We have a president who doesn’t know who the enemy is

Seriously?

Obama addressed the Coast Guard Academy graduating class this week and told them one of the biggest threats to national security is climate change.

“Climate change constitutes a serious threat to global security, an immediate risk to our national security,” he said, “and, make no mistake, it will impact how our military defends our country.  And so we need to act— and we need to act now.”

He basically said denial of climate change as a threat is dereliction of duty.

He said this in the same week the Islamic State overran Ramadi in Iraq and Palmyra in Syria. Ramadi is closer to Baghdad than Las Vegas is to Mesquite.

Despite those losses, Josh Earnest told the press Obama’s strategy to defeat the Islamic state has been a success.

North Korea has nuclear weapons and an insane leader capable to using them. Iran is on the verge of developing its own nuclear arsenal and it has the leaders capable of using it.

There has been no global warming in 18 years, despite all the computer model predictions, but Obama still is focused on preventing the temperature of the planet increasing 1 degree over the next century. Perhaps the should be more worried about a nuclear winter.

What alternative universe do these fools live in?

Obama at Coast Guard Academy. (AP photo)

 

 

Advertisements

53 comments on “We have a president who doesn’t know who the enemy is

  1. Winston Smith says:

    The one where Agenda 21 reigns supreme…

  2. Patrick says:

    Missed the president suggesting that climate change is the “biggest” threat to national security Tom; can you point out the quote?

  3. 2015 State of the Union: “And no challenge — no challenge — poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change.”

    View story at Medium.com

    At Academy: “And this brings me to the challenge I want to focus on today — one where our Coast Guardsmen are already on the front lines, and that, perhaps more than any other, will shape your entire careers — and that’s the urgent need to combat and adapt to climate change.”

    https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/05/20/remarks-president-united-states-coast-guard-academy-commencement

  4. He used the word “climate” 28 times.

  5. Patrick says:

    “Obama addressed the Coast Guard Academy graduating class this week and told them the biggest threat to national security is climate change.”

    But he didn’t, did he?

  6. nyp says:

    So, in other words, the President never said in his address to the Coast Guard Academy this week that the biggest threat to national security is climate change.

    He never said what Thomas Mitchell claimed he said.

    Aren’t you just the least bit embarassed?

  7. It’s our Community Organizer in Chief who should be embarrassed…I’ve never seen nor heard a bigger nitwit than this man. It’s a pity the cadets were subjected to this politically correct bravo sierra. (as nyp continues to play word games…)

  8. (correction – as nyp and Patrick continue to play word games…)

  9. nyp says:

    The President never said what Thomas Mitchell based his entire essay around.

    I would think that a newspaper editor would be sensitive to factual errors and would promptly publish spin-free, excuse-free corrections.

  10. Rincon says:

    It’s all rhetoric. If global warming has drastic consequences, then of course it is a threat to national security. If not, then it’s not. The same applies to ISIS, Al Qaeda, etc., except that they pose a small immediate threat while that of warming is mostly in the future.

  11. nyp says:

    According to Thomas Mitchell, “Obama addressed the Coast Guard Academy graduating class this week and told them the biggest threat to national security is climate change.”

    Except that President Obama never said that the biggest threat to national security is climate change. He simply never said it.

    Mr. Mitchell makes a factually false statement and then refuses to correct it. What kind of journalism is that?

  12. Patrick says:

    nyp:

    Its the kind that turn people that want objectivity and information, off to the press.

  13. dave72 says:

    Perhaps asking the military if climate change is a threat to national security might enlighten some of the flat-earthers and evolution deniers who see science as more of a threat to their almighty wallets instead of a prediction of things to come. Ask how the Norfolk Naval Station and other bases will fare when the tide comes in permanently.

  14. Winston Smith says:

    dave72: 18 years without warming, according to RSS satellite data. True or not?

  15. Steve says:

    Cartoonist turned environmentalist, but the guy IS FULLY ACCEPTED by the scientific community! (because he loves to parrot the true word)

  16. Patrick says:

    2010 hottest recorded tempurature. Exceeded in 2014.

    http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/10-warmest-years-globally

  17. Steve says:

    Plateau…plateau.

