Generals Go Gaga Over Global Warming Threat

A new report written by six retired Admirals and five retired Generals to be released today by national security think-tank The CNA Corporation takes global warming alarmism to a whole new level. The following report is from CNN:

Global warming poses a "serious threat to America's national security" and the U.S. likely will be dragged into fights over water and other shortages, top retired military leaders warn in a new report.

The report says that in the next 30 to 40 years there will be wars over water, increased hunger instability from worsening disease and rising sea levels and global warming-induced refugees. "The chaos that results can be an incubator of civil strife, genocide and the growth of terrorism," the 35-page report predicts.

Wars over resources? Civil strife? Genocide? You mean...like what's been going on in Africa for the last hundred years...without global warming?

"Climate change exacerbates already unstable situations," former U.S. Army chief of staff Gordon Sullivan told Associated Press Radio. "Everybody needs to start paying attention to what's going on. I don't think this is a particularly hard sell in the Pentagon. ... We're paying attention to what those security implications are."

Gen. Anthony "Tony" Zinni, President Bush's former Middle East envoy, says in the report: "It's not hard to make the connection between climate change and instability, or climate change and terrorism."

Maybe if you're a 9/11 Nutjob then it wouldn't be hard to make the connection but you'll excuse me if I disagree. What about making a connection between climate change and less cold related deaths in Europe? What about making a connection between climate change and higher rainfall in the tropics? What about making a connection between climate change and more fertile soils? What about making a connection between climate change and less hurricanes?

The report was issued by the Alexandria, Virginia-based, national security think-tank The CNA Corporation and was written by six retired admirals and five retired generals. They warn of a future of rampant disease, water shortages and flooding that will make already dicey areas -- such as the Middle East, Asia and Africa -- even worse.

Let me think about this. What rampant diseases is he referring to? Australia is one of the hottest places on earth already and we don't have rampant diseases. Given that global warming actually mostly takes place by increasing minimum temperatures thus forcing the average up - a point conveniently overlooked by most of the hysterical doom and gloomers - what diseases are going to become "rampant"? Malaria? That's already been completely debunked by Bjorn Lomborg and others. Why are we going to have water shortages? Israel is a world leader in desalination and water recycling technologies, which has allowed them to turn their piece of dusty Middle Eastern turf into a veritable oasis compared to others in the region. Where does the flooding come from? Even the IPPC's latest report suggests a rise of only 18 inches in the 21st century. Sounds terrifying to me. Let's stop all air travel, walk or ride bicycles to work, take trains, kill the manufacturing sector and generally wreck our economies and immiserise everybody just in case the never-been-right computer models actually have it correct.

"Weakened and failing governments, with an already thin margin for survival, foster the conditions for internal conflicts, extremism and movement toward increased authoritarianism and radical ideologies," the report says. "The U.S. will be drawn more frequently into these situations."

Am I the only one that sees the irony in this statement? The proposed solution by the global warming crowd is...socialism. Does anyone think that this is not extremist? A move towards increased authoritarianism? Radical? Seriously. What are these guys thinking? Didn't they spend the bulk of their careers fighting against totalitarianism? Why can't they recognise it when they see it?

Joining calls already made by scientists and environmental activists, the retired U.S. military leaders call on the U.S. government to make major cuts in emissions of gases that cause global warming.

The Bush administration has declined mandatory emission cuts in favor of voluntary methods. Other nations have committed to required reductions that kick in within a few years.

And most of them are missing their targets and under reporting their emissions. While ever China and India are not included in any solution then the whole thing is unworkable. Furthermore, while the cost of carbon credits are borne by the producing nation and not the consuming one the whole thing is completely unfair.

"We will pay for this one way or another," writes Zinni, former commander of U.S. Central Command. "We will pay to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today, and we'll have to take an economic hit of some kind. Or we will pay the price later in military terms. And that will involve human lives. There will be a human toll."

Don't the same people that promote AGW also tell us that the world is over-populated? Is one to assume that letting people die of starvation and disease is morally above them dying in a war?

Top climate scientists said the report makes sense and increased national security risk is a legitimate global warming side-effect.

So here we have ex-military men cogitating on the effects of global warming and climate 'scientists' becoming experts on national security matters.

The report is "pretty impressive," but may be too alarmist because it may take longer than 30 years for some of these things to happen, said Stanford scientist Terry Root, a co-author of this month's international scientific report on the effects of global warming on life on Earth.

But the instability will happen sometime, Root agreed.

"We're going to have a war over water," Root said. "There's just not going to be enough water around for us to have for us to need to live with and to provide for the natural environment."

That really does make me want to engage in the use of much profanity. We're not going to have a war over water, as I pointed out above. None of these ninnies allow for mankind's ability to develop technologies that solve the problems we have faced since time immemorial.

University of Victoria climate scientist Andrew Weaver said the military officers were smart to highlight the issue of refugees who flee unstable areas because of global warming.

"There will be tens of millions of people migrating, where are we going to put them?" Weaver said.

From where? Only tens of millions? That's about the same number of Mexicans that have invaded the United States. Or Muslims that have invaded Europe. Why not stick them in Greenland? Seriously. If there are tens of millions of people affected then doesn't that mean Greenland has substantially melted thus creating a perfect environment for the Climate Diaspora?

Weaver said that over the past years, scientists, who by nature are cautious, have been attacked by conservative activists when warning about climate change. This shows that it's not a liberal-conservative issue, Weaver said.

Scientists are by nature cautious are they? Real scientists, perhaps. Name one cautious pro-AGW climate scientist. Just the one will do. What about John Christie? He's so cautious that he's derided by Climate Fascists.

This report is one of the most lunatic things I've read in a long time. No doubt it will take its place alongside the IPCC reports and the Stern Report as proof that we need to slash our economic wrists and enjoy bleeding to death in order to save the world and future generations from ourselves. Maybe the Terminator movies aren't so far off the mark but instead of SkyNet taking over it's the climate models.