Image 01 Image 03

Will anyone now seriously claim Climate Change is the most urgent “national security threat”?

Will anyone now seriously claim Climate Change is the most urgent “national security threat”?

Terrorists with Kalashnikov rifles change the environment quicker than CO2

Only a few short days ago, Secretary of State John Kerry reasserted the administration’s position that climate change was an increasing national security risk.

Speaking at the Ted Constant Convocation Center at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Kerry said he’s made addressing climate change a priority of U.S. foreign policy.

“The reason I made climate change a priority,” Kerry said, “is not simply because climate change is bad for the environment. It’s because by fueling extreme weather events undermining our military readiness, exacerbating conflicts around the world, climate change is a threat to the security of the United States and, indeed, to the security and civility of countries everywhere.”

Furthermore, the Secretary of the Army offered “developing effective energy solutions” as a key priority.

In the wake of the Paris terror attacks, these attitudes must now be deemed completely ludicrous.


However, such hyperbole is indicative of the overall movement to criminalize climate change denial and suppress the dissemination of information that refutes the dire predictions of eco-activists that are used to promulgate regulations and impose fees.

I recently reported that two Congressmen accused ExxonMobil of lying about climate change data in the same way cigarette companies hid the real hazards associated with smoking. They threatened a federal investigation.

Now, New York’s Attorney General has begun a formal investigation into the matter.

According to people with knowledge of the investigation, Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman issued a subpoena Wednesday evening to Exxon Mobil, demanding extensive financial records, emails and other documents.

The investigation focuses on whether statements the company made to investors about climate risks as recently as this year were consistent with the company’s own long-running scientific research.

The people said the inquiry would include a period of at least a decade during which Exxon Mobil funded outside groups that sought to undermine climate science, even as its in-house scientists were outlining the potential consequences — and uncertainties — to company executives.

The firm is denying the allegations.

An analysis of the likely outcome indicates that the driving motivator might not be climate justice . . . but money.

Even if Schneiderman discovers enough evidence to bring a case, a lawsuit may not be what he has in mind. Some of the biggest successes under the Martin Act have come as large settlements. The law was used by Eliot Spitzer, a former New York attorney general, to help win a $100 million settlement with Merrill Lynch in 2002 over broker conflicts of interest, as well as a $1.4 billion accord with 10 of the country’s largest securities firms over stock research.

Schneiderman also drew on the Martin Act in helping to negotiate multibillion-dollar joint federal-state settlements with big banks, including JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America, over mortgage-backed securities.

If Exxon “were to really fight this out to the very end, I think they would have a pretty good case,” Spindler said. But “probably everybody would be happy with a settlement. Companies tend to be very risk-averse.”

I sure hope ExxonMobile picks up the gauntlet that Schneiderman has thrown down. If a government bureaucrat can bully large corporations about how they use the data they collect to help their businesses under the banner of “criminal climate change” behavior, then nobody is safe from similar indictments.

A Rasmussen poll recently revealed that 68% of Americans rejected the idea of prosecuting people who denied “climate change” policies. However, 17% were keen to do just that . . .  and I am sure many of them are found on the Mizzou campus.

In April of this year, Obama talked about battling a fantasy crisis that has been created by poor science and even worse policy:

One hopeful sign that people are beginning to recognize the real risks to themselves comes is that a Paris webcast of an all-star marathon event about climate change was suspended after the deadly attacks.  Former Vice President Al Gore was slated to host the event.

Now, there is a poll to determine if the upcoming United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris should be canceled because of the realities of real national security risks.

Clearly, Kalashnikov rifles in the hands of Islamic terrorists change the environment much more swiftly than carbon dioxide.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Well, these workplace violence folks do tend to come from places with warm climates. I mean, there are not a lot of Laplanders or Eskimos attacking airplanes or cities.

    Ragspierre in reply to Anchovy. | November 14, 2015 at 1:31 pm

    While I take your humor and its point, I’m reliably informed that the Balkins are pretty damned cold…

    and at least as dangerous.

Bitterlyclinging | November 14, 2015 at 1:21 pm

Its a given. Obama will state it, with an absolutely straight face. Its a game with Obama to see how big a whopper he can tell, how absurd a statement or claim he can make before the MSM calls him out on it.
“Major (Garret), you should know better” (On a question by Garret on why Obama left four Americans rotting in Iranian jails while approving the deal giving the Iranians carte blanche to develop nukes and use them on Israel and the United States.

“Will anyone now seriously claim Climate Change is the most urgent “’national security threat’”?

Yes. Of course. Absolutely. Certainly!

To ask that question is to imagine that Gorebal Climate Thingie HAS CRAP TO DO WITH REALITY…!!!

It NEVER has.

It has ALWAYS been about Collectivist control of whole economies, about the ability to control people on a micro scale (think light bulbs and toilet tank capacity), and about the Druidic religion of the Collective, with one of its most fundamental tenets being a HATRED of people…especially American middle-class people and the idea of Western modernity.

The American Revolution and its fruit was the crowning achievement of the Enlightenment. The Collective is the Reactionary response. And you can see it everywhere.

Watch “Fahrenheit 451”, and understand you don’t have to burn the great books. You just have to ignore them, as whole departments of English and Literature are doing at the great (formerly) universities all over the world.

