but also turns out to have no measurable impact on global temperature. That’s because urban areas represent
                    only a very small portion of the earth’s surface area and even the rural areas immediately surrounding an UHI show no measurable temperature impact from that UHI. Nevertheless, no credible skeptic
                    is likely to flatly declare that human activity is having NO impact on global warming. The issues to be resolved are that the IPCC, and its supporters, claim that (1) co2 increase causes global warming
                    and (2) human activity, which appears to be responsible for most of the co2 increase, is therefore the principle cause of the warming. There is no empirical evidence showing that co2 level has ever, even over geologic periods when it was several times higher than now, had any impact on global temperature. This renders (1) questionable and (2) moot unless/until (1) is resolved.

                    The term “climate change”, until recently, referred to 4 billion years of natural climate events and typically included such things as ice ages. Now, and with full cooperation from the major news media, the term “climate change” has been revised, to include as an integral part — “catastrophic anthropogenic global warming” (CAGW), and skeptics are accused of being “climate change” deniers. (“catastrophic” because it seems clear that a steadily increasing co2 level at some point would surely lead to that outcome.) Assuming we are causing most of this this co2 increase, how much time do we have to resolve this issue? Will it perhaps be resolved “naturally”? If nothing else, perhaps by the onset of our next ice age?

                    Well, it turns out that during most of our planet’s history the co2 level has been several times higher than now, and yet, even over geologic periods, there is no empirical evidence showing that co2 has EVER had any impact on the global temperature. In fact, over geologic periods there is a strong correlation showing the opposite
                    – that temperature variation occurs FIRST and only 800 to 2800 years LATER do similar variations show up in the co2 level. While correlation does not imply causation this one obviously rules out
                    the possibility of a similar correlation satisfying the alarmist claims. There are also no claims that co2 level has had any direct impact on climate other than via its supposed impact on warming.

                    Dr. Craig Idso (co2science.org) states that a comparison of our current interglacial with the four immediately prior interglacials (a span of about 340,000 years) shows that, while co2 level is now 40% higher, our current temperature is about two degrees cooler than during any of those earlier periods. Obviously co2, now considerably
                    higher, is having little, if any, impact on temperature. Since both co2 level and UHI appear to be ruled out, what is the basis for the IPCC claim that human activity is the PRINCIPLE cause of our warming?

                    Christopher Monckton’s analysis of data from our two weather satellites shows conclusively that there has been no additional warming for the past 18+ years. It is clear that the computer models did not expect, nor can they account for what happened to that missing heat. Monckton’s analysis can be found here:


                    There is no physical basis for claiming that the “missing heat” could disappear into the ocean, sink unnoticed past 3,600 ARGO buoys, subsequently hide in the deep ocean, and somehow later re-surface and escape back into the atmosphere. Neither is the small increase in recent ocean temperature sufficient to explain the “missing heat”. The speculation brought on by this hiatus in temperature increase has, in a relatively short period, evolved into dozens of different excuses, even as the usual suspects continue to talk about consensus and “settled” science. (No evidence, not even a correlation, so obviously not much else to say, I guess.)

                    It’s also well known that the capability of co2 to influence warming diminishes as its level increases. A greenhouse is hardly an
                    adequate model for our open atmosphere because there is no convection from within a real greenhouse, and satellites detect heat escaping to space. Neither are greenhouses subject to ocean or
                    other planetary-level feedbacks. Equally important, computer models cannot deal with chaos (unpredictable events which are an integral part of climate, such as volcano eruptions, earthquakes, bombardment by asteroids and comets, plate tectonics, continental shift, etc. )

                    The computer models have consistently projected higher temperature increases than were subsequently recorded, and this discrepancy has continued even after several rounds of revisions to the models. What’s more, the SPREAD between actual temperature and computer projected temperatures has continued to WIDEN. Climate model results are not evidence of anything apart from the author(s) limited understanding, agenda, and possible confirmation biases. All these models ASSUME, for example, that water vapor feedback is the real culprit, creating 2 to 3 times the temperature increase as supposedly brought on directly by co2 increase. Feedbacks are not well understood, yet modelers assume not only that water vapor feedback is positive, but that its impact on temperature is 2 to 3 times that of the co2 impact (which itself is in question.) Cloud cover, one aspect of water vapor, clearly appears to have a cooling rather than a warming effect. Without the water vapor feedback assumption, the threat of increasing co2 impacting temperature drops by 75%.

