Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

NRC Report Links Climate Change To National Security

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the let's-see-who-the-patriots-are-now dept.

Earth 242

WOOFYGOOFY writes "The NY Times and Voice Of America are reporting on a study by the U.S. National Research Council (PDF) which was released Friday linking global climate change to national security. The report, which was developed at the request of the C.I.A., characterizes the threats posed by climate change as 'similar to and in many cases greater than those posed by terrorist attacks. 'Climate-driven crises could lead to internal instability or international conflict and might force the United States to provide humanitarian assistance or, in some cases, military force to protect vital energy, economic or other interests, the study said.' If the effect of unaddressed climate change is the functional equivalent of terrorist attacks on the nation, does the Executive Branch, as a matter of national security, have a duty and a right to begin to act unilaterally against climate change irrespective of what Congress currently believes?"

cancel ×

242 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Similar to the threat of terrorist attacks (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41943951)

So, basically, climate change is no threat at all?

Re:Similar to the threat of terrorist attacks (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41944593)

No, the real threat is from the ones pushing for draconian measures to combat climate change. It's necessary for their agenda.

Re:Similar to the threat of terrorist attacks (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41944871)

"Draconian?"

Really?

I always was curious as to how you climate change denialists imagine this ever dark-and-sinister "green agenda." Do you just imagine some dimly-lit, raspy figure tenting his fingers and intoning in a rattling hiss: "Yessss, yessss, just a few parts per cubic inch fewer of carbon dioxide and then they will all payyyyy. Evvvvery time I hear the lamentful wail of a businessssssssman who must adhere to my lunatic whimsssss, I am set upon with a mighty erectionnnnnn. Yessssss..."

Seriously dude, running your car with a slightly lower-volume engine and not being allowed to straight-up vomit toxic gas into the air without paying a fine isn't exactly the same as unlawful search and seizure. I can kind of appreciate the notion that using the specter of global warming as a threat is bothersome to people who don't "believe" in global warming, but lower pollution is pretty well agreed-upon as better for the environment and, you know, people.

If you really think I'm being glib, please tell me what the awful, unthinkable measures you, your family, your friends, or even your employers have undergone that have just torn their lives asunder so as to condemn this apparently-fabricated-by-the-majority-of-the-scientific-community "agenda."

Re:Similar to the threat of terrorist attacks (3, Insightful)

bunratty (545641) | about 2 years ago | (#41945015)

Like switching to energy sources not derived from fossil fuels? How is that draconian? We have to do it at some point anyway because fossil fuels will last only the next few centuries. We might as well switch to alternatives before supply goes down and energy prices go way up. Oh, wait, too late for that. Well, let's switch ASAP before energy prices go sky high.

Re:Similar to the threat of terrorist attacks (4, Informative)

symbolset (646467) | about 2 years ago | (#41945101)

The solution may be closer than we thought [teknat.umu.se] .

Re:Similar to the threat of terrorist attacks (2)

gagol (583737) | about 2 years ago | (#41944849)

The real threat is the scaremongering about everything and anything and refusal to question status-quo in order to protect the interests of very few very rich people. Let's face it, US is fueled by fear and paranoia.

Re:Similar to the threat of terrorist attacks (0)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | about 2 years ago | (#41945153)

The real threat is the scaremongering about everything and anything and refusal to question status-quo in order to protect the interests of very few very rich people. Let's face it, EARTH is fueled by fear and paranoia.

FTFY

Greater threat than the terrorist attacks (5, Insightful)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 2 years ago | (#41943969)

The report, which was developed at the request of the C.I.A., characterizes the threats posed by climate change as 'similar to and in many cases greater than those posed by terrorist attacks'

That's because almost anything that comes to one's mind is more dangerous that terrorist attacks (e.g.: cars, coal power plant emissions, nicotin, alcohol...) Well, I guess alien invasion is slightly less risky. I'm willing to admit as much as that.

Re:Greater threat than the terrorist attacks (2, Interesting)

erroneus (253617) | about 2 years ago | (#41944171)

Now I have to take issue with your sense of what is dangerous. Terrorist attack is dangerous. Lions are dangerous too. We just don't have them in my neighborhood. Tornadoes are dangerous too. Just that they are slightly less rare than lions walking down the street.

Now if you were to substitute "likely" for "danger" you might be making some sense. But then again, global warming [aka climate change... change we can believe in] already here and things are already changing. Coastal areas should be becoming less valuable. Inland areas, especially plains areas (though not in tornado alley) should be becoming more valuable. It's all about the weather and those beautiful beaches might still be attracting tourism and vacationing, but business would be well advised not to be there where hurricanes can take our your data centers for weeks on end.

New weather patterns call for new ways of doing things. Some things will be more valuable while others less. Smart people will consider that a bit more.

Re:Greater threat than the terrorist attacks (5, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 2 years ago | (#41944407)

I suspect that, for the 'national security' types, the bigger issue is not so much the changing value of real estate, or even the cost of mopping up a few more hurricanes per decade; but the sort of really wacky social dysfunction that can be reasonably expected in the large areas of the world where people enjoy limited mobility, paltry incomes, and a somewhat tenuous record of liking us.

Even modest price shocks in the cost of essential food items cause the bottom billion or two to get(quite understandably) jumpy. Shifts in climate and precipitation are, of course, ideal causes for serious disruptions in agriculture, and likely a certain amount of mayhem, migration of desperate people to slightly less screwed places that really don't want them coming in(if you think nativist sentiment in Greece is on the rise now...), and so forth.

As an incumbent major power, that's the sort of thing that is unlikely to be fatal; but entirely likely to make dealings with large areas of the planet just that much messier, bloodier, and more expensive...

Re:Greater threat than the terrorist attacks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41944991)

The only effect climate change has had on food prices is the requirement for ethanol causing corn prices to skyrocket worldwide. There is no proof of it, but the reactions to it have already caused damage. However, we are told by AWG people that we need to pay more for things like food, so I'll have to conclude that AWG proponents don't care about the bottom 2 billion people anyways since their policies have already done those people damage. But with their claims of population being too high, that may be their "final solution" to the population problem, put in policies that starve out 2 billion people until they die and population is under control.