Are the “leaders” of the world going to abandon their greatest myth over this attack? HELL, NO!

The attack will be attributed to Gorebal Climate Thingie. Watch and see…

The events of Friday the 13th in Paris will have absolutely zero effect on the Obama administration claims that man made global warming is the biggest, most urgent threat to the security of the United States.
This administration marches in step with a far left progressive dogma to diminish our once great country!
Obama is going to open the floodgates and allow 10’s of thousands of Syrian refugees that can not be properly vetted. There are active ISIS investigation in all 50 states!

Look for ISIS at a soft target near you thanks to this clueless administration!

“Will anyone now seriously claim Climate Change is the most urgent “national security threat”?

Oh, I could easily provide you with some well-known names.

Not only is “Climate Change’ the biggest threat to our survival also are YouTube videos according to Hillary Clinton.

If you have not seen the administration’s claim that”global warming”causes violence, then (pardon me) you’re an idiot. All the way back to 2011 DHS made the claim and I guarantee the reason Obomba is still headed to Paris is to spread the lie there. How else does greet get his justification to declare a false flag emergency here to use all those insane fascist Executive Orders hrs been issuing for 7 years?

Standby for obama’s response to the Paris slaughter. I think he will propose a RED LINE. If the ISIS refugees cross it he will “Bring them to justice”. He is such an a$$ wipe that he can’t tell the difference between a bank robber and a murdering terrorist!

The three phases of liberalism seem to be:
Shut up!
Shut up or we’ll sue you into bankruptcy!
Shut up or we’ll kill you.

This appears to be about step 2.5 where they don’t have enough political power to kill you, but they can strip you of every penny you own and throw you in jail while they work on that third step.

The progressive line is that “Climate Change” is a root cause of the unrest in Syria, and thus it is responsible for the massacre.

See, if you’re a “Climate Denier” it is YOUR FAULT that all those people got murdered.

Where is the UN?

Oh, yeah. They are out to lunch basking in the sunny prospect of climate change money.

I just hope they don’t try and blame Heikki Lunta!

The only confrontations Obama will risk are those he can win by falsifying information with the blind support of his Democrat lackeys and his media sycophants.

Sammy Finkelman | November 14, 2015 at 9:41 pm

Will anyone now seriously claim Climate Change is the most urgent “national security threat”?

This was asked at the Democatic debate. Bernie Sandsers didn’t argue the notion is wrong. That’s what teh CIA says, he said (and that’s true – I mean taht teh CIA said that)

Climate change is supposed to havce caused the Syrian civil war which Bernie Sanders also said. he didn’t explain the theory, but it’s this:

Climate change or global warming caused a drought in part of Syria. The drought caused some people to leave their farsm and go to the cities. New people in teh cities rebeklled against Assad.

Even if that were all true, you really can’t say a drought caused the rise of ISIS. It’s the actions of human beings.

What motivates the left to this? What is the unifying motivator is their madness? Ragspierre, when a person reaches a position by something other than logic, something other than logic is needed to move them from that position.
“It has ALWAYS been about Collectivist control of whole economies, about the ability to control people on a micro scale (think light bulbs and toilet tank capacity), and about the Druidic religion of the Collective, with one of its most fundamental tenets being a HATRED of people…especially American middle-class people and the idea of Western modernity.”

They are Godless communists. They have no understanding of the transcendent, of the infinite greatness and goodness of the Creator. This doesn’t stop them from taking these steps listed above, and more, on grounds of moral superiority. It makes them feel morally to recycle to save the planet, or force diversity, or insist soda drinks in self-serve cups are no bigger than 16 ounces. Of course they either drive a monster SUV or a Prius, the former consuming vast quantities of energy to produce and operate and the latter taking a not-fully-calculated toll to produce the battery, and recycle said battery. They can’t see any pollution when they charge the battery so, there must not be any.

I have taught high school students so young the “global warming” started pausing before they were born who insist global warming is a problem, because their teachers have taught them so. Same students wail and gnash their teeth at what they deem “killing trees by wasting paper…what about the Amazon!!!!!”, little knowing we have more trees now than we had 100 years ago and our paper isn’t made with trees from the Amazon. The list just goes on.

They aspire to be tyrants. C.S. Lewis had them pegged:
“My contention is that good men (not bad men) consistently acting upon that position [imposing “the good”] would act as cruelly and unjustly as the greatest tyrants. They might in some respects act even worse. Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under of robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber barons cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some points be satiated; but those who torment us for their own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to heaven yet at the same time likely to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on the level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”

Obama’s stand is understandable: He has a small mind and small minds like to address small problems. And problems don’t get any smaller than a nonexistent problem like climate change.

Noblesse Oblige | November 15, 2015 at 9:37 am

Ragspierre has it figured out. Too bad there is only one Rags. A h/t also to CS Lewis.

The Green Money Cultists have probably calculated the “terrorist expense” into their bottom line and find it tolerable or negligible. There’s also money on the upside for those in the security business. And a police state provides great benefits for the elite and political class.

Whether it’s climate change – a tax on every living / breathing Westerner – or terrorism – the peons are to be tagged, searched and screened – it’s win-win for all the right people.