  18. Rincon says:

    18 years without warming? According to the NY Times, 2014 was the warmest year ever recorded with 2010 taking second place. Most of the others would have been recordbreakers too if not for the anomaly of 1998, which was freakishly warm.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/17/science/earth/2014-was-hottest-year-on-record-surpassing-2010.html?_r=0
    The rumors of warming’s demise are greatly exaggerated. That being said, yes, the Earth really hasn’t warmed appreciably since 2002 or so, but it has not cooled by even a smidgeon. My question is, why do the same people who refuse to acknowledge a 100 year trend suddenly become all excited over a 13 year trend, which doesn’t reverse one bit of the prior 100 year trend? That is irrational.

    No one can claim to even have a clue as to how great the risk is. The reason lies with the oceans. If currents are affected so that greater upwellings from the deep occur, we could even have centuries of cooling. If upwelling currents become substantially weaker, the warming would turn catastrophic. For this reason, antiscience Conservatives (a redundancy if I ever heard one) who claim that they know for a fact that there is no substantial risk are also irrational as are idiot Liberals who claim a certain apocalypse. Fact is, we are monkeying with a part of the atmosphere that we do not understand well enough to predict. It is by definition an experiment whose outcome is uncertain.

  19. Winston Smith says:

    True or false, recently updated NASA data show polar sea ice is approximately 5% about the post-1979 average?

  20. Winston Smith says:

    That’s “above”, not “about”.

  21. Rincon says:

    I believe you’re mixing up the arctic with the antarctic Winston. According to this NASA article, the arctic ice is as small as we’ve ever seen, running as much as 50% smaller than 1979. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/PolarIce/polar_ice2.php

    There is debate however about the antarctic and Greenland ice caps. The reason: “Many individual mountain glaciers and ice caps are known to have been retreating, contributing to the rising sea levels. It is uncertain, however, whether the world’s two major ice sheets-Greenland and Antarctica-have been growing or diminishing.” http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/PolarIce/polar_ice2.php

    How can we possibly be uncertain? Although the article only hints at it, it appears that the thickness of the icecaps was unknown in the past. If suitable altitude readings from the past are not available, there would be an insufficient historical record to render a valid judgement. But even if we argue that the antarctic ice has grown, does that validate any wacky conservative theory? Read my earlier post above. Perhaps you missed it. If ocean upwelling currents change, cooling is entirely possible, even when the earth is warming. The converse of course, is also true.

    Antiscience types always think that science is to be doubted until they seize upon some finding that supports their position. Then of course, they assume that the particular finding is immutable. Let me pound it in one more time. Humanity just isn’t knowledgeable enough to accurately gauge the risk of warming, but we are knowledgeable enough to know that there is a substantial risk. Among the educated, only Liberal and Conservative extremists believe that we know the future with even a crumb of certainty. Most of our population though, know enough about science to fill a thimble (same with history and politics). Credit our educational system, our media, and peoples’ lack of interest with that one.

  22. Bill Shuster says:

    What a frigging douche bag

  23. Winston Smith says:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2015/05/19/updated-nasa-data-polar-ice-not-receding-after-all/

    Rincon, I agree with you that there are extremists on both sides driving much of controversy, but I also have seen, since Climategate, data being manipulated primarily by the left to match their predictions. So much for following the scientific method.

    And, of course, there are billions of dollars at stake here, but Blood and Gore especially are waiting not-so-patiently to cash in on carbon credits. And Big Government types see this as just another way to control the populace.

    Sometimes, with things like this, it is a question of whom you trust, and so far the left have proven themselves untrustworthy.

  24. Rincon says:

    Yes, the question is whom (sic) you trust, and apparently, you have decided not to trust the scientists, as is common for Conservatives. I am not aware of any major data manipulation. Are you sure that isn’t just wingnut talk that you’ve seen?

    Almost everyone with any knowledge of the subject agrees on a few things:

    1) Greenhouse gases warm the planet. The degree of this warming is uncertain.
    2) Carbon dioxide levels have been below 300 ppm or so for the last 400,000 years or so. It is now near 400 ppm. All or almost all of the excess is manmade.
    3) The temperature of the earth has risen about a degree and a half or so over the past 135 years. The chances of this happening by chance are easily less than 50%.
    4) We are monkeying around with an active portion of the atmosphere. Predicting the effects with any accuracy is not humanly possible at this time.

    With this agreed upon knowledge, Conservatives feel that the best thing to do about a risk of unknown quantity is nothing. As I said, that seems irrational to me.

