‘Politically contrived nonsense’: Scientific studies, data and history refute Obama’s climate/national security claims – Climate Depot’s Rebuttal


By: - Climate DepotMay 20, 2015 11:32 PM with 24 comments

Climate Depot Statement on President Obama’s latest round of claims linking ‘global warming’ to national security. See: Obama Readies U.S. Troops For The War On ‘Global Warming’

Statement by Marc Morano, Climate Depot Publisher: “It is hard to even take today’s speech by Obama seriously on either a logical, scientific or political level. The speech was so farcical in its claims that it hardly merits a response. It is obvious that the climate establishment is seeking new talking points on ‘global warming’ to change the subject from the simple fact that global temperatures are not cooperating with their claims.

See: Global warming ‘pause’ expands to ‘new record length’: No warming for 18 years 5 months

clip_image002

If any Americans actually believe the climate claims linking ‘global warming’ to a rise in conflicts, no amount of evidence, data, logic or scientific studies will likely persuade them. But given the high profile nature of the comments, a rebuttal to the President’s climate claims is necessary.

Claiming that melting ICE is more a threat to the U.S. than ISIS is a hard sell, particular given the latest data on global sea ice. See: Sea Ice Extent – Day 137 – 3rd Highest Global Sea Ice For This Day – Antarctic Sets 49th Daily Record For 2015

Contrary to the President’s claims, it seems ISIS may in fact trump ICE as a bigger concern.

Image result for obama climate change

Obama also claimed that climate ‘deniers’ were a huge part of the problem. Obama explained: “Denying it, or refusing to deal with it, endangers our national security and undermines the readiness of our forces.”

Obama seems to be borrowing his claims from Rolling Stone Magazine. See: Forget ISIS, skeptics are greatest threat?! – Rolling Stone: Climate ‘Deniers’ Put ‘National Security at Risk’

Also see: Paper: ‘Osama bin Laden cared more about global warming than GOP Sen. James Inhofe’

But actually believing the above statements endangers our capacity for rational thought and evidence based research. Actually believing Obama’s climate claims, undermines our nation’s ability to distinguish real threats from politically contrived nonsense.

UN climate treaties and EPA climate regulations will not prevent wars, conflicts or impact the creation of terrorist groups.

The President seems to believe every modern malady is due to ‘global warming’ See: White House doom: Climate change causes allergies, asthma, downpours, poverty, terrorism – Lists 34 effects

President Obama claimed that man-made climate change was partly responsible for the civil war in Syria. “It’s now believed that drought, crop failures, and high food prices helped fuel the early unrest in Syria, which descended into civil war in the heart of the Middle East,” Obama said.

First off, extreme weather is not getting more ‘extreme.’ See: Extreme weather failing to follow ‘global warming’ predictions: Hurricanes, Tornadoes, Droughts, Floods, Wildfires, all see no trend or declining trends

Scientists reject notion that human-caused climate change led to war in Syria – ‘Human-influenced climate change impact on the drought conditions was almost certainly too small to have mattered’

But such drought claims are not new or unique to President Obama. In 1933, similar baseless claims were made. See: 1933 claim: ‘YO-YO BANNED IN SYRIA – Blamed For Drought’

ScreenHunter_174 Sep. 03 22.08

In addition, in 1846, in Australia, Aborigines blamed the bad climate on the introduction of the White man in Australia. During World War 2, some blamed the war for causing unusual weather patterns. In the 1970s, the exact same things (bad weather) we are talking about today, were  blamed on man-made global cooling.

Global warming is not a threat to the world, but global warming ‘solutions’ are. The estimated 1.2 billion people in the world without electricity who are leading a nasty, brutish and short life, will be the ones who “will pay” for global warming solutions that prevent them from obtaining cheap and abundant carbon based energy. See: S. African activist slams UN’s ‘Green Climate Fund’: ‘Government to govt aid is a reward for being better than anyone else at causing poverty’ — ‘It enriches the people who cause poverty’

Simple historical facts undermine the President’s claims about global warming and national security concerns.

Small Sampling of evidence countering President Obama’s claims.

