Kerry threatens climate skeptics: They ‘put us all at risk’ – Warns ‘we cannot sit idly by and allow them to do that’

“We have to prepare ourselves for the potential social and political consequences that stem from crop failures, water shortages, famine and outbreaks of epidemic disease,” he said. “And we have to heighten our national security readiness to deal with the possible destruction of vital infrastructure and the mass movement of refugees — particularly in parts of the world that already provide fertile ground for violent extremism and terror.

“Long story short, climate change isn’t just about Bambi. It’s about us.”

Kerry said he would convene a task force of senior government officials and outside experts to determine how to make climate change predictions a part of foreign policy planning.

“If we can better identify the red flags of risk around the world, we can better target our diplomacy and development assistance to enable those nations to become more resilient and more secure — and less likely to devolve into a full-fledged war and humanitarian crisis,” he said.

Embassies could use climate change analysis to help host countries find ways to deter disaster, Kerry said,“before it evolves into deep grievances that help fuel conflicts.”


Related Links:

NYT: John Kerry ‘hopes to use his position as secretary of state to achieve a legacy on global warming that has long eluded him’




18 Responses

  1. Dear Sec. John Kerry, I deny that man is the cause of global climate change. I look forward to whatever attempt you care to make to silence me at your earliest convenience.

  2. Given that we’ve had 18 years without warming, the Antarctic ice has been growing, global sea ice is back to normal Greenland surface ice has grown since 1990.

    So, the hard solid physical evidence: THE SCIENCE, supports us sceptics.

    And what has he got behind him? NASA who have been caught cooling the past to create a warming trend, NOAA who can’t defend their warming adjustments to their constitutionally appointed oversight committee and are breaking the law by not complying with a subpoena. And who can forget Climategate and “hiding the decline” and “getting rid of the medieval warm period”.

    That man is a complete idiot who is so stupid he doesn’t know how pathetic he looks in the headlamps of overwhelming evidence supporting sceptics.

    1. He knows he is lying because its all about the agenda you know, silence the opposition by any means necessary! Freedom of speech or any other Constitutional rights are highly annoying!

      1. I can summarise up this debate in my tweet today: “when the evidence catches up with the theory – you become a sceptic”. It’s taken a while for the evidence to accumulate, but now it has, it is showing overwhelmingly that the doomsday belief is hocus pocus BS. Now every politician bought into the scam to some extend (hell so did I), so we can’t blame them for having their beliefs. However, now that the evidence has caught up with the theory and we see e.g. that the Antarctic has not been melting as was believed – what we can now see is which politicians and which parties have got their heads screwed on and which politicians and which parties are gullible idiots who – let’s be frank – are not fit to govern.

    2. Kerry has gone insane, much like the anti-free speech vermin infecting some of our University campuses. Unfortunately this type disease has infected our entire government. It will take a lot of work cleaning out the mental rot – it will be like the difficult job of getting rid of mold.
      You can tell Kerry has been well trained in the tactics of “Rules For Radicals” by Saul Alinsky: Say whatever you must to further the far-left agenda. Lies are absolutely permissible, even required. Just keep repeating the lies because enough people will believe.

  3. Michael
    Crichton (Author, MD, Cambridge University & MIT professor): “Let’s
    clear: the
    work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus
    is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one
    investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results
    that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is
    irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists
    in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.”

  4. What is Evil?

    Can you recognize Evil in its Infancy?

    Can you recognize Totalitarianism in its initial stage?

    The Left is pushing Radical Environmental Religionism and Propaganda as Science……..

    The US Federal Governmental Power is now being steered by these Delusional Cultists……

    We are moving away from Freedom……

    We are heading into Scary Times…..


    Vote or Die…..Literally…..

  5. This is the same guy who illegally signed the UN Small Arms Treaty that will take away all firearms from civilians. And climate change is the excuse for converting to socialism. Both are part of Agenda 21 and the more recent Agenda 2030. He should have stuck to windsurfing.

  6. Climate Facts and Expert Testimony

    Foreword on: Indur Golkany’s: Carbon Dioxide – The Good News

    By Freeman Dyson

    Indur Goklany has done a careful job, collecting and documenting the evidence that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does far more good than harm. To any unpreju- diced person reading this account, the facts should be obvious: that the non-climatic effects of carbon dioxide as a sustainer of wildlife and crop plants are enormously beneficial, that the possibly harmful climatic effects of carbon dioxide have been greatly exaggerated, and that the benefits clearly outweigh the possible damage.