                    Our current co2 level is 400 ppmv, (parts per million by volume) clearly a trace gas, which can also be stated as 4/100 of one percent of the atmosphere, by volume. (4/100 of one percent of a mile is about 2 feet). The annual rate of increase in co2 is about 2 ppmv, so co2 level is estimated to reach 600 ppmv by 2100. That still represents a trace gas. A crowded gym with poor ventilation may reach 1,000 ppmv. Submarine crews survive for months in a 5,000 to 8,000 + ppmv environment. Plants, grow faster, healthier, produce more oxygen, and need less water in higher co2 environments.
                    Our earth is greening even as this controversy continues.

                    The proponents of CAGW base their hypothesis entirely on less than 30 years of climate history. Even the most rabid CAGW scientists recognize that any temperature impact brought on by increasing co2 would have taken (at 2ppmv per year) until about 1950 before having any possible measurable impact on global temperature. While co2 began rising in the mid 1800s our current warming (such as it is) began, by definition, (Dr. David Evans, Aussie climatologist) at the bottom of the Little Ice Age, in the mid 1600s. That implies 300 years (1650 to 1950) of natural warming. There was also some serious warming during the 1930s, and a mild cooling from the 1940s to the
                    1970s, followed by THE warming, from the mid 1970s to about 1998. Although it remains warm there has been no additional warming since about 1998 according to both weather satellites. (The satellite data also agrees well with weather balloon data.- Dr. Fred Singer)

                    It is the actual data which brings out all these conflicts with alarmist claims, so what about their greenhouse gas theory? A NECESSARY condition, must be satisfied by the theory is that greenhouse gases must generate a “hotspot” warming pattern in our troposphere. (This is acknowledged by the scientists who are proponents of CAGW.) However, no such hotspot has been found, and not for lack of data (millions of radiosondes recordings) for the past several years. Their basic theory (never even plausible) is consequently completely compromised. The preponderance of conflicting data should therefore not be surprising. For a robust discussion on the hotspot signature see:


                    There are 5 global temperature datasets, 3 terrestrial and 2 satellite. However, according to Phil Jones (2003) the three terrestrial datasets all utilize 90 to 95% of the same raw data. There are three sets of
                    terrestrial temperature datasets only because three separate organizations are involved and each makes its own revisions to the raw data. With regard to satellites, as of September 2015, UAH shows no additional warming for the past 18 years and 5 months and RSS shows no additional warming for the past 18 years and 8 months. (However, as Monckton points out, this could change because the upcoming el Nino, a natural warming event, may bring on some additional temporary warming.) Neither is this 18+ year duration cherry picked. That result depends solely on the data itself and answers a relevant question, namely – for how long has there been no additional warming? If the same analysis for the two satellites is instead applied to the mean of all 5 datasets, there has been no additional warming for the past 13+ years. (However, since the three terrestrial datasets are basically derived from the same raw data, the 3/5 weighting for terrestrial data in that “mean” appears to be overly generous. Acknowledgement of that would further increase the 13 years.)

                    The three terrestrial datasets have other problems. Even the
                    current raw data must be continually revised because many stations are located within or near UHIs and that effect, which frequently changes over time, must be re-ESTIMATED and eliminated. (Why the historic terrestrial data also needs evision and invariably those historic “corrections” produce more current warming is not so obvious. (Statistical analysis of such an outcome indicates the “corrections” cannot be random.) The distance between some land stations may be as much as 1200km, and there is even more spread between stations in remote (jungles, mountains, deserts, plains, grasslands, etc.) areas. Finally, many land based temperature stations do not satisfy even the basic requirements laid down by the government. Why have NOAA and NASA not included a separate analysis, for comparison purposes, using only raw data from rural locations? This subset should require few, if any ongoing revisions. Both NASA and NOAA strictly base their claims on the terrestrial data. Why? And neither agency provides any caveats in their public declarations. Why would any science organization permit such shoddy reporting?

                    Some alarmists, and that also includes most liberal politicians, continue even now to claim severe weather events and sea level rise are “evidence” of CAGW. Sea level has been rising for the past 15,000 years, ever since the last ice age BEGAN melting, and sea level is now up 400+ feet. The overall rate of sea level increase has been steadily dropping for the ast several thousand years. Sea level
                    rise is now a miniscule 1 to 2 mm per YEAR, (1 mm = 4/100 of one inch. In 25 years, the level would be up one inch, probably less because the rate continues to drop.) Claims of higher increases in sea level in some areas, if otherwise accurate, are clearly not taking into account the effects of wind, erosion, and/or subsidence. A graph showing sea level over the past 12-15 thousand years should be sufficient to assuage any rational person as to what is happening. In the case of severe weather events various statistical analysis have demonstrated conclusively that, for the past several decades, these events have all remained within natural climate variation (so no measurable effect attributable to co2 level or warming). Hurricanes, typhoons, tornados, floods, rain, and droughts have been no more severe nor more frequent during the past several decades. The costs incurred due to severe weather have generally increased because of growing populations in those areas,