Re:Greater threat than the terrorist attacks (1, Insightful)

kenorland (2691677) | about 2 years ago | (#41945047)

but the sort of really wacky social dysfunction that can be reasonably expected in the large areas of the world where people enjoy limited mobility, paltry incomes, and a somewhat tenuous record of liking us.

The world has many centuries of experience with famine, natural disaster, and disease, and victims of those calamities rarely if ever turn into terrorists. Terrorism is based on ideology and inferiority complexes, not rational behavior, and you can't combat it by taking rational action. If people want to blame the US, they will blame the US regardless of whether the US is actually responsible (objectively, it is still Europe, not the US, who is responsible for the largest part of global warming).

Furthermore, the policies advocated for combating global warming are going to perpetuate suffering and poverty across the world. If you want to minimize the social consequences of global warming, forget about trying to stop the unstoppable, and instead invest in economic development across the world. For developed nations, even the worst case predictions for global warming amount to little more than a rounding error in the GNP; the more nations we help to develop rapidly economically (mainly through free trade and open markets), the fewer people will suffer significant consequences from global warming.

Re:Greater threat than the terrorist attacks (0, Troll)

hairyfeet (841228) | about 2 years ago | (#41945059)

Except these things are solvable WITHOUT killing the economy, if you can get rid of the damned NIMBYs and the tree huggers that scream "You may kill the (insert some bug you never heard of)!"..how? Desalinization. We can set up desalinization plants and turn the oceans into the biggest source of fresh water in history, then you can use that to either make the deserts into fields or you can build huge hydroponics towers that crank out food like nobody's business. All it takes is the will, if we could make it to the moon in a decade with frankly primitive tech we can do this with tech that already exists. Hell they already have a pilot plant in the UK that is making pure gasoline out of fricking seawater, we combine that tech with desalinization plants and the two biggest problems, food and fuel, could become solvable.

But as we have seen trying to build everything from nuclear plants to even windmills the fucking NIMBYs and treehuggers will cockblock you at every turn, you can't get a damned thing built in this fricking country anymore. hell the Chinese will have TWENTY FIVE nuclear reactors built before we can get a single one through all the damned committees and political bullshit!

I have a feeling they want to list it as a national security problem for that exact reason, so they can tell the NIMBYs and treehuggers to STFU and actually get shit built in this country again. Like it or not there are facts one simply has to accept 1.- We HAVE to have ever growing amounts of power, without power our standard of living is gonna go right down the shitter, 2.- Ditto on fuel, this country is just too damned big for limited range electrics to do the job without having a trillion dollar overhaul of our road system to embed power transfer lines, and we just don't have the money to undertake that massive of an overhaul at this time, and 3.- We have to have food that everyone can afford, without food you have riots and upheaval.

So I'd say this problem is solvable if we can get the fucking leeches like Al Gore and the damned NIMBYs out of the way, because horseshit like carbon credits only torpedo what little manufacturing we have in the USA (since China and India have already stated they won't play our carbon three card monty) and like it or not when you build shit you are gonna be dealing with some kind of insect or animal, since there pretty much isn't a single inch on the planet that don't have bugs or critters. If the NIMBYs and treehuggers would have been around during the early twentieth century we wouldn't have a single power plant or dam or reactor in this country as they would have cockblocked. So while I may not agree that it should be labeled a national security matter, as that bring in eminent domain and a bunch of other nasty power grabs, i can at least see why they would want to take that route.

Re:Greater threat than the terrorist attacks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41945247)

I'm with the guy who uses "cockblock" and "fucking NIMBYs" liberally throughout his idea to save the planet.

Re:Greater threat than the terrorist attacks (1)

erroneus (253617) | about 2 years ago | (#41945285)

NIMBYs are thwarted by using eminant domain laws. And they will be used as needed.

Re:Greater threat than the terrorist attacks (1)

erroneus (253617) | about 2 years ago | (#41945267)

It all starts with land. After land comes everything else. Land is a means of production, quite often... some land better than others. Land offers means of transportation... some land better than others. You get the idea. Throughout man's existance as a thinking being, land has been the most significant thing. Heck, for that matter, you don't even have to be human. Other animals value land too. And that's where it all begins.

Global warming will affect the land and what you can do with it. It will make valuable land worthless and worthless land valuable. And with value comes people trying to take it away... and when that happens...

Re:Greater threat than the terrorist attacks (4, Insightful)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 2 years ago | (#41944451)

I was talking about deaths per year caused by the respective issues.

I recently studied how many birds die annually by "hand of man" - as in, if we weren't here with the whole of our civilization, they wouldn't die. I wanted to know because of some people's arguments against wind energy because of the occasional bird deaths, and it turned out that one of the leading causes of man-caused bird deaths - in the US at least - are window panes. Specifically, window panes kill something like four to five orders of magnitude as many birds as wind turbines. Similar numbers apply to agriculture (fertilizers, pesticides), open air power lines, automobiles, and - of course - domestic and feral cats. Even if you take the wind power market expansion into account, it's not likely that wind turbines will ever be worthy mentioning to anyone actually caring about birds. And now, show me people willing to giving up windows on account of birds.

I suspect that the situation with humans is very much like this. There are many more deaths from other causes than terrorism on the US soil that could be prevented at a much more modest cost. The problem is that these deaths are not as flashy as airplanes driven into buildings, and therefore unlikely to attract the attention of an average citizen and voter.

Re:Greater threat than the terrorist attacks (2)

erroneus (253617) | about 2 years ago | (#41944545)

I suspect the fight against wind power has more to do with other energy producers than eco-nuts.

After all, anyone with last can set up wind power.

Re:Greater threat than the terrorist attacks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41944833)

"I recently studied how many birds die annually by "hand of man" Don't mess with KFC!

Re:Greater threat than the terrorist attacks (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 2 years ago | (#41945309)

Did you take into account large, endangered birds? It's a serious question, and I think important. I could see it being more likely that a California Condor or Bald Eagle would hit a wind turbine than a window.....

