Pentagon Claims That Climate Change ‘Enables Terrorism’

| |

Our grid depends on this mineral

Screen Shot 2014-03-05 at 10-1.17.23 AM

In it’s latest Quadrennial Defense Review the Pentagon has said that climate change and  ‘erratic’ climate will cause increased terrorist activity.

The four yearly reports highlight threats that face civilization and this years homed in on climate change causing an increase in terrorism.

It also mentioned that rises in sea levels and other issues associated with a warming planet will lead to food scarcity and higher food prices as well as contestation and conflict over water.

It is this competition that they feel will cause an increase in terrorist incidents.

The