Lord Christopher Monckton, Former Thatcher Adviser issues point-by-point rebuttal to Obama: ‘Does the ‘leader’ of the free world really know so little about climate?’ – ‘If this Obama speech was the very best that the narrow faction promoting the extremist line on global warming could muster for their mouthpiece, then the skeptics have won the scientific, the economic, the rational, and the moral arguments – and have won them hands down.’

‘All Large European Wars Occurred With CO2 Below 350 ppm’ Via Real Science website- Most Of The World’s Wars Occurred Below 350 PPM CO2 — ‘Now that we know that war is caused by global warming, I was very surprised to discover that the vast majority of wars occurred before 1988 – including the War of 1812′

UN Climate Chief: Middle East Was Peaceful When CO2 Was Below 350 PPM — UN’s Christiana Figueres: ‘Food shortages and rising prices caused by climate disruptions were among the chief contributors to the civil unrest coursing through North Africa and the Middle East’

Scientific studies comprehensively debunk the notion that rising carbon dioxide will lead to more wars.

Flashback: Debunked: the ‘climate change causes wars’ myth –Peer-reviewed paper ‘thoroughly eviscerates’ climate war claims — ‘The primary causes of civil war are political, not environmental’

‘A total takedown’ of myth by the Center for Strategic and International Studies — ‘Since the dawn of civilization, warmer eras have meant fewer wars. The reason is simple: all things being equal, a colder climate meant reduced crops, more famine and instability. Research by climate historians shows a clear correlation between increased warfare and cold periods. They are particularly clear in Asia and Europe, as well as in Africa’

Scientific American: ‘Greens Should Stop Claiming More Warming Means More War’

Follow the (military) money: Is the military ‘taking on climate change denialists’ or simply following the lead of its civilian leaders?

Conflict Deaths and Global Warming – ‘The problem is that the conflicts that are cited as examples of the phenomenon are located in areas known for both frequent conflict prior to the current warming period and for historical patterns of extreme climates similar to those seen today.’

Der Spiegel Demolishes Syria War-Climate Paper By Kelley et al.: ‘Hardly Tenable’…’Distraction From Real Problems’

Even BBC features harsh criticism of new study: ‘Their strong statement about a general causal link between climate and conflict is unwarranted by the empirical analysis that they provide’ — BBC: Rise in violence ‘linked to climate change’ — ‘Changes in temperature or rainfall correlated with a rise in assaults, rapes and murders’

Climate Depot Round Up Counters global warming/war claims:

Climate Depot’s rebuttal to Sen. John Kerry’s climate change/national security claims

Study: Cold spells were dark times in Eastern Europe: ‘Cooler periods coincided with conflicts and disease outbreaks’ –Published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences’: ‘Some of Eastern Europe’s greatest wars and plagues over the last millennium coincided with cold periods’ — ‘The Black Death in the mid-14th century, the Thirty Years’ War in the early 17th century, the French invasion of Russia in the early 19th century and other social upheavals occurred during cold spells. The team suggests food shortages could explain the timing of some of these events’

New study: Global cooling led to wars, famine and plagues in 1560-1660: Cold ’caused successive agro-ecological, socioeconomic, and demographic catastrophes’

Global Conflict Not Linked to Global Climate Change — ‘Wars in Burundi, Chad, the Dominican Republic, Indonesia, Peru, the Comoros, Congo, Eritrea, Niger, and Rwanda are so numerous that I could probably make a statistical argument that one in five wars are due to the AFC winning the Super Bowl’

Discovery News: Cold times led to angry runts, famine, and war; warm times led to The Renaissance

Remarkably sane article in Science: Warm periods are good, cold periods are bad

Time Mag reports: ‘Peaks of social disturbance such as rebellions, revolutions, & political reforms followed every decline of temperature’ — ‘Number of wars increased by 41% in Cold Phase’ — ‘Peaks of social disturbance such as rebellions, revolutions, and political reforms followed every decline of temperature, with a one- to 15-year time lag’

Study: Climate change ‘NOT to blame’ for African civil wars — ‘Climate variability in Africa does not seem to have a significant impact on risk of civil war’

A UN IPCC Scientist’s New Study! ‘Global Warming Sparks Fistfights & War, Researchers Say’: ‘Will systematically increase the risk of many types of conflict ranging from barroom brawls & rape to civil wars & international disputes’ — Climate Depot Responds

Related Links:

Watch Now: Morano in lively TV climate debate with enviro lobbyist: ‘The points she just made are demonstrably not true’

Sen. Inhofe calls Obama’s climate national security claims a ‘severe disconnect from reality’– Inhofe: ‘While the president has spent at least $120 billion on climate change initiatives since first taking office, he has also set into motion more than $1 trillion in budget cuts to our national defense. When I talk to military personnel, whether in Oklahoma or overseas, their greatest concern is not climate change. Instead, what I hear is their concern for global instability, the disarming of America and the lack of vision from their commander-in-chief.’