Re:Greater threat than the terrorist attacks (2)

fm6 (162816) | about 2 years ago | (#41945375)

I agree with your math-based approach to hazards, but I think you might be understating the impact of wind farms on birds. The problem is that good sites for wind farms tend to be in migratory flyways. Other human impacts tend to be more random.

Not, in itself, an argument against wind farms, since there are ways you can mitigate the effect (careful siting mainly). Just pointing out that the scale of a project does not necessarily correlate to impact.

There's one plan (1)

Andy Prough (2730467) | about 2 years ago | (#41944741)

that would completely protect coastal flood zones, provide nearly unlimited green energy with almost no carbon or heat footprint, and would almost completely insulate the country from the effects of large terrorist or economic attacks. It would also provide almost unlimited clean, fresh water supplies. The surplus energy from the project would be of such a large quantity, that the US economy would be transformed by becoming a worldwide power grid contributor almost overnight.

Think Hoover dam here.

But folks won't go for it. Solves too many problems.

Re:There's one plan (3, Informative)

Genda (560240) | about 2 years ago | (#41945103)

Hydro has been investigated to death. It will never provide more than a fraction of the nation's power needs and has significant environmental problems of its own. There are a huge number of exciting energy and fresh water technologies showing up. Great ideas that beginning to not only look feasible, but profitable. Check out this month's article on Cold Fusion in Discover magazine. It seems a number of breakthroughs in CF including a theory as to what is actually happening is getting a very good reception from applied physicists. There is solid evidence that anchored lighter than air win turbines could harvest 100x more power than ground based wind turbines. Solar cells have passed 33% efficiency, and new technologies promise cheap ubiquitous solar collection on an infinitude of surfaces. OTECs placed around the world in deep water along the equator could produce huge electrical energy, vast amounts of fresh water, and equally vast supplies of seafood (diverse ocean based aquiculture.) This doesn't even mention that being on the equator, they would be perfect launch sites for space traffic. We can even take the energy we produce now and us it to generate hydrogen, methanol, and petroleum directly from water and CO2 in the atmosphere giving us unlimited supplies of carbon neutral fuel. By the way, anyone who's worked with sodium hydroxide knows how much water is can suck out of the air. Solar powered portable water supplies wll soon be sent to the driest places in Africa to save millions of lives. When we look for solutions to making the world a richer place, rather than how can "I" enrich "Myself" to the world's detriment, we all become richer.

We now have the means in our grasp to resolve the many problems facing humanity, however it would demand giving up petty political bickering, religious conflict, national self interest, but most of all prying the white knuckled, crypt keeper death grip of the bankers and mega-corporations from our governments and and financial resources. A very few men of vision and courage, backed by global regions and working in concert could forever transform what was possible for being human, but we'd all have to stop being obsessed with our pasts or some silly apocalypse and focus instead on the future. Perhaps even a future worth living in for all people.

Re:There's one plan (2)

Andy Prough (2730467) | about 2 years ago | (#41945203)

Hydro has been investigated to death. It will never provide more than a fraction of the nation's power needs and has significant environmental problems of its own.

You are thinking of a dam - wrong direction - more like a coastal barrier. And in fact, hydro is cheaper than OTEC by a few cents per kilowatt-hour, although your idea of offsetting the cost with fresh water, seafood, and space traffic launch site benefits would be very intriguing.

however it would demand giving up petty political bickering, religious conflict, national self interest, but most of all prying the white knuckled, crypt keeper death grip of the bankers and mega-corporations from our governments and and financial resources

With the correct system, religious conflict has little or no impact. But you are right about prying the pennies from the death grip of the Bilderberg Club.

Re:Greater threat than the terrorist attacks (1)

fm6 (162816) | about 2 years ago | (#41945263)

Doesn't that depend on the alien? If they're "To Serve Man" aliens, it might actually be a good thing, since they'd want to farm their humans sustainably.

And away we go! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41943993)

this post intentionally left blank

In the long run possibly (4, Insightful)

Chrisq (894406) | about 2 years ago | (#41943995)

The thing is you have to weigh up the possibilities of people starving in a century against the probability that a group of muzzies will bomb the subway next week. Whereas ideally you should counter both it is a lot easier for the government to get praise for finding another bomb factory than to carry out actions that might show effects in 20 years time.

Re:In the long run possibly (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41944363)

"muzzies"?

So you are a racist pig...

Re:In the long run possibly (3, Funny)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 2 years ago | (#41944495)

Pigs are *not* racist. They eat just about anything (or anyone) you feed them with. Equal-opportunity digesters, so as to speak.

Re:In the long run possibly (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41944497)

Yes, off with his HEAD! That will teach the infidel dog Chrisq to defame the one and only true religion of peace, Islam. Muslims are not violent people, we are a religion of pe...what? That 12 year old girl isn't wearing a burqua! That filthy WHORE! Throw acid in her face so she will never whore again!

Alalalalleeleeleeleeleelalalalalaalalalalalal!

Re:In the long run possibly (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 2 years ago | (#41944517)

I'm gonna go with irony.

Re:In the long run possibly (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41944947)

Check ChrisQ's posting history. While he's pretty rational on most topics, when it comes to Islam he is a shrieking raging bigot.

Re:In the long run possibly (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41944531)

Makes one wonder if ol' Ike was wrong about the negativity of having the same guy in charge for over a decade.

Re:In the long run possibly...NO Change Possible? (1, Troll)

BoRegardless (721219) | about 2 years ago | (#41944597)

Sea level has risen 150 feet in the last 20,000 years or so. What God given rule says it will not go up another mere 5 feet regardless of man?

What happens if man's efforts consuming 10% of the productive output of the nations of the world produce no effective change?
What happens if the national effort causes the US to go into a depression that causes a population die off & collapse of average incomes?
What if changes the bureaucrats (who always know the right thing to do) make the climate change worse?
How long will it take to make significant change?
Can the developed nations change and overcome the effect of underdeveloped nations?
What happens when the United Nations tries to tell every country what to do? Does everyone lose their national sovereignty?

Re:In the long run possibly...NO Change Possible? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41944721)

Sea level has risen 150 feet in the last 20,000 years or so. What God given rule says it will not go up another mere 5 feet regardless of man?

Genesis 9:13.