  25. IBD:

    Finally, President Obama addressed what he sees as the nation’s worst security threat, just days after the fall of Ramadi to ISIS and North Korea’s declaration that it has miniaturized a nuclear warhead to fit on an ICBM capable of reaching the United States.

    In a speech to graduates at the Coast Guard Academy, Obama said, yes, yes, terrorism is a grave danger. But there’s another one. “We cannot, and we must not, ignore a peril that can affect generations,” the commander-in-chief declared ominously.

    That threat? Global warming.

    Read More At Investor’s Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/politics-andrew-malcolm/052115-753669-obama-tells-coast-guard-graduates-climate-change-threatens-national-security.htm#ixzz3atQx1qPT
    Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

  26. Patrick says:

    “We cannot, and we must not, ignore a peril that can affect generations,”

    So, this is the quote, and everything else is editorializing.

    And who would disagree with the quote I wonder?

  27. Winston Smith says:

    Is there any meme currently being perpetrated as stupid as “conservatives don’t trust science”?

    Boys on the left: It’s a non-starter!

    You want to know why I’m skeptical of some science “truth”?

    Well, I’m from Washington State, where, in 1976, a single, 60-ish lady named Dixie Lee Ray was elected the state’s first female governor, but later lost in the 1980 primaries. After leaving politics, she tended to be very skeptical of environmentalists, writing a book that described them as, “mostly white, middle to upper income and predominantly college educated … they are distinguished by a vocal do-good mentality that sometimes cloaks a strong streak of elitism that is often coupled with a belief that the end justifies the means.”

    How dare she not trust the consensus of environmentalist scientists?! Was she some anti-science, head-in-the-ground, conservative Republican, who openly pooh-poohed evolution?

    Not really.

    You see, Governor Ray had a doctorate in Biology. During the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, she was the director of the Pacific Science Center in Seattle, which I frequented when young. She was named chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission in 1973. After her death in 1994, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) established an award in Dixy Lee Ray’s honor for engineering contributions to the field of environmental protection.

    Oh, and by the way, Ray was a Democrat, one of the few I’ve voted for in my life.

  28. Rincon says:

    So climatologists are not to be trusted nor environmental scientists (unless they toe the conservative line). Anti-science? It’s just possible.

    So what else have I heard from Conservatives regarding scientific issues? DDT is great stuff and never should have been regulated. The dangers of trans fat and salt are exaggerated. Many endangered species aren’t. Cigarettes don’t cause cancer or heart disease. Lead in paint and gasoline is essentially nonhazardous as are pcb’s, dioxin, phthalates, asbestos, bisophenol, methyl mercury, etc, etc . Fixing air and water pollution will ruin the economy. Marijuana will rot your brain. Creationism deserves an equal footing with evolution. Medicare should pay for PSA screening tests. The ozone hole is entirely natural and without risk. And my favorite (included just for fun) a woman’s body will prevent pregnancy in cases of legitimate rape.

    Conservatives anti-science? What gives you that idea?

  29. Winston Smith says:

    Rincon, if you’re suggesting some conservatives have said stupid things over the years, there’s no doubt. But they don’t exactly have a corner on that market, now do they? Maybe if the left wouldn’t exaggerate things, the right wouldn’t be so skeptical from the outset. Like you wrote before, there are problems from both extremes, and each subject should be examined separately, without bias or manipulation.

    But acting like only the right is at fault for the distrust of various scientific pronouncements is patently absurd.

  30. Patrick says:

    The very definition of the word “conservative”;

    con·serv·a·tive
    kənˈsərvədiv/
    adjective
    1.
    holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion.
    synonyms: traditionalist, traditional, conventional, orthodox, old-fashioned, dyed-in-the-wool, hidebound, unadventurous, set in one’s ways;
    1.
    a person who is averse to change and holds to traditional values and attitudes,
    Origin
    late Middle English (in the sense ‘aiming to preserve’): from late Latin conservativus, from conservat- ‘conserved,’ from the verb conservare (see conserve).

    Makes clear that those identifying themselves with this ideology are less likely to adopt science than others that do not call themselves conservatives.

    Conservatives were the last to believe the earth was round, that eclipses were not caused by serpents eating the sun, that the earth rotated around the sun, that the earth was not at the center of the universe, that species evolved, that smoking caused lung cancer, and now, that the climate is changing because of man.