    I consider myself an unprejudiced person and to me these facts are obvious. But the same facts are not obvious to the majority of scientists and politicians who con- sider carbon dioxide to be evil and dangerous. The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence. Those of my scientific colleagues who believe the prevailing dogma about carbon dioxide will not find Goklany’s evidence convincing. I hope that a few of them will make the effort to examine the evidence in detail and see how it contradicts the prevailing dogma, but I know that the majority will remain blind. That is to me the central mystery of climate science. It is not a scientific mystery but a human mystery. How does it happen that a whole generation of scientific experts is blind to obvious facts? In this foreword I offer a tentative solution of the mystery.

    There are many examples in the history of science of irrational beliefs promoted by famous thinkers and adopted by loyal disciples. Sometimes, as in the use of bleeding as a treatment for various diseases, irrational belief did harm to a large number of human victims. George Washington was one of the victims. Other irrational beliefs, such as the phlogiston theory of burning or the Aristotelian cosmology of circular celestial motions, only did harm by delaying the careful examination of nature. In all these cases, we see a community of people happily united in a false belief that brought leaders and followers together. Anyone who questioned the prevailing belief would upset the peace of the community.

    Real advances in science require a different cultural tradition, with individuals who invent new tools to explore nature and are not afraid to question authority. Science driven by rebels and heretics searching for truth has made great progress in the last three centuries. But the new culture of scientific scepticism is a recent growth and has not yet penetrated deeply into our thinking. The old culture of group loyalty and dogmatic belief is still alive under the surface, guiding the thoughts of scientists as well as the opinions of ordinary citizens.

    To understand human behavior, I look at human evolution. About a hundred thousand years ago, our species invented a new kind of evolution. In addition to bio- logical evolution based on genetic changes, we began a cultural evolution based on social and intellectual changes. Biological evolution did not stop, but cultural evolution was much faster and quickly became dominant. Social customs and beliefs change and spread much more rapidly than genes.

    Cultural evolution was enabled by spoken languages and tribal loyalties. Tribe competed with tribe and culture with culture. The cultures that prevailed were those that promoted tribal cohesion. Humans were always social animals, and culture made us even more social. We evolved to feel at home in a group that thinks alike. It was more important for a group of humans to be united than to be right. It was always dangerous and usually undesirable to question authority. When authority was seriously threatened, heretics were burned at the stake.

    I am suggesting that the thinking of politicians and scientists about controversial issues today is still tribal. Science and politics are not essentially different from other aspects of human culture. Science and politics are products of cultural evolution. Thinking about scientific questions is still presented to the public as a competitive sport with winners and losers. For players of the sport with public reputations to defend, it is more important to belong to a winning team than to examine the evidence. Cultural evolution was centered for a hundred thousand years on tales told by elders to children sitting around the cave fire. That cave-fire evolution gave us brains that are wonderfully sensitive to fable and fantasy, but insensitive to facts and figures. To enable a tribe to prevail in the harsh world of predators and prey, it was helpful to have brains with strong emotional bonding to shared songs and stories. It was not helpful to have brains questioning whether the stories were true. Our scientists and politicians of the modern age evolved recently from the cave-children. They still, as Charles Darwin remarked about human beings in general, bear the indelible stamp of their lowly origin.

    In the year 1978, the United States Department of Energy drew up a ‘Comprehensive Plan for Carbon Dioxide Effects Research and Assessment’, which fixed the agenda of official discussions of carbon dioxide for the next 37 years. I wrote in a memorandum protesting against the plan:

    The direct effects of carbon dioxide increase on plant growth and interspecific competition receive little attention. The plan is drawn up as if climatic change were the only serious effect of carbon dioxide on human activities…In a com- parison of the non-climatic with the climatic effects of carbon dioxide, the non- climatic effects may be:

    1. more certain,
    2. more immediate,
    3. easier to observe,
    4. potentially at least as serious.

    . . . Our research plan should address these issues directly, not as a mere side-line to climatic studies.

    My protest received no attention and the Comprehensive Plan prevailed. As a re- sult, the public perception of carbon dioxide has been dominated by the computer climate-model experts who designed the plan. The tribal group-thinking of that group of experts was amplified and reinforced by a supportive political bureaucracy.

    Indur Goklany has assembled a massive collection of evidence to demonstrate two facts. First, the non-climatic effects of carbon dioxide are dominant over the climatic effects and are overwhelmingly beneficial. Second, the climatic effects ob- served in the real world are much less damaging than the effects predicted by the climate models, and have also been frequently beneficial. I am hoping that the scientists and politicians who have been blindly demonizing carbon dioxide for 37 years will one day open their eyes and look at the evidence. Goklany and I do not claim to be infallible. Like the climate-model experts, we have also evolved recently from the culture of the cave-children. Like them, we have inherited our own set of prejudices and blindnesses. Truth emerges when different groups of explorers listen to each other’s stories and correct each other’s mistakes.

