World Leaders’ Terror of Climate Change

Playing to what amounted to a friendly home crowd at the Dubai U.N. Climate Change Conference (COP28), NATO secretary-general Jens Stoltenberg went there to deliver a message touting a relationship between global security and climate change, while emphasizing the necessity of shifting military resources to combat global warming.

In his speech, set against a backdrop of the Ukraine war, he was adamant about the influence of climate change on international security with conflict actually undermining “our capability to combat climate change because resources that we should have used to combat climate change are spent on our protecting our security with our military forces." He would even become apologetic about the Alliance’s reliance on fossil fuel–intensive military machinery, telling the audience, “If you look at big battle tanks and the big battleships and fighter jets, they are very advanced and great in many ways, but they're not very environmentally friendly. They pollute a lot, so we need to get down the emissions.”

Stoltenberg’s address at COP28 comes not long after President Biden’s September declaration in Vietnam that “the only existential threat humanity faces even more frightening than a nuclear war is global warming.” Then, just two days after the October 7 attack on Israel, instead of talking about hostages and the U.S. response, National Security Council spokesman John Kirby went in front of TV cameras defending that statement: “the president believes wholeheartedly that climate change is an existential threat to all of human life on the planet.”

But do world events — present or past — justify such inordinate interest by political leaders in climate change shaping the global security environment who go so far as to deem it an “existential threat to humankind”? Does the still uncertain and arguable science...

We had .iterally miles high glaciers covering the east coast, carving out the great lakes etc. Climate change melted those glaciers and Noone says boo about it!

Saw a meme the other day that said “when al Gore was born, there were 3600 (maybe it was 36,000, can’t remeber now) glaciers. Now Gore is old and there are.... 3600 glaciers (or 36,000- can’t remember)

Another meme said that when Gore was whining about the demise of polar bears there were (so and so number, again, can’t remember- let’s just say 10,000), now there are 110,000 (again, jusy guessing on the number, but you get the point). Guess we had better act quickly to save them!”

I obviously like that chart. But I also like the other two charts, which I think you sometimes post, showing the broader term glacial ages being cyclical, and the even longer term ice ages also being cyclical.

Our Modern Warm Period is just like other warm periods within our Holocene Glacial Period (which is gradually declining by the way, suggesting the next few warm periods and cool periods will be lower than the last few). And the HGP is just one glacial period within our Late Cenozoic Ice Age.

It's laughable "science" to freak out over the Modern Warm Period.

When my wife and I drive on a long trip we usually take the EV, which means stopping to charge it at road-side chargers. (About as often as my wife wants to stop and walk around for 10-15 minutes anyway.)

I wish I had a dollar for every time a fellow EV owner at the chargers thanked me for doing my part to save the world and such. LOL I usually show them the graph from comment # 1 and tell him that I don't fear the Modern Warm Period - in fact I'm glad we live in it instead of one of the cooling periods. LOL

Sometimes at that point I'm asked why we have the EV. I tell him it's because his political left cult leaders raise our energy costs to save the world from their warmageddon. So our family produces most of our energy on our own with solar -- the EV utilizes that free power both for local driving and the first 250 miles of a trip. The end result is we average charging at home over 1,300 miles per month, with 83% of that power free from solar (pulling less than 17% of our power from the grid for our all-electric home, including the power needed for charging the EV). As the political left keeps making energy less reliable and more costly, it won't impact us as much. I'm less liable to have to end early quasi-retirement if only 25% or so of the energy we consume has to be bought (17% of our power, plus what we buy to charge the EV on trips, plus gasoline for what little we drive the ICE pickup, plus random small bits of energy like swapping out the propane gas tank for gas grilling).

If we're still charging, the other EV owner almost always at that point says that the problem will be solved when the grid power is produced from only solar and wind. At that point I tell them that the grid needs to be reliable power, not intermittent power. And I also tell them that they're looking for an easy solution for their cult -- other people solve the problem of "clean" energy, not themselves doing it. I don't even believe the cult and yet in my zeal to be more energy self-reliant, I'm doing more than just about anybody else to make us not need coal and natural gas (only because I can't produce my own coal or natural gas or oil, otherwise I'd utilize them because they're very dependable and efficient energy sources). I've yet to meet a fellow EV owner with the put-up-or-shut-up attitude to the point where he charges his EV with mostly self-generated power. That tells me that they don't really believe the warmageddon cult they push.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.