As Ramadi Falls, Obama Gives Troops Global Warming Speech

Obama Readies U.S. Troops For The War On ‘Global Warming’

Obama Tells Coast Guard cadets ‘dereliction of duty’ not to fight ‘global warming’ – In his speech, Obama said denying climate change or refusing to deal with it is negligence and “dereliction of duty.” “If you see storm clouds gathering or dangerous shoals ahead you don’t just sit back and do nothing,” President Obama said Wednesday. “You take action to protect your ship, to keep your crew safe. Anything less is negligence. It is a dereliction of duty. So to with climate change.” “Denying it or refusing to deal with it endangers our national security,” Obama also said. “It undermines the readiness of our forces.” PRESIDENT OBAMA: Climate change is one of those most severe threats. This is not just a problem for countries on the coasts or for certain regions of the world. Climate change will impact every country on the planet. No nation is immune. So I am here today to say that climate change constitutes a serious threat to global security, an immediate risk to our national security. And make no mistake, it will impact how our military defends our country. So we need to act and we need to act now. After all, isn’t that the true hallmark of leadership? When you’re on deck, standing your watch, you stay vigilant, you plan for every contingency. If you see storm clouds gathering or dangerous shoals ahead you don’t just sit back and do nothing. You take action to protect your ship, to keep your crew safe. Anything less is negligence. It is a dereliction of duty. So to with climate change. Denying it or refusing to deal with it endangers our national security. It undermines the readiness of our forces.

Obama: Climate ‘deniers’ endangering national security – “Climate change constitutes a serious threat to global security, an immediate risk to our national security, and, make no mistake, it will impact how our military defends our country,” Obama told new Coast Guard officers at the academy’s New London, Conn., campus. “And so we need to act — and we need to act now.”
Republicans in Congress, however, have stymied legislative action on climate change. The president took aim at GOP critics, saying temperatures are rising even though “some folks back in Washington” refuse to admit it. “Denying it, or refusing to deal with it, endangers our national security and undermines the readiness of our forces,” Obama added. He also questioned how Republicans could claim to support the military while downplaying the effects of global warming. “Politicians who say they care about military readiness ought to care about this as well,” he said. Obama claimed the rise of Boko Haram in Nigeria and the civil war in Syria were both fueled by instability caused by severe drought and crop losses connected to rising temperatures.

 


  • Tom Robbins

    This is shear bullshit and needs to stop. i sit here in the midwest at the end of may wanting to turn on my heat…

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/01/21/mit-climate-scientist-global-warming-believers-a-cult/

  • steven_felton

    Forgot when man landed on the moon.

    • SFTOBEY

      It doesn’t NEED to “grow into truth”. All it need do is have enough liars to convince the brainwashed and gullible to believe that the lie IS the truth. That is how nations are destroyed.

  • Isandhlwana79

    As AGW dies it’s slow death, the catastrophic lies get louder. When will people wake up and realize that CO2 is just a miniscule component of climate and is NOT the driver.

    • Sam Pyeatte

      The closer Obama gets to the end of his reign, the more shrill and silly will be the climate claims. The far-left is desperate to cement in the regulations that are holding back our country. Fortunately non-legislated regulations can be reversed quite easily. That is why it is critical to have a major power change in 2016 – to save the country and reverse foreign setbacks. Countries that used to be allies no longer trust us due to the treacherous actions of Obama and the prostrate Democrat enablers.

    • Fromafar

      When we get the world leaders, aka: “Sock Pupets” out of power.
      Not one day before.