    Princeton September 2015

    Freeman Dyson FRS, a world-renowned theoretical physicist, is Professor Emeritus of Mathematical Physics and Astrophysics at the Institute of Advanced Study in Princeton where he held a chair for many years. Dyson is the author of numerous widely read science books. He is a member of the GWPFŚs Academic Advisory Council.

    About the author

    Indur Goklany is an independent scholar and author. He was a member of the US delegation that established the IPCC and helped develop its First Assessment Report. He subsequently served as a US delegate to the IPCC*, and an IPCC reviewer. He is a member of the GWPF’s Academic Advisory Council.

    *Note: The IPCC stands for “The Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change” – the United Nation’s lead organization tasked with researching and developing Global Policy Initiatives as they relate to Climate Change.

    The Summary that follows is copied directly from the pdf File of Indur Golkany’s new book entitled: Carbon Dioxide – the Good News.


    This paper addresses the question of whether, and how much, increased carbon dioxide concentrations have benefited the biosphere and humanity by stimulating plant growth, warming the planet and increasing rainfall.
    2. Empirical data confirms that the biosphere’s productivity has increased by about 14% since 1982, in large part as a result of rising carbon dioxide levels.
    3. Thousands of scientific experiments indicate that increasing carbon dioxide concentrations in the air have contributed to increases in crop yields.
    4. These increases in yield are very likely to have reduced the appropriation of land for farming by 11–17% compared with what it would otherwise be, resulting in more land being left wild.
    5. Satellite evidence confirms that increasing carbon dioxide concentrations have also resulted in greater productivity of wild terrestrial ecosystems in all vegetation types.
    6. Increasing carbon dioxide concentrations have also increased the productivity of many marine ecosystems.
    7. In recent decades, trends in climate-sensitive indicators of human and environmental wellbeing have improved and continue to do so despite claims that they would deteriorate because of global warming.
    8. Compared with the benefits from carbon dioxide on crop and biosphere productivity, the adverse impacts of carbon dioxide – on the frequency and intensity of extreme weather, on sea level, vector-borne disease prevalence and human health – have been too small to measure or have been swamped by other factors.
    9. Models used to influence policy on climate change have overestimated the rate of warming, underestimated direct benefits of carbon dioxide, overestimated the harms from climate change and underestimated human capacity to adapt so as to capture the benefits while reducing the harms.
    10. It is very likely that the impact of rising carbon dioxide concentrations is currently net beneficial for both humanity and the biosphere generally. These benefits are real, whereas the costs of warming are uncertain. Halting the increase in carbon dioxide concentrations abruptly would deprive people and the planet of the benefits of carbon dioxide much sooner than they would reduce any costs of warming.

  7. Why the long face John?

    Time to get over yourself.

    All the coal fired installations going on in the developing world will absolutely obliterate any amount of CO2 (life giving compound) reductions from the U.S.

    Game over dude.

    Now it is time to embrace and adapt to climate change.

    Climate change will make America great.

    Assuming you regressive politicians will just finally accept it and prepare for it.

  8. Ye gods are all democrats thick, and this is your foreign minister, is he a dictator, what happened to free speach in America, have they sold that to.

  9. It, our climate that is, is not simple John. If was simple you would be able to understand it. What is simple is the difference between computer projections and satalite measurements, between alarmist predictions and observed polar ice cover, between green rent seeking and genuine care for our planet.

  10. That’s right, Lurch– we’re putting you at risk of revealing your one-world-govt-agenda damned LIES dressed in “fight global warming” sheep’s clothing. You and your co-conspirators’ global nonsense is the worst thing to come down the pike since SLAVERY since it accomplishes EXACTLY the same thing, except in your case, the enslavement of ENTIRE NATIONS, not just individuals.

  11. It’s not about Bambi.
    It’ about his psychopathic blood lust for wealth and power.
    I say blood lust because millions will die because of his toxic vanity.
    It is happening now as poor people’s lungs are being destroyed in grotesque pain by inhaling smoke from animal dung.
    They are still in their 30’s.
    The only electricity he would offer them is the kind they can’t possibly afford.
    Mass murder that is entirely unnecessary.

  12. This climate change, one sided argument is damaging my brain. One more thing to add to the many effects of climate change. Oh and the days are also getting shorter. Next the sun will go out.

  13. John Kerry was for global warming before he was against it. What a moron. Scientific observations show just how wrong he has been . Kerry is as accurate as those climate models he is depending on for his information. I hope Al Gore is just scamming the world to get his $200 million. I would have a lot more respect for him if he is. If he, like Kerry, really believes the bull excrement coming out of his mouth, then AL Gore and John Kerry both have an IQ of about 63

Leave a Reply