God promised to never try to kill us again (with floods). He gave us rainbows to prove that he's good on his word. That's a rule, bucko! Worst case scenario prodigious incest will once again save the day!

Re:In the long run possibly...NO Change Possible? (2, Insightful)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | about 2 years ago | (#41945017)

What happens if man's efforts consuming 10% of the productive output of the nations of the world produce no effective change?

So you wouldn't have gone to the moon?

What happens if the national effort causes the US to go into a depression that causes a population die off & collapse of average incomes?

Wars do far more damage. This is called investment and is the single best way to stimulate an economy. All that gov't spending? pays people who then buy things thus increasing demand. Is gov't spending the solution to everthing? of course not. But when big big things need to be done, the private sector simply isn't going to do them.

How long will it take to make significant change?

Sometimes you don't know the answers before you start. And waiting makes it worse. Did JFK know we could get to the moon in under a decade? Of course not, he just picked a date based on some basic assumptions and we went to work.

Can the developed nations change and overcome the effect of underdeveloped nations?

If we can invent more efficient and less harmful technologies...we can sell them that stuff

What happens when the United Nations tries to tell every country what to do? Does everyone lose their national sovereignty?

If you can come up with a better plan than the UN for dealing with international issues, by all means. Lots of people have tried.

Re:In the long run possibly (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41944961)

Let's not turn this into another reason for the government to tax us dry. The wars are already doing a good enough job at that. I am for environmentalism, but I am not for severe restrictions into which I fear this may turn.

Regardless of whether global warming is man-made, I feel we need to be environmental for the sake of lessening pollution. It can be bad enough living in an area where the air outside smells a portion of the day because of factories, even if the factories don't have any reasonable effect on the weather.

Re:In the long run possibly (1)

fm6 (162816) | about 2 years ago | (#41945389)

As the saying goes, what has posterity ever done for us?

Are the nuts right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41944001)

Just great... this is making all the conspiracy nuts look like they were right.

From the looks of it, by tying global warming to national security, it allows the executive branch to do act unilaterally.

Re:Are the nuts right. (2)

erroneus (253617) | about 2 years ago | (#41944205)

They are only conspiracy nuts when it's not the government thinking these thoughts? Uh... Got news for you jack. The government is people. And so are the conspiracy nuts. So... seriously... how different is it all really? After all, we've got government ignoring, banning and denying science and other facts left and right, day in and day out. Sure, it might make you sleep better believing your god (government in this case) is always watching over you, but really? How much government nonsense do you buy on a daily basis? I never ONCE believed that going to Iraq or Afghanistan was "for our freedom." They were never a threat to that. The only threat there is from the people who want to take it... correction, from the people who have taken it.

Re:Are the nuts right. (4, Insightful)

sjames (1099) | about 2 years ago | (#41945311)

I'm not really a fan of the executive acting unilaterally, but with an obstructionist House whose committee on science, space, and technology includes a member who claims that evolution and the big bang theory are "all lies straight from the pit of hell" and another that claims that women can't get pregnant from "legitimate rape", I can understand the temptation.

Perfect (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41944027)

Pre-election: not a word about climate change
Post-election: half a dozen Slashdot articles about it in the first week

Democrats knew they'd lose if they brought it up too often. Now that they're in, it's time to funnel billions of tax dollars into green startups, have the CEO's give back half of it as campaign contributions, pocket the rest and declare bankruptcy. Politicians win, executives win, workers lose, taxpayers lose.

Captcha: "trapped". So appropriate.

Re:Perfect (2)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 2 years ago | (#41944311)

No offense, but that doesn't say much about politicians.

It does say a LOT about the people of the nation in question however.

Re:Perfect (2)

equex (747231) | about 2 years ago | (#41944347)

germany just called, they have some spare power to sell because of green startups

Re:Perfect (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41944499)

Sandy is what's shifted the public conversation to climate change. Irrespective of cause it's a taster of things to come if the issue isn't taken seriously. Some people say "global warming", I prefer to say "an increasingly energetic meteorological system" because that's what it means.

Interesting contrast (1)

ThorGod (456163) | about 2 years ago | (#41944035)

Okay, seriously, the universe, "nature", definitely poses a greater threat to humanity than humanity itself. Sure, we could nuke ourselves to oblivion. But that's just one way...asteroids, mega-volcanoes, hurricanes, Tsunamis, an ice age, floods, droughts, etc etc can all be plenty destructive or even lead to annihilation. Contrast that with "terrorism": no-known "nuclear threat", doesn't even have a country identity. Terrorism's basically a bunch of violent yahoo's looking for ways to hurt the US. They're still just people and with no where near the destructive capability of what "nature" can bring to bare.

Re:Interesting contrast (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41944275)

It's Anthropogenic Climate Change that's the issue here. WE are the problem, Pogo. What the Intelligencia are saying is that the effects will be every bit as severe as any attack imaginable, and we have within our power the ability to do something about it. It's like your parents telling you it's time to get serious about your future.

If it were just an act of God, like asteroids or haemorhoids, they'd probably let it alone, but they're calling to light the incompetence of those in Congress who can't find their ass with both hands, much less extrapolate probable scenarios from scientific studies and available data.

CIA to Congress: While you're fiddling, we see Rome starting to burn.

Re:Interesting contrast (1)

Genda (560240) | about 2 years ago | (#41945273)

The issue is and has always been magnitude. Human beings are just piss poor at gauging real threat. We gobble up oat bran then pack burgers away like they're going out of style. Silly Rabbit... We worry obsessively about terrorism, something that's killed what, 10,000 U.S, citizens maybe in the last century? By the way, this isn't to ignore the fact there are places like Israel where terrorism is a real problem (both the terrorism coming in and going out.) Then we shake in our boots over air travel (the safest means to get from here to there) and are blithely mowed down by the hundreds of thousands by our cars and driving through traffic

The universe is a real threat and its worth the ridiculously small investment globally to protect ourselves from the worst possible extinction threats. That said, global climate change threatens to; devastate our infrastructure, food availability, promote the spread of tropical diseases, impact global political and economic stability and change the very shape of the land we live on. Over then next century humanity will choose whether to live on primarily land or water. Threats from deep space are a popcorn fart in a hurricane by comparison. We need to stop being lead by our phobias and begin getting straight about what we're facing as a collection of cultures and as a species.