                    At least one well known member of the IPCC cabal, Phil Jones, stated that if the Medieval Warming Period (MWP) was global and as warm as now, then “that’s another ballgame”. The Climate Gate email conversations showed concern about the MWP. (In fact, at least one email made clear that they had to get rid of the MWP !) The IPCC and its cohort also continue to insist that the MWP was only a regional phenomenon, and not as warm as now. This completely unjustifiable claim is apparently an attempt to avoid having to deal with an embarrassing question — “If the MWP, a natural event 1,000 years ago, was as warm (probably warmer) than now, why do you think humans are the cause of our current warming?” Certainly any credible scientist who was a proponent of CAGW should have demanded that a global investigation be undertaken to confirm whether the MWP was global. But this alarmist group chose instead to ignore the evidence and cling to their belief. They instead demand that the skeptics provide evidence that the MWP was global and as warm or warmer than now. Think about that. If even one region remote from Europe shows the same warming trend, their claim that the MWP was merely regional begins to crumble. As it turns out, higher temperatures during the MWP and the MWP trend show up in numerous remote locations.

                    Ironically, there were numerous peer-reviewed studies available showing the MWP to be global and as warm, likely warmer, long before the alarmist position became public, even before their cries reverted from claims of oncoming ice age to global warming.
                    (Holdren, science adviser to Obama, was an alarmist about cooling before becoming an alarmist for warming.) The alarmist denials continue even now, in spite of new confirming studies continuing to show up regularly, as often as weekly. The website co2science.org has links to all the MWP peer reviewed studies. These confirming studies have employed various temperature proxies, including some newer methods not available during earlier studies. And then there are the results from 6,000 boreholes around the globe which independently confirm that the MWP trend was indeed global.

                    The Alaskan Mendenhall Glacier, recently retreated sufficiently to expose some splintered tree trunks (dated 1000+ years old) preserved in their original upright positions. (Do you not think it strange that neither Obama’s science advisor or the major news media failed to recognize the implications of this? ) Receding Swiss glaciers have revealed 4,000 year-old trees which indicate that forests were present earlier at that latitude. (It is also apparent that the glaciers were then considerably further north from their current position!) Antique vineyards dating back to the MWP have also been exposed in Scandinavia and the Alps at latitudes where grapes cannot be grown even today. Burial sites have been found beneath the permafrost. Attempts to brush off that aggregation of information as “anecdotal evidence” is ludicrous. Claiming that the dating of these recently exposed splintered tree trunks may be inaccurate is hardly relevant because that in no way eliminates the fact that there were warmer durations before now, when co2 level was lower, and this evidence is being exposed at latitudes where trees can no longer grow.

                    What’s more, there were several earlier warm durations during this interglacial before the MWP, all warmer than the MWP. Even the IPCC only claims that our current warming is a record for the past 800 years, and with less likelihood, (but no justification provided) for the past 1200 years. Lord Monckton points out that while the IPCC has finally admitted in its latest report that the current RATE of warming is now lower than published earlier, their committee (which reviews every word of their public report multiple times) has still somehow managed to avoid correcting their egregious out-years high temperature estimate.

                    In late 2014 both NASA and NOAA claimed that 2014 was the “hottest” year, but both backed down, probably because skeptics pointed out that, if their same analysis had been applied to satellite data, then 2014 ranking would have been either 3rd or 6th hottest. (Both satellite results imply at least a short term cooling of 3 or 6
                    years is underway.) Also, and probably more important, neither agency felt the need to include in their initial press release that the difference amongst recent annual global temperatures was miniscule, (a few hundredths of one egree) so well within the uncertainty error, which renders their contrived public comparison across recent years meaningless. (Can you believe that any credible scientist would do that?) The major news media, as usual, jumped on their original news (2014 “hottest”) release, but overlooked the NOAA/NASA subsequent retreat. However, these two “science” agencies are apparently still at it, recently claiming that June 2015 was the “hottest” month. There has also been no accompanying acknowledgement that sea ice extent in the Arctic recently increased considerably and sea ice extent in the southern hemisphere continues to break records. Neither was it noted that new weather trends begin at the two poles. Has everyone forgotten that in the summers of 1959-1962 the North Pole was visited by the Coast Guard cutter Storis, (along with at least one submarines and another ship) in open water? Eisenhower’s concern about the
                    ”military/industrial” complex has obviously evolved into something else — the “government/science” complex ?? Our EPA Adiminstrator recently claimed that “every soldier” understood the dangers of
                    climate change ! (Evidently the EPA management has no competent science advisors either.)

