But what does SecDef Hagel want to make a top priority of our nation's defense apparatus? A non-existent problem:
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel called on other nations to join the Pentagon in taking steps to mitigate and adapt to climate change, calling it a "threat multiplier" that could exacerbate global challenges if left unaddressed."Climate change is a threat multiplier," Hagel said at the Conference of Defense Ministers of the Americas in Arequipa, Peru, "because it has the potential to exacerbate many of the challenges we already confront today — from infectious disease to armed insurgencies — and to produce new challenges in the future."
The big brass really take this stuff seriously:
The Defense Department "Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap" released Monday touches on many of those points. The report said rising global temperatures, precipitation changes, increasingly frequent and intense weather events, and rising sea levels and storm surges pose risks.
"The effects of the changing climate will be felt across the full range of department activities, including plans, operations, training, infrastructure and acquisition," the report said.
The report paid a good deal of attention to the Arctic region, which has become a focal point for the Pentagon.
Get a clue, you worthless chunks of dog vomit:
End of September Arctic sea ice volume is up 84% since 2012, and second highest since 2006.
And, of course, Hagel is joined by his cabinet colleague, Secretary Global-Test
, in spewing the exhortations of a desperate movement:
Secretary of State John Kerry did not shy away from pejorative language when addressing "climate change" in his commencement speech at Boston College on Monday. Kerry referred to those skeptical of the Obama administration's climate claims as "members of the Flat Earth Society" who are "risking nothing less than the future of the entire planet" by resisting implementation of the administration's policies. At the very least, Kerry argued, what have we got to lose by taking the steps he and the president are advocating? [emphasis added]:
If we make the necessary efforts to address this challenge – and supposing I’m wrong or scientists are wrong, 97 percent of them all wrong – supposing they are, what’s the worst that can happen? We put millions of people to work transitioning our energy, creating new and renewable and alternative; we make life healthier because we have less particulates in the air and cleaner air and more health; we give ourselves greater security through greater energy independence – that’s the downside. This is not a matter of politics or partisanship; it’s a matter of science and stewardship. And it’s not a matter of capacity; it’s a matter of willpower.
Spoken just like an effete, east-coast Brahmin who never earned a dollar on a shop floor in his life. Listen up, you jackboot: We're so damn healthy now our average lifespan goes up constantly. The last six years have proven that there is no "putting people to work transitioning our energy" to play-like forms that can't hold their own in the marketplace, and still go kabust even with tax-dollar subsidies. On a related point, playing favorites in the energy marketplace is naked totalitarianism. Also, you want energy independence? Support fracking, and the Keystone XL pipeline, and coal mining.
The "if-we're-wrong" line is a tacit acknowledgment of the hollowness of the settled-science meme.
So just shut up. And resign. And slink away and never be heard from again. And quit destroying Western civilization.
UPDATE: Another pointy-head from the global administrative class chimes in with the same kind of climate-change dog vomit: the head of the World Bank.
No comments:
Post a Comment