To paraphrase Dickens, "It is the best of times, it is the worst of times..." We stand at the crossroads and only sane, sober, logical choices will now call the day. Its time to forget about the boogeymen. Slap or governments back into shape. And most important, inform the wealthy and powerful that in the face of threatened billions, their wealth and power are delusions. Dangerous delusions. Its time to do what is best for all of us, and not a vanish few who think the world is their oyster.

FA7ILZORS.. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41944051)

880 mhz machine or chair, return [klerck.org]? troubles of Wal8ut triumphs would soon that he documents posts. Therefore [samag.com] in the be treated by your

Perhaps scientists will gain some listeners (3, Insightful)

h00manist (800926) | about 2 years ago | (#41944059)

After years of horrible persecution of scientists and accusing them of crimes for the results of their research and voicing their opinion, taking us back to the middle ages, perhaps now they will gain a bit more respect. But we're still far from paying them anything near what they deserve, anywhere in the world.

Re:Perhaps scientists will gain some listeners (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41944367)

After years of horrible persecution of scientists and accusing them of crimes for the results of their research and voicing their opinion, taking us back to the middle ages, perhaps now they will gain a bit more respect. But we're still far from paying them anything near what they deserve, anywhere in the world.

Your statement is extremist. You are construing it as if the 'persecution' of scientists is a response to 'their research and voicing their opinion'. In reality that is an extremist framing of the truth, as it ignores and whitewashes a lot of misconduct that does not reasonably fall under either.

Re:Perhaps scientists will gain some listeners (0)

KeensMustard (655606) | about 2 years ago | (#41945217)

After years of horrible persecution of scientists and accusing them of crimes for the results of their research and voicing their opinion, taking us back to the middle ages, perhaps now they will gain a bit more respect. But we're still far from paying them anything near what they deserve, anywhere in the world.

Your statement is extremist.

Michael Mann was accused (indirectly) of pedophilia. Is he a pedophile? If he is not, isn't this accusation an extreme one?

You are construing it as if the 'persecution' of scientists is a response to 'their research and voicing their opinion'. In reality that is an extremist framing of the truth, as it ignores and whitewashes a lot of misconduct that does not reasonably fall under either.

Care to detail exactly what this misconduct was, or are you going to slink away? Are you prepared to bring these accusations to a court, so that the scientist(s) in question might face their accuser?

I'm genuinely curious about how you will explain the evidence for climate change by mere misconduct on the part of thousands of conspirator scientists. How about Tyndall? Did those scientists travel back in time?.... Or, in fact, is Tyndall the source of the consipiracy ... but how was secrecy maintained for 150 years? ... Only fear could control such a diverse group of people for so long, but fear of what? .... Tyndall himself of course! That's it! Tyndall never died, he transformed himself into steam powered half machine/half 1800's man using 'steam punk' technologies!! Jules Verne hinted at it in his seminal work on the matter - which was why he was murdered!! And the TyndallMachine is of course be powered by coal, which is why his disciples tell us not to burn coal, they want to keep it all to ensure His immortality.

Will a mysterious albino scientist, replete with labcoat, murder me as well for revealing their secrets? Is that how this works?

Re:Perhaps scientists will gain some listeners (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41945347)

Michael Mann was never, directly or indirectly, accused of being a pedophile. He was accused of abusing his position as a professor and researcher by cherry picking data and massaging temperature plots to come to a conclusion that was preferable to him politically. He was compared in that regard to Jerry Sandusky, who used his professional position to rape young boys. You evidently do not understand the structure of analogies.

How about aline invasion? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41944061)

People think they are real, still no proof. Just another way for the government to take our freedom.

Re:How about aline invasion? (1)

hamburger lady (218108) | about 2 years ago | (#41944465)

a line invasion? let me guess, you really hated geometry.

Why did it take... (3, Insightful)

joocemann (1273720) | about 2 years ago | (#41944071)

...over 20 years to conclude that which was obvious. If you were humble enough to trust experts, the impact of AGW was clear for a long time -- the drastic products of AGW are easy to estimate. If 7BN people can't do well right now, it only makes sense that environmental instability would push many into desperation and chaos.

Re:Why did it take... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41944279)

...over 20 years to conclude that which was obvious. If you were humble enough to trust experts, the impact of AGW was clear for a long time -- the drastic products of AGW are easy to estimate. If 7BN people can't do well right now, it only makes sense that environmental instability would push many into desperation and chaos.

dark humor ahead: But we have a very efficient (albeit costly) military industrial complex to prune excess foreign and domestic populations at convenient intervals.;-)

Re:Why did it take... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41944409)

Well, we produce enough food right now to feed about 12 billion people. So food seems to have a 2x buffer. There is enough energy resources in nuclear power for thousands of years.

We are doing well right now.

Re:Why did it take... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41944447)

Except that it is not AGW and the weather patterns are just normally cyclical. No need for anyone to change anything.

Re:Why did it take... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41944709)

How could the experts be trusted when the experts showed the personality traits of people who should under no circumstance be trusted?

Um, no. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41944089)

"does the Executive Branch, as a matter of national security, have a duty and a right to begin to act unilaterally against climate change irrespective of what Congress currently believes?"

As is usual with these sorts of rhetorical questions, no. While climate change and its side-effects are a serious security concern, the executive branch "acting unilaterally" is usually saved for things that are extremely urgent. Not "will unfold over the next few decades" urgent, but "will happen in less than the next 30 days, or 30 hours, if we don't do something now" kind of urgent. By contrast, there's ample time to talk about the problem and try to develop a consensus to respond to it using the plain, old democratic process. Let's see how congress and other elected representatives react to this report, and the next, and the next. There's no justification for invoking executive powers as a response to an unfolding of a slow-motion catastrophe.

Well if humans are so responsible for climate then (-1, Flamebait)

3seas (184403) | about 2 years ago | (#41944105)

.... how about we kill off most of the population? Any volunteers to remove themselves? I didn't write the article but that is the conclusion even if it doesn't say it.