                    These “science” organizations recently figured out how to revise temperatures by introducing an entirely new (but egregious) data base to change earthly temperatures, in an apparent effort to do away with the temperature“hiatus”. But, as CFACT points out

                    “…NOAA “adjusted” sea-surface temperature (SST) data from buoys upward by .12 degrees C, to make them ‘homogeneous’ with lengthier records from past engine intake systems in ships. However, engine intake data are ‘clearly contaminated by heat conduction from
                    the ships, and that data were never intended for scientific use – whereas the global buoy network was designed for environmental monitoring”.

                    These agencies also recently declared that their three terrestrial datasets are “independent”, which, as discussed earlier, is dubious.

                    Then there is our government’s current “solution” for this likely non-problem. Obama wants to reduce electrical power emissions by 32% by 2030. The following is quoted directly from Joanne Nova’ website which merely confirms what the EPA administrator, Gina McCarthy, recently admitted:

                    This “ambitious” goal is purely symbolic. Here’s why. Electrical power plants make 37% of US emissions, which are about one-fifth of global human emissions, which are 4% of total CO2 emissions globally. So a 32% cut in US electrical emissions will result in a 0.1% cut in total global CO2 emissions (at best)*. If the Obama/EPA plan is
                    “successful” and if the IPCC are right, Paul Knappenberger and Pat Michaels estimate that Obama’s new plan will cool the world by an unmeasurable 0.02°C by 2100.

                    To summarize: It’s been known for several years that the greenhouse gas theory does not satisfy even the basic NECESSARY condition to be valid – no “hotspot”. The scientists who are (for some strange reason) still proponents of anthropogenic global warming fully understand the necessity of that hot spot accompanying their understandings about greenhouse gas. It’s NOT there, and even if it were, that is still not a SUFFICIENT condition. In other words, there must be some additional independent evidence. There’s nothing remotely resembling evidence.

                    The analysis is also clear that all weather events continue to be within natural climate variation, no more severe and no more frequent. In fact, it’s obviously been much warmer than now several times during this interglacial. There is no empirical evidence showing co2 increase has ever had any impact on the planet’s temperature. We therefore face only one issue, a rising co2 level which appears to be at least partly brought on by human activity. All the evidence indicates this is a longer term problem, certainly not an immediate crisis. Given that the co2 level has been considerably higher in the past there also appears to be no nearby “trigger” point. The larger threat facing us right now is being introduced by politicians’ rush to implement costly non-solutions.

                    The mission of the UN’s well-funded IPCC was to identify human impact on climate. Would anyone expect the IPCC (or any such bureaucracy) to report back to its funding sources that “it’s apparently just Mother Nature at work?” Would the UN even permit the IPCC to reach such a conclusion? Large western governments all view this issue as an opportunity, to (among other things) gain more control over the fossil fuel industry, and to introduce new taxes. Small countries are also onboard because they have been promised remuneration for the “climate change” pain supposedly imposed on them by the larger countries. (You can be sure any UN document on
                    the subject will include issues related to “remuneration”.) The alarmists invariably accuse every skeptic of being a tool of big oil, but their paranoia conveniently overlooks the many other agendas, all related to the alarmist position.

                    Whether these alarmists are “useful idiots”, stupid, or willing to lie because they believe in some higher principle (one-world government, or abhor the fossil fuel industry, or want to transfer western resources to third world countries) hardly matters. The road to hell is paved with “good” intentions. 11/15

                    1. I am sorting through your lengthy response.  However, seems you eschew political talk in this matter, but you engage in that yourself?  Seems a dichotomy there? My friend responded to your lengthy explanation also.  Here are his words…………………………… QUOTE: To deny the current warming period is rapidly getting warmer is to deny the science.  Nothing denying the science interests me.  That fellow pretends to pay attention to all the science, then presents only the science he loves reading because it flatters his prejudices.
                      Good luck to us all, because that knee-jerk crap is very popular.

