Bonus Chapter #2 (For Bonus Chapter Number 1 See: Intimidating the ‘Deniers’ to Enforce the ‘Consensus’ – Climate ‘deniers’ threatened with being ‘thrown in jail’
Read Full PDF version with footnotes here: Destabilizing the world.docx
Destabilizing the World
Did you know?
- One professor said CO2 was more deadly than Sarin nerve gas
- President Obama that claimed the Syrian civil war was fueled by global warming
Research shows that there is more political instability in colder times
Not only is global warming going to melt the polar ice caps, flood New York City, and drown the polar bears. It is also plunging the world into political instability.
As President Barack Obama declared in 2014, “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.” That is why “we need to act—and we need to act now.”
The threat is so dire that Obama felt justified in accusing those who are not committed to the climate change narrative of endangering our national defense: “Denying it, or refusing to deal with it, endangers our national security and undermines the readiness of our forces.”
A 2015 Pentagon report found that “climate change” was an “urgent and growing threat” to national security. The fourteen-page report cost taxpayers $22,000.
Causing War and Terror
The warmists are blaming the supposed changes in the climate for a host of problems in international relations—up to and including wars and terrorism.
President Obama asserted that both the rise of the terror group Boko Haram in Nigeria and the civil war in Syria were fueled by instability caused by severe drought and crop losses connected to global warming. The “severe drought helped to create the instability in Nigeria that was exploited by the terrorist group Boko Haram,” he said.
Obama’s EPA Chief Gina McCarthy claimed the rank-and-file soldiers of the U.S military believed climate change was one of the biggest challenges. “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,” McCarthy said in 2015.
In any case, as CNN Columnist John Sutter has noted, “climate change” is itself “a form of terror,” and “it’s one we’re wreaking on ourselves.” Bill Blakemore, who spent forty-six years at ABC News, has said, “Manmade global warming is, according to the world’s climate scientists, solidly on track to be far bigger than history’s biggest atrocity so far.” And carbon dioxide, apparently, is worse than chemical weapons. In 2017, the Nation a history professor referred to CO2 as the “other poison gas killing Syrians.” Yes, Professor Juan Cole of the University of Michigan called carbon dioxide, the harmless substance that we exhale with every breath “a far more deadly gas” than nerve agent Sarin.
Al Gore has claimed that climate change helped bring about Brexit by causing the Syrian upheaval, which produced an “incredible flow of refugees into Europe, which is creating political instability and which contributed in some ways to the desire of some in the UK to say ‘whoa, we’re not sure we want to be part of that anymore.’”
And it’s not just politicians blaming the refugee crisis on global warming. According to Professor Clionadh Raleigh of the University of Sussex, “Recent research purports that climate change is creating conflict, and leads to unchecked migration.”
While conceding that “Soviet nuclear warheads” were “a clear and present danger in our lives,” John Kerry has claimed, “Just as clear and present is the danger climate change poses to our economy and national security.” Like Obama, Kerry blamed those who are not on board with the global warming panic for putting us all in danger. “The science tells us unequivocally, those who continue to make climate change a political fight put us all at risk,” he said. “And we cannot sit idly by and allow them to do that.”
Kerry explained, “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.” The bottom line? “Long story short, climate change isn’t just about Bambi. It’s about us.”
The Real Threat
In 2015, Secretary of State John Kerry called climate change a “global threat” and boasted that the U.S. military was “first to deploy solar” in Afghanistan—just days before the Paris terror attacks.
Are we to believe that the Middle East was peaceful before CO2 emissions rose?
These claims that climate change is endangering national security do not hold up to scrutiny. They are contrary to history, actual data, and peer-reviewed studies.
A 2014 study in Middle Eastern Studies found that “focusing on external factors like drought and climate change in the context of the Syrian uprising is counterproductive as it diverts attention from more fundamental political and economic motives behind the protests and shifts responsibility away from the Syrian government.” In any case, “the humanitarian crisis of the late 2000s largely predated the drought period.”
According to University of Sussex professor Clionadh Raleigh, “There is very little evidence to suggest that the conflict and protest patterns that we see across developing countries is in any way correlated to climate change. . . . three distinct flaws characterize such research efforts; they often ask the wrong questions, present poor evidence, and remove references to other, more likely factors that cause conflict.”