Re:Well if humans are so responsible for climate t (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41944235)

Our high rate of liberating subterranean carbon is not a natural consequence of our population size.
There are several alternatives for fixing the problem.

Re:Well if humans are so responsible for climate t (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41944799)

Generally the conclusion is that we should waste and pollute less. I don't know why anyone would be on the side of waste and pollute more.

Did they just declare war on me? (0)

davidwr (791652) | about 2 years ago | (#41944119)

They declared war on poverty.
I wasn't poor.

They declared war on drugs.
I wasn't a drug user.

They declared war on terrorists.
I wasn't a terrorists.

Now they declared war on climate change.
Hey, you in the Army uniform! Get your hand off my SUV!

why oh why (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41944129)

Climate change is this enormous boulder rolling right at us. Why do we insist on fighting it directly, instead of learning how to dodge it by to avoiding or mitigating its effects?

Re:why oh why (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41944219)

Dodging is for pinko liberal commie science satanist cowards! The land of the free and home of the brave will do no less than nuke climate change back into the stone age.
Well, as soon as we manage to locate climate changistan on a map.

the only reason the CIA cares... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41944177)

is because a lot of their torture prisons are at sea level, for instance the one at Diego Garcia [guardian.co.uk] in the Chagos Archipelago.

eco-terrorism (-1, Troll)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 2 years ago | (#41944187)

DISSOCIATED PRESS -- In Phoenix, AZ today a man was taken into custody after a city sanitation worker reportedly discovered an aluminum can which had been placed in the trash bin instead of the recycling bin. He is currently in a military prison in Florida awaiting transportation to Guantanamo Bay and is facing multiple terrorism charges in connection with the wayward can. A spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security credited local government officials for the quick response, along with a new enhanced eco-terrorism fusion center which went online nine months ago. "Today marks another victory against the Global Warming terrorist threat," the spokesperson said. They urged citizens to remain watchful for other signs of terrorism as well, such as excessive toilet flushing, leaving the lights on when not at home, and paying for groceries using cash instead of credit.

Dr. Strangelove (1)

scubamage (727538) | about 2 years ago | (#41944195)

Quick, we have to hurry before our cave superiority is compromised!

Pentagon beat them to it (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | about 2 years ago | (#41944225)

by several years

The answer is no. The question is bad. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41944227)

"If the effect of unaddressed climate change is the functional equivalent of terrorist attacks on the nation, does the Executive Branch, as a matter of national security, have a duty and a right to begin to act unilaterally against climate change irrespective of what Congress currently believes?"

The question is extremist.

The current ruleset is that certain things are dealt with by Congress and certain things are dealt with by the Executive Branch. Just because you are able to construe something as in some way equivalent to what is dealt with by the Executive Branch does not mean that it falls under the Executive Branch. Just asking it shows you've made yourself too extreme to play on the field, since you seek a rhetorical facade to justify something you should know is unjustifiable.

Re:The answer is no. The question is bad. (4, Interesting)

hey! (33014) | about 2 years ago | (#41944559)

Well, I don't know about "extremist", but "alarmist" might be better. "Sloppy" might be best of all.

That climate change has national security implications is kind of a "well, duh" proposition. Of course it has national security implications, through its potentially destabilizing effect on other nations at the very least. Climate change has a huge impact on the military due to its effect on vector borne infectious diseases. Only recently have historians begun to appreciate the huge and possibly decisive impact malaria had on the American Revolution, and to this day the US military has considerable public health efforts to protect the immunologically naive American troops, who grew up in a hygienic temperate environment, deployed in tropical or squalid conditions.

The executive branch has regulatory and monitoring functions assigned to it by Congress, and considerable leeway in implementing policy within the constraints established by legislation. For example it may be tasked with monitoring the spread of agricultural pests -- a topic closely related in several ways to climate change. Within that function it can draft regulations and propose programs which it then submits budget requests to Congress.

So the executive branch has considerable influence on how or even whether the US government responds to the prospect of climate change. It's hardly extreme to suggest the executive branch should have a policy stance toward it. It's just wooly-headed to compare it to terrorism, a totally different kind of security concern with different causes, different effects, and very different planning horizons.

It's only climate change when NY or NO are flooded (2)

tp1024 (2409684) | about 2 years ago | (#41944229)

All the other hurricanes, cyclones and typhoons (the same phenomenon in different names) don't matter.

Climate change is currently used as a convenient lie to hide the decay of the United States of America and its inabliity to maintain or build infrastructure due to lack of any way whatsoever to raise a sufficient amount of taxes for any purpose other than its military.

BTW the fusion reactor ITER costs a whopping 10 days of US military expenditure to build and run for 30 years.

Re:It's only climate change when NY or NO are floo (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41944511)

As someone who lost power for a week during Sandy and lives within walking distance of Hoboken I can tell you I heard many people saying "This is worse than Sept. 11th" in the sense of disrupted lives. 2 million people lost power, 100s of homes were destroyed and thousands of people are displaced at least until next spring. Sure, Sept. 11th was a horror but as far as disruption of America's most economically important city...this was much worse. Sept. 11th destroyed a block or two of downtown Manhattan, Sandy destroyed city blocks from NJ to CT. Sept. 11th only seemed more economically devastating because we wasted 1 trillion dollars on wars afterward. The actual direct impact was, truth be told, not that major compared to this. So yeah, for people who lived through both Sept. 11th and Sandy it's a comparison we've all thought about!

Posted anon because comparing Sept. 11th to a hurricane is super un-politically-correct but at the same time it's what people were talking about in their cold dark apartments waiting for the flood water to recede...

Re:It's only climate change when NY or NO are floo (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | about 2 years ago | (#41945055)

The undisputed major casualty of 9/11 was Liberty. Sandy is NOTHING compared to that.

Listen to politicians? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41944251)

Maybe, its better that we listen to the scientists.
It seems that we need a spokesperson similar to Carl Sagan, who can explain the complexities of the climate issue without requiring a PHD to comprehend the natural processes at work an d how what we do modifies those processes. Just an idea.

Great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41944295)

The CIA affirms that it might have to invade foreign countries not only if a terrorist attacks but also if it rains or it doesn't for some time.

