Article re the President’s speech last week. See:
Climate Change an Immediate Risk to National Security
Blog Posting on the speech by the Homeland Security Digital Library.
Recovery Diva
Long-Term Recovery from Disasters
Article re the President’s speech last week. See:
Climate Change an Immediate Risk to National Security
Blog Posting on the speech by the Homeland Security Digital Library.
Recovery Diva 
Sorry John, but you are up against some heavy hitters on this topic.
Just call me John Quixote…
And you’re right – my views don’t line up with the mainstream. My only solace is that I’m looking at the facts – all of them – and doing what my mentors taught me decades ago: drawing conclusions from the data. As George Box said, “All models are wrong, but some are useful.” When the data diverge so far from the models then the models are no longer useful guides to the future.
Fact: the sea-level is rising – slowly (according to NOAA, about 3 mm / yr, i.e., about an inch a decade). Implication: we should be concerned about sea level rise but it doesn’t warrant draconian acts.
Fact: the latest evidence that the rate of sea level rise hasn’t changed over the last century. Implication: this is a slow change that we can easily adapt to.
Fact: the best evidence we have is that total ice mass is not changing and may even be slightly increasing.
Fact: the incidence and intensity of land-falling hurricanes has – if anything – slightly decreased over the last 50 years.
And so on.
This is certainly not the place to debate climate change; I apologize for letting my pique leak out. However, when the White House says “No challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change” I am appalled at both the ignorance and the hubris, and afraid that an ill-conceived political agenda – cloaked in “climate change” for respectability – will weaken the ability of my children and grandchildren to face future challenges, whatever they may be.
To John Quixote — it is fun jousting with you. We rarely agree, but our debates are civil.
I think most people would agree that founding one’s opinions on the unbelievably incomplete and selective “facts,” to use the term extremely loosely, stated above, rather than the vast, vast majority of climate scientists’ far more comprehensive data collection and analyses of ALL of the relevant data, trends, etc., is a considerably better example of hubris than listening to them would be. I also think that its definitely a better formula for generating “crock” as well.
I’m sorry – this is a crock! Climate change a bigger danger to our security than poverty and a host of others? I’m embarrassed that anyone takes this drivel seriously. Climate change may or may not be a danger. 20 years ago the science seemed settled, but since then Mother Nature’s behavior has mocked the certainty with which the modelers – and the shills like Al Gore – proclaimed the issue decided. Please note – I do believe climate change is real, but realistically I cannot fathom how anyone sees it to be as threatening as the modern day Candides seem to. They apparently see this as the best of all possible worlds that we must try to stabilize somehow or else…bad things may happen. In contrast, an interesting paper that recently appeared in The Lancet looked at millions of deaths globally and found that extreme cold killed 20X more people than extreme heat. Makes one wonder if this is, indeed, the best of all possible worlds. A little more warmth might be a very good thing…
Where is King Canute when we need his all-too-uncommon common sense?