                      Walter  UNQUOTE
                      I have taken notes, and will address the portions of your treatise that are worth addressing…to me.  I agree with Walter,  who by the way is a scientist, retired, of some repute, not though a climate scientist, and absolutely no pointy headed liberal. Some of the folks you quote are not climate scientists either, nor is much of the work quoted, peer reviewed.  Rather, most of it is scientific opinion, being used to deny present, peer reviewed science.  Until those ideas are mainstreamed, thoughtful people could be wise to not accept it, as the very politics you seem to want to avoid, but do not, is integral to the whole treatise, as you present it? Also, and I will respond on those, some of your statements are patently false.  Do not have time presently, but you will read of me before the week is out in those matters.  Not that any change will occur in either of us, but am just rebutting because you put it out there.

                    2. So, YOU deny that both weather satellites (much more accurate and less tampered with) both show no warming for the past 18+ years? Amazing. Even rabid scientists who are proponents of human caused warming recognize the hiatus.

                      I will be very interested in any claims I stated which are “patently false”. Surely you cannot claim that for Obama’s public statements regarding Alaska, right?

                      Surely you cannot claim that the greenhouse gas theory as applied to the open atmosphere, is not valid unless there is a warmer region in the troposphere (a “hotspot”).

                      Surely you cannot claim that there is some empirical evidence showing that co2 on this planet has EVER had an impact on temperature?. No speculation please, just evidence.

                      Perhaps you and your friend want to claim that sea level rise is caused by human activity? It’s been rising for a very long time before co2 level began increasing.

                      So you believe that NOAA and NASA were telling the truth when they claimed 2014 was “hottest”? Really?

                      Peer-reviewed science? Insofar as the alarmist claims about the MWP being regional, that has been blown out of the water by all kinds of peer-reviewed studies.

                      I’m sure the readers look forward to your rebuttal, as I do.

  4. Senility is not a pretty thing. Seriously are they really that dense. How many lies do they have to tell to make everyone believe them. I will give consideration that they believe this crap when Obama sells his beach house in Hawaii.

    1. Yes you can. Stop working for the public service and leeching off society, and get a real job, and earn a life! No better cure to stupidity than working in the real world, where you have to really struggle for your life.

  5. Interestingly, there have been 120 terrorist-related deaths in Paris, overnight, despite borders having been “tightened” specifically for the COP21 shindig here. What do we blame on global warming? The fact that this happened, that it happened despite increased “security”, or simply because Paris had to be the current venue for this climate nonsense?

  6. When my Son came home safe from Iraq , we sat down and started this serious conversation about Climate Change……sorry, I can’t continue the tears are welling up in my eyes [;-)

  7. Just remember everyone, if she didn’t talk so stupidly and acted so dumb, she wouldn’t be able to justify her high 6 figure salary. Her position as head of the EPA demands it. Am I suggesting that this is all just play acting, just to justify her salary? No. In reality, she really is ignorant. Its just, when the cameras turn on, she needs to show-boat, and there is no better way to show-boat for an ignorant person, than to say outrageous and moronic statements. Remember also who’s the crowd, and furthermore….

    When you’re in a room full of morons, everybody is a genius.

    Thus you get what you saw in that video.

    Sheesh…morons! That’d be so entertaining if they weren’t so bloody dangerous! With Climate Morons on the one side, and Islamic Caliphate on the other….room for the sane, is running out.

  8. yea, climate change looks pretty terrifying compared to all the news plastered all over the TV today,this idiots will get all of us killed if they get their way

  9. Actually the Global Warming hoax is a threat to US service men and women – as well as the country. It miss appropriates funds, increases costs, limits options, and generally destroys the military’s ability to defend this country.

  10. According to Wikipedia: “McCarthy graduated from the University of Massachusetts Boston as a Bachelor of Arts in Social Anthropology. She later attended Tufts University, and from there she gained the further degree of Master of Science in Environmental Health Engineering and Planning and Policy in 1981.”

    Does McCarthy’s masters degree require any knowledge of hard science or is it primarily a political “science ” and policy regime of study? She does not have a firm understanding of science and the scientific method.

  11. Myself and my sons were in the military. I have many friends who served and some are still serving. They are more frustrated with zero effort from the UN to battle Islamic terrorists while trying to scare the world about the alleged threat of climate change. Like the EPA the UN is more concerned about building their funding and empires rather than actually tackling dangerous issues that really matter. Obama is fiddling while the US burns.

    1. The global redistribution of wealth from healthy productive countries to 3rd world shit holes is what this is all about. And they WILL do it under the barrel of a gun.