  • Snowy Smith

    CO2 Global Warming is a massive JEW WORLD ORDER SCAM.
    Thousands of FRAUDULENT Carbon Taxes are to be used to FUND the JEW WORLD ORDER Communist One World Government.
    Never Forget:
    The Bolshevik JEWS MURDERED 62 MILLION White Christians in the Bolshevik Revolution 1917 USSR.
    The Bolshevik Revolution was started by the JEWS sent from New York, paid by the JEW New York Bankers.
    The JEWS invented Communism.
    Also
    The JEWS did 9-11
    https://wikispooks.com/wiki/9-11/Israel_did_it
    The Russians are NOT COMMUNIST.
    The JEW WORLD ORDER is COMMUNIST.
    JEWS invented COMMUNISM.
    The JEWS did 9-11.
    All part of the JEW WORLD ORDER.
    USA has been HIJACKED by the JEWS.
    USA is fighting all the ENEMIES of the JEWS.
    NO MORE WARS FOR THE JEWS.

  • Will Haas

    Consider the reputation of the speaker. Our President is known for making speeches that sound good to him at the time but that turn out to have little or no real meaning.

  • Brain Valentine

    So, I’m a climate denier and an enemy of the State.

    This is the worst idiocy i have seen in my life. Communist Russia was idiotic, but it didn’t get to this level

    • Fromafar

      Actually it did, but it’s certainly a distinction without a difference….

  • AGWisFraud

    Obama explained: “Denying it, or refusing to deal with it, endangers our national security and undermines the readiness of our forces.”

    How soon before skeptics are charged with treason and executed?

    • Falcon269

      When ISIS is raping and killing its way through Washington DC, Obama will threaten to fine them if they aren’t driving Prius’s. Strongly worded letter to follow.

    • Victoria Rege

      ✬✬✬▆✈▆▆✈▆▆✈▆▆Take advice with climatedepot < I didn't believe …that…my brother woz like truly making money part time at their computer. . there aunt had bean doing this 4 only seventeen months and resantly paid the dept on there apartment and bourt themselves a Lotus Elise .

      see this her ►►►►► ===—->-> SEE MORE DETAIL

    • Justa Joe

      “Denying it, or refusing to deal with it, endangers our national security and undermines the readiness of our forces.”
      That sounds like what BHO did to our forces in Iraq.

  • SFTOBEY

    The Usurper-in-Chief is so full of $hit he’s bubbling over! It would almost be funny, if this POS were not so intent to steal yet MORE of our hard-earned money and usurp even MORE power.

  • david russell

    What’s a bigger threat to US interests — Iran or ISIS? An argument can be made that it’s Iran, and that the only force in the Middle East (ex Israel) that can counterbalance Iran is ISIS. I read that the only real opposition in Iraq to ISIS are the Shia militia. So by fighting ISIS now are we not moving Iraq into becoming a vassal state of Iran?
    Now everyone is outraged by the beheadings and the outright mass slaughters. And we’re all …..well, frightened ….. that “ISIS is coming to the US.” But isn’t that all reacting emotionally and in disregard of where our true national interests lie? We spent 10 years and …..what? …. a couple of $T getting rid of Sadaam, training the 250,000 man Iraq army and giving the country a democratic govt. All their army seems able to do is run away and leave ISIS resupplied with all the gear we’ve given them. Iraq is not a real country (it’s at least 3) and not a real democracy.
    Everyone wants us to “do something.” Doing anything worthwhile would involve “troops on the ground.” As far as I can tell the only folks who want American troops on the ground is ……….wait for it………………..ISIS!!! And does anyone think we’ll be able to form a coalition of non-Arab state to go in and “clean up the mess” (which means make more mess in practical terms)? Where are the Egyptian troops, the Saudi troops? Bueller? Bueller? Anyone?
    My strategy for Iran would be “squeeze them harder with more severe sanctions” until we get them to cave in completely. And if they never do?…….”keep squeezing.”
    In case anyone is interested, I am not worried about catastrophic global warming [either].