A 2010 paper published in the peer-reviewed Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences refutes the notion that climate change is making African civil wars more likely: “The simple fact is this: climate characteristics and variability are unrelated to short-term variations in civil war risk in Sub-Saharan Africa. The primary causes of civil war are political, not environmental, and although environmental conditions may change with future warming, general correlates of conflicts and wars are likely to prevail. . . . The challenges imposed by future global warming are too daunting to let the debate on social effects and required countermeasures be sidetracked by atypical, nonrobust scientific findings and actors with vested interests.”
Warmer Is More Stable
Apparently, the climate activists have it backward. A 2011 study from the Center for Strategic and International Studies’ publication, The Washington Quarterly The study was titled “The Climate Wars Myth” found, “Since the dawn of civilization, warmer eras have meant fewer wars.” As author Bruno Tetrais explained, “History shows that ‘warm’ periods are more peaceful than ‘cold’ ones. In the modern era, the evolution of the climate is not an essential factor to explain collective violence. Nothing indicates that ‘water wars’ or floods of ‘climate refugees’ are on the horizon. And to claim that climate change may have an impact on security is to state the obvious but it does not make it meaningful for defense planning.” For this reason: “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.”
So it actually made more sense back in the 1970s when the CIA warned that global cooling would cause an increase in instability. At that time the agency declared that Earth’s “climate is returning to that of the neo-boreal era (1600–1850)—an era of drought, famine, and political unrest in the western world.” As a CIA report explained, “The western world’s leading climatologists have confirmed recent reports of a detrimental global climatic change. The stability of most nations is based upon a dependable source of food, but this stability will not be possible under the climatic era.”
And in the decades since the global cooling scare, even more evidence has confirmed the connection between conflict and cooling, rather than warming.
A study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research in January 2017 “constructed a geo-referenced and digitized database of conflicts in Europe, North Africa, and the Near East from 1400–1900” and merged it “with historical temperature data.” The result: “cooling is associated with increased conflict.”
And an analysis published in Scientific American in 2014 warned that “greens should stop claiming more warming means more war.” As John Horgan, the director of the Center for Science Writings at the Stevens Institute of Technology, explained, “In spite of the recent surge in violence in the Middle East, war-related casualties have fallen over the last half-century, as temperatures have risen…Anthropological research finds a weak linkage between resource scarcity and war…When they promote dubious claims, [climate activists] undermine their credibility and hence their cause.”
The analysis noted that a key chapter in the UN IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report in 2014 concluded, “collectively the research does not conclude that there is a strong positive relationship between warming and armed conflicts.”
A 2013 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that cold eras were dark times in Eastern Europe. “Some of Eastern Europe’s greatest wars and plagues over the last millennium coincided with cold periods,” explained a summary of the study in Science News. “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.”
A team led by David Zhang of the University of Hong Kong analyzed the period from 1500 to 1800 in Europe and found “the number of wars increased by 41% in the Cold Phase.” As the authors reported, “Peaks of social disturbance such as rebellions, revolutions, and political reforms followed every decline of temperature, with a one- to 15-year time lag.”
A 2011 Discovery News review of European history vis à vis the weather pointed out that “cold temperatures between 1264 and 1359 led to the Great Famine of the late Middle Ages” and “during the long cold spell between 1559 and 1652, average heights in Europe declined by 0.8 inches.” The latter “disastrous period in European history is referred to by historians as the General Crisis of the 16th Century. It was a time of starvation and deadly conflict, including the brutal Thirty Years War.” According to the article, “Climate changes influenced the good times as well. The Renaissance may have been a result of more hospitable temperatures. . . . The mild cooling in Europe in the late 18th and 19th centuries brought about an upsurge in prices, social disturbance, war, and migration but not demographic crisis, because of social buffers such as cross-continental migration, trade, and industrialization.”
Tony Heller’s website RealClimateScience noted that “all large European wars occurred with CO2 below 350 ppm.” Heller wrote sarcastically, “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,” at a time when carbon dioxide was below that level.
So UN climate treaties and EPA climate regulations will not prevent wars, solve conflicts or end terrorism.