Talk about job security.

In U$A, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41944299)

[name here] is a matter of national security.

So (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41944331)

When will the TSA be applied to clamp down on people farting?

Last chance! Get them while they last! (1)

PPH (736903) | about 2 years ago | (#41944413)

Sounds like a bad advertising campaign. Emotional appeals: Marketing 101.

Out of scientific arguments already?

*Rolls eyes* (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41944437)

Liberals and there priorities....

      In lieu of actually addressing real problems with the world. They persist to fabricate 'issues' and then insist everyone else play along. To all libs out there... The planet will be fine. Honest. Because of you, we will all eventually die out because we as a race did not work towards solutions to real problems. So when we are all gone, the planet, and all of it's natural climate fluctuations will go on without us.

Thank you for you continued stupidity.

Re:*Rolls eyes* (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41944607)

Liberals and there priorities....

Thank you for you continued stupidity.

No comment...

Wrong problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41944441)

or, in some cases, military force to protect vital energy, economic or other interests,

This is a much bigger problem than the climate change, and it causes internal instability, international conflict and terrorism.

Shrink the population (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41944493)

Climate change or no climate change, the humanity is overstressing the planet's resources. We might find ingenious logistical ways to sustain it for some time to come, but I think it would be best to get to safer waters by reducing the amount of human population.

And no, I don't want wars, starvation or anarchy. Ideally, we should start doing it by reducing fertility. The wealthy countries have already made a promising start, but our advances are foiled by the population growth of the poor countries. And the wealthy countries haven't figured out a model of a thriving, shrinking economy. So we are tempted to invite replacement population from the developing nations.

I think a world of 300 million humans might be ideal. Resources would be plentiful. The seas could take care of our waste. There would be prime properties available for everybody for an affordable price. Fish and game would be plentiful. Arable land would abound. There would be enough fresh water for everybody. Even if the climate change reduced the amount of livable land, the smaller population could move to the areas still suitable for comfortable living.

Currency collapse in 2016-17 (-1, Troll)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 2 years ago | (#41944555)

Yes, climate change is the real looming problem for domestic security when mass starvation is on the horizon ... the parents of children killed in Obombya drone strikes are probably low-risk too. Good job with the analysis guys - who's the beneficiary? The folks building integral fast reactors? Oh, whoops, no, the solutions are illegal.

HiTech solution - drain the oceans. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41944781)

Problem solved.

We elected this congress (1)

infidel_heathen (2652993) | about 2 years ago | (#41944803)

... now we have to deal with the repercussions. People get what they deserve.

Re:We elected this congress (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41945029)

I was going to say the same thing about the president

Re:We elected this congress (1)

infidel_heathen (2652993) | about 2 years ago | (#41945321)

President Obama may have his faults, but at least he is not a science-denying ignoramus who thinks rape is a gift from god.

The government is omniscient? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41944811)

Such a conclusion could be taken to mean that the govt (exec branch, never mind Congress or courts) would be allowed to flounder around and do anything it pleases so long as it can come up with some connection with a theory of global warming. (Such things generally can be reversed if they screw up.)
If this were limited to thinking about geo-engineering to lower the temps a bit it might have some merit, but the actions of 0.3billion out of 7 billion people otherwise might not have such an impact, even if that 0.3 bil use lots of energy. The US is very far from alone, nor is it the greatest contributor to the currently blamed activities, but a blank check to "do something" sounds like a terrible idea to me.
The problems of people building on sand near the beach and lowlying areas have been well known for many years. That there have been no big storms before
since about 1962 has led to a lot of this, ignoring the fact that there is a multidecade oscillation of the Atlantic that eventually restarts the hurricanes hitting
this area. It is perfectly reasonable to figure that yes, it might be a good idea to build fewer such buildings there, rebuild on higher ground, maybe just fix it so
the subways in lowlying areas on Manhattan don't have airvents all over the place, and fix them so maybe they could stand a few hours of waves. Heck: part of that
area used to be swamps. If the storms to be expected are a bit bigger than they might otherwise have been, a "normal" hurricane blowing in off the ocean can do this kind of thing, cold front or not. Read some of the history of the storms of 1878-79 along the east coast sometime: they were described as "tidal waves" because they created such enormous floods along the Delaware Bay, wiping out some of the then communities. The current crop of storms is not that unique. NYC just got a jackpot due to the configuration of the land, which acted as a funnel to catch the wind/water. In the 1950s-60s nobody moaned about global warming causing the hurricanes. They just bemoaned the damages (and fixed things up) but people gradually got greedy for beach property and forgot that there were good reasons why those areas didn't have buildings on them in the first place.

(BTW there are still a few ruins visible from the 1978-79 storms in odd corners, which is how I happened to look that up.)

War against Climate Change (1)

Nyder (754090) | about 2 years ago | (#41944855)

What could possible go wrong? but hey, we got a war against everything else, so a new one isn't a big deal, right?

Slippery slope ... (1)

Turminder Xuss (2726733) | about 2 years ago | (#41944885)

Careful there, NRC. If you start assessing risks from unintended consequences as security threats it won't be too long before you're looking at obesity, a much greater risk to the population of the USA than either terrorism or climate change.

Re:Slippery slope ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41944935)

The military already released a report on that years ago saying if they ever needed a draft again there wouldn't be enough in-shape people to call up!

Two birds, one stone (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41944985)

Make it a legal requirement for everyone to have their genitals tattooed with carbon footprint reports. Not only will terror be defeated by the TSA interfering with your children - so shall climate change!

Strength Through Unity, Unity Through Faith!

This won't work (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41945123)

Unless the report ends in "results = sell guns + justification for more military + new possible boogieman" nobody will care

Scaremongering (1)

Kid Zero (4866) | about 2 years ago | (#41945221)

I didn't vote for the guy who wants all this power, so I can laugh at you people.

Re:Scaremongering (1)

fm6 (162816) | about 2 years ago | (#41945407)

Sure, if you can make a joke about it, it must not be a problem. I call that the Rush Limbaugh fallacy.

no spin zone (5, Insightful)

WOOFYGOOFY (1334993) | about 2 years ago | (#41945331)

Let's be clear. The people equating statistically improbable disasters - asteroids, aliens all that- to the absolute certain fact that global warming will, if left unchecked for too long, deconstruct civilization are engaging in a type of self soothing via fuzzy thinking. This is what denial is.