    • Tomas Kristiansen

      I would love to see the biggest terrorist organization on planet earth, namely the US, being sanctioned to death. Could squeeze US until it learn to mind its own business. Iran is not a threat and no one has done more damage to the world than the US since the WW2. I’m from Norway and US is the country i’m worried about, not Iran or Russia…

      • david russell

        Interesting. I take the opposite view. But I see your point. I don’t really consider the US terrorist enough…. against our avowed enemies. I think you are confusing US military adventurism (which doesn’t work) with terrorism, which I believe will, against terrorists.
        If you are worried about the US think what would happen if some group killed 50,000 US citizens on our home ground. We’d do something really stupid and kill a lot of people, most of whom are not responsible. Much better to beef up our own terrorist networks, identify, locate, and track all the bad guys and take them out one by one. Infiltrate. Corrupt. Otherwise, we won’t have much flexibility when/if a big terrorist attack comes.
        Perhaps terrorist is the wrong word. Terrorists kill random people. I don’t advocate that (other than the families of terrorists). Make it too painful to be our enemy. And if that doesn’t change minds, increase the pressure.
        You could combine pain with pleasure. Pay people to turn on the terrorist groups. Provide direct aid to relieve extreme hardship.
        I also think the British “balance of power” and the German “real politik” were ideas that worked well.

  • The Joint Chiefs are just power tripping over themselves, and here is a fine example of what I am taking about.

    February 12, 2015 The Pentagon & Climate Change: How Deniers Put National Security at Risk

    The leaders of our armed forces know what’s coming next – but deniers in Congress are ignoring the warnings

    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-pentagon-climate-change-how-climate-deniers-put-national-security-at-risk-20150212

  • Will Haas

    I believe that Man’s burning up our fossil fuel resources as quickly as possible is not a good idea and I would like to use the idea that CO2 causes climate change as an additional reason for conserving on the use of fossil fuels. But AGW is very selective “science” with a lot left out. A real greenhouse does not operate on the basis of “heat trapping” greenhouse gases. A real greenhouse works because the glass, while allowing solar energy to enter, limits cooling by convection. So too on Earth. The atmosphere keeps the surface warm because gravity limits cooling by convection. It is the convective greenhouse effect that is why the Earth’s surface is 33 degrees C warmer than it would otherwise be if there were no atmosphere. A radiative greenhouse effect is not needed to explain it. So if a radiative greenhouse effect did exist, it must be very small. If CO2 did effect the climate the way that the AGW conjecture says it should then one would expect that the changes in CO2 we have been experiencing would affect the natural lapse rate in the troposphere but apparently such is not the case. So if a radiant greenhouse effect does actually exist, it must be very small, much smaller than the AGW conjecture claims it to be. To make the potential climate effects of CO2 seem significant, the AGW conjecture includes the idea that H2O provides a positive feedback to changes in other greenhouse gasses because more greenhouse gases causes warming at the Earth’s surface and lower atmosphere which causes more H2O to enter the atmosphere which in turn causes even more warming which in turn causes even more warming which in turn causes even more warming … . The whole situation sounds very unstable yet the Earth’s climate has been stable enough for life to evolve for at least the past 500 million years. But the AGW conjecture leaves out what else must happen in the atmosphere if changes in CO2 have any effect on climate. Besides being a greenhouse gas, H2O is a primary coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere moving heat energy from the Earth’s surface, which is mostly H2O itself, to where clouds form. According to energy balance models, more heat energy is moved by H2O via the heat of vaporization then by both LWIR absorption band radiation and convection combined. An increase in H20 also serves to decrease the temperature lapse rate which is further evidence that H2O is a coolant and acts to reduce the thermal insulation properties of the atmosphere. Then there is the issue of clouds and what happens in the upper atmosphere. When everything is included, H2O provides ample negative feedbacks to changes in other greenhouse gases so as to mitigate any effect they might have on climate. Then when you add the idea that there is no real evidence in the paleoclimate record that CO2 has any effect on climate it becomes very difficult to argue that CO2 has a significant on climate. The claim is that CO2 absorbs IR radiation but then re radiates it out in all directions. If that is so then CO2 does not trap heat as provided for by IR radiation but acts as a diffuse reflector. If CO2 is suppose to be such a good insulator can anyone provide an example where CO2 is used as an insulator in any engineering application?

  • Nower1965

    < col Hiiiiiii Friends…——–.???? ? @mi12//++climatedepot++ < Find More='' ……..''

    ??????????????????????????????????????????????’

  • NormanLChrisman

    Your first choice climatedepot Find Here

  • peter odonovan

    Hi
    Is there any possibility that this nonsense will finally be exposed
    For what it is. I have friends who actually believe that they are going to be flooded out by rising sea levels in the next twenty years.
    Is there any hope of sanity pulling through