  12. That’s funny. I asked 3 soldiers yesterday – 1 on AD and 2 NG – they all admitted they had been briefed to say that CC is a threat. They also know it’s not true and constitutes indoctrination or political posturing. They all feel ISIS is the threat. If only our pres were as savvy as these 20 year old kids.
    I hope Gina isn’t believing that our soldiers are as dumb as the line she’s been feeding them…..

    1. I retired in 1997. The most they would have dared to do back then is ask us to refer all questions of this type to the base public affairs office. Things have gotten bad for the military.

  13. The EPA chief is right! Climate change could be a threat. The shortcoming in her view is this: THE CLIMATE IS NOT CHANGING!!!!!!!!! Like someone from New Jersey just said, the waves in Atlantic City are still coming in in the same place as decades ago. Where i live in N.C. U.S. the most recent 25 years had an average temp of 42.96. And a co2 level of about 380. The 25 years starting in 1900 had an average temp of 43.15 and co2 level of about 310. There is no climate change.

  14. Don’t know how the military could “change the work they’re doing to reflect a changing climate”. The DOD has operated in every kind of climate there is: jungles, temperate zones, deserts, and frigid arctic conditions. This is a load of (fill in the blank).”

  15. As a 21 year military professional, I can say categorically, this woman is an idiot. As is this entire administration. Our largest threats are a loss of a large piece of America’s industrial capacity to a surging China, Russia, and radical Islam (with estimates as high as 1/5 if the world’so muslims.

  16. I am a Marine Veteran, and am currently with the Coast Guard Auxiliary. Our major focus in the Aux is on environmental issues. Climate Change is NOT a major concern to national security.

  17. Gina McCarthy is a useless politician who does everything (without question) that President Obama tells her to do. She does not think for herself and apparently does not know that our solar scientists know — Our sun drives both Global Warming and Global Cooling as well as climate change. It has nothing to do with CO2, which is the source of life on our planet. Yes, we should control pollution, but CO2 is not pollution, it is the “fertilizer” of all plant-life on earth that feeds the people of earth. It would be my guess that nearly any thinking soldier, based on simple logic would tell you that CO2 is not the cause of climate change. They may not yet know that we are in a cooling cycle (tied to the current pause), because our news media continues to hide this from the general public. Gina McCarthy (and her conspirators) cannot produce a single equation that demonstrates how GHG cause global warming, yet NOAA, NASA, and our military use a single (Maxwell based) equation that tells them the “exact” temperature at all levels of our atmosphere (sea-level to the edge of space). This single equation has “zero” GHG in the equation, only the mass of our atmosphere and earth’s equilibrium temperature with the sun.

  18. Question: If ‘climate change’ is a national security threat, what is our government doing to prepare for this this ‘change’? Are we going to wait for the ‘change’ to happen and then react? Anyway, what military steps are necessary to preserve our national security?

    1. ”… If ‘climate change’ is a national security threat, what is our government doing to prepare for this this ‘change’? …”

      The government is telling each and every soldier, sailor, marine, and aviator … and anyone else under the government’s command, Say “climate change is a national security threat” – SAY IT!

  19. Climate has always changed…naturally. The last change is it stopped warming. The next change, increased cooling.

    The data which show CO2 has no effect on average global temperature already exist.

    The relation between mathematics and the physical world mandates that, for a forcing to have an effect, it must exist for a period of time. The temperature changes with time in response to the net forcing. If the forcing varies, (or not) the effect is determined by the time-integral of the forcing (or the time-integral of a function thereof).

    The atmospheric CO2 level has been above about 150 ppmv (necessary for evolution of life on land as we know it) for at least the entire Phanerozoic eon (the last 542 million or so years). If CO2 was a forcing, its effect on average global temperature (AGT) would be calculated according to its time-integral (or the time-integral of a function thereof) for at least 542 million years. Because there is no way for that calculation to consistently result in the current AGT, CO2 cannot be a forcing.

    Variations of this demonstration and identification of what does cause climate change (R^2 > 0.97) are at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com

    Projection from 1990 validates analysis method.

  20. In the current political environment, on of the best ways to advance is to write and/or promote position papers supporting positions already held by superiors. The best way to get government grants is to write grant applications that propose studies designed to support politically approved conclusions. There is no conspiracy, just self-interest.

  21. So as a senior NCO in U.S Army Special Forces that is paying “attention” I would throw the BS flag.You know less about the military and those in it than you do about our climate. Perhaps you should focus on Energy independence, oh wait, the Department of Energy does really have a role there. WTF is your function?

Leave a Reply