  31. Rincon says:

    Well put Patrick. Now I wonder if anyone can find any large number of instances where science was all wet and the conservative types were actually correct. I suspect we can outnumber them 10 to 1.

    In response to your link Winston:”Scientists estimate that the Alps have lost half their glacier ice in the past century, 20 percent of that since the 1980s; glaciers in Switzerland have lost a fifth of their surface area in the past 15 years.” http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/alps-meltdown/#page=3

    Is this also inaccurate? Of all of the thousands of temperature measurements, the highly biased Heartland Institute found one unknown schmuck who claims a small set of data is inaccurate. Fine, I won’t try to discredit this guy. Suffice it to say that with or without exaggeration, the glaciers don’t lie. Switzerland has indeed warmed dramatically.

  32. Barbara says:

    Liberals love to quote President Eisenhower’s admonition on the Military-Industrial complex, but totally disregard his warnings concerning the scientific community. During the same 1961 address he stated “We must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.” Yes the love of money is all corrupting – politicians, military industrials, and even scientists.

  33. Steve says:

    It is no disbelief of science.

    It is distrust of how humans are, and will, USE that science.

  34. Rincon says:

    So tell me all of the ways that the distrust of science has benefited us.

  35. Steve says:

    All me to reiterate.

    It is NOT ” the distrust of science”

    It IS distrust of how humans are, and will, USE that science.

  36. Rincon says:

    The effect is exactly the same either way, so the distinction is academic.

  37. Steve says:

    No it isn’t…inventors, engineers and theoretical scientists throughout history have been regretful of what became of their works.

    It is NOT “the distrust of science”, it is how HUMANS USE that science.

  38. Rincon says:

    I repeat, tell me all of the ways that the distrust of science has benefited us. Not a very proud tradition.

  39. Steve says:

    Allow me to (again) REITERATE;
    It is NOT the “distrust of science”
    IT IS the distrust of how humans USE THAT SCIENCE.

  40. Winston Smith says:

    Was DDT created by science? Agent Orange? How about nuclear plants? GMO’s? There is nothing wrong with a healthy skepticism when it comes to anything science does…

  41. Steve says:

    “anything science does”

    Allow me to rephrase that…

    “anything humans decide to do with the science”

  42. Steve says:

    Better;
    “anything humans decide to do with what science makes possible”

  43. Winston Smith says:

    What about dolphins? L. Neil Smith’s, “The Probability Broach”.

  44. Rincon says:

    DDT, GMO’s, Agent Orange, and Nuclear plants are not examples of skepticism as to whether scientific findings are or are not inaccurate. They are (except perhaps, for GMO’s) merely examples of toxic creations that were, as Conservatives continue to believe is proper, considered safe until proven unsafe. In fact, it was the findings of scientists which led to limits on their use.

  45. Steve says:

    It took science to create those things.
    Humans used them…in many ways they are great examples of what I say. Are you REALLY trying to blame agent orange on conservatives?

    And you even had to make a (weak) admission surrounding GMO’s….

    AGAIN, it is NOT skepticism or distrust of science. IT IS DISTRUST OF HUMANS!

  46. Patrick says:

    Wouldnt a distrust of the way humans use science led to more regulations? And, how could libertarians profess a distrust of humans.

  47. Steve says:

    Regulations, depends on who has control.

    Asking the second one is ridiculous.

  48. Rincon says:

    You must not have read closely. Let me repeat: Agent Orange, and Nuclear plants are not examples of skepticism as to whether scientific findings are or are not inaccurate. Just because some things are created by science does. not make the scientists wrong. Conservatives argue over and over that science is wrong and historically, it is the Conservatives that were wrong in most cases.

  49. Patrick says:

    Rincon:

    Typically, as was the case with regards to “the earth being the center of the universe” or “the sun revolving around the earth” or even “man is not changing the climate” control is the issue.

    Whether it was religious conservatives desiring to control the population, or whether it is fossil fuel conglomerates desiring to control the population (and their money) conservatives have used their desire for control to persuade the population that science is wrong.

  50. Steve says:

    ” Conservatives argue over and over that science is wrong”

    Over and over I have responded, say it is distrust of HUMANS USES for the things science makes possible. I have stated many times now, science is fine…it proves things and discovers things. What PEOPLE do with those findings and discoveries is where the disconnect comes, Rincon.

  51. […] a commencement speech at the Coast Guard Academy this past week President Obama said “climate change constitutes a […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s