The people denying that the threat is imminent and reasoning that it is therefore amenable to current political processes are doing something a little more subtle.

They are creating an imaginary causal linkage between three phenomena which are, in reality, causally unlinked. This is therefore a type of magical thinking.

The first phenomena is the pace at which global warming will proceed. No one knows with certainty how quickly it will proceed or what effects each step of the progression will have on factors effecting national security. What we do know is it's worse than we thought, proceeding faster than we projected.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2009/02/23/203730/mit-doubles-global-warming-projections/ [thinkprogress.org]

That pace is in no way related to the second phenomena , the ability of a (gerrymandered) minority of politicians to block urgently needed action at the federal level. Funded by and beholden to the now-classifiable-as-genocidal gas and oil industries, scientifically ignorant and proud of it, the pace of warming is in no way effected by their continued inaction, and nothing about their inaction obliges global warming to back off for our collective sake.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2009/03/17/203822/media-copenhagen-global-warming-impacts-worst-case-ipcc/?mobile=nc [thinkprogress.org]

The third phenomena is what level of ecological disaster is going to serve as the trigger point at which the denier population capitulates to reality and assents to urgent, sweeping federal action. Because that level of ecological disaster both exists and will be realized sooner or later.

But that point is in no way causally related to that other point in time, the point of no return, where given our then-current or achievable level of technology, we'll still be able to limit the effects of global warming in order to preserve the habitability of the planet.

There's nothing to say that deniers won't come around too late. There's no guarantee that the level of ecological disaster sufficient to finally get through to deniers will appear on a schedule sufficient for us to solve the problem.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=349 [skepticalscience.com]

To think vague things like- eventually everyone will come around and then the political process will kick in in time for us to save ourselves- is magical thinking. The forces controlling the pace of, and political resistance to, global warming are unrelated with respect to the time frame needed to act.

The original question is rhetorical but only in the way opposite to that asserted by the deniers here. It IS a fact that the threat posed by global warming falls under the purview of the executive branch who WILL be empowered and in fact have a duty to act unilaterally, without Congressional oversight or approval, in order to preserve the national security of the United States. The only question is when will that time come and how will we know it? Is it now? A little while from now? When it's too late to do any good?

We just squeaked by an election in which one of the parties' candidates was threatening to pipeline in tar sands from Canada and light them on fire. We already know that, if we light on fire all the oil we current have already drilled and sitting waiting to be sold, it's game over for the environment and ourselves. Drilling for more, spending money to obtain yet more and dirtier oil and then lighting it on fire is an act of psychological denial and literally, genocidal insanity.

The oil and gas industry, aside from being the most profitable and also the one of the most heavily subsidized -by you taxpayer- is also privileged to sell their product free from the forces of the free market where the cost of it negative effects would be figured into its price. That has to stop.

We're all on this ocean cruiser together. The rich are partying on the upper deck when the engineers call up and say that there's an iceberg straight ahead. The rich shout them down with slogans like -"what do engineers know?" and "they're just jealous (they want our stuff!!) ", much to the consternation of the second class passengers, engineers and crew.

There's dissension and growing panic. The iceberg appears to the untrained eye. The rich don't see anything and insist that the partying continue unabated. The passengers meet in small groups and start talking quietly amongst themselves.

If you were writing this movie script, you know how it would end- with the rich floating face up, blue-faced and lifeless in the icy ocean while the cruise ship veers desperately trying to pass the danger.

It doesn't have to come to that but in order for it not to, we have to act - yesterday. The mental devices people are using to hide the gravity of situation from themselves need to be directly attacked and unpacked for what they are- self comforting delusions and expressions of a suicidal, reality denying fanaticism.

If direct action under the aegis of national security is not to your liking then perhaps you're interested in preventing that certain eventuality from materializing. Perhaps that image, torn indeed from deniers own rhetoric and their own unconscious awareness of the falsity of their claims and death wish for civilization as it is to just end so they can start it over in some grand new way, perhaps the image of a crew and captain determined not to let everyone on board perish is motivating to you.

Whatever you decide , remember this- reality is just one way, not many ways. Enveloping yourself in a Post-modernistic bubble that says "there are as many realities are there are opinions" and "everyone's reality has some truth to it" is not going to save you when that one, angry reality comes crashing through your bunker.

Climate change denial is terrorism. It is a madman's bomb, built by madmen, being set off in slow motion by madmen, capable of destroying the earth and all civilization . All civilization is predicated on survival and if push comes to shove, then survival and not democracy, not due process, not the Constitution, not civil rights, first and foremost mere survival will prevail.

The people fighting to preserve all those things being threatened are the scientists and the reality-based community, not the "skeptics" not the lying "freedom and liberty" cartel- the Koch brothers, the American Enterprise Institute, the CATO foundation, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Rupert Murdoch and the serial, pathetic self deceivers at Fox News. Rush Limbaugh. Etc.

The people fighting to preserve civil society and freedom and liberty are the scientists. The military. The CIA. The intelligence community. The aggregate secular civil society organizations . The reality-based community.

Get real. Your "arguments" are all predicated on wishful thinking and denial of the rankest sort. At heart, you think all reality is a form of spin, something that is ultimately negotiable and subject to the laws of compromise, if you just stick to your guns for long enough. Get real.

lets try something completely different... (1)

Genda (560240) | about 2 years ago | (#41945357)

This is a ruse. As was terrorism. The executive branch is now pretty much a complete second government, answerable to nobody save the president, and nowadays, I'm not at all certain the President isn't given his morning orders just like everyone else. Which begs the question, who's actually calling the shots, but I'll leave that to brighter minds than mine.

Those in charge are tightening a noose, and make no mistake our collective necks are just now feeling the pinch. Our Constitution hangs in tatter, and the Bill of Rights might as well be printed on toilet paper for all they're now worth. We can stand here, watching them building the wall brick by brick or we can all stand up and shout "Mr. Obama, tear down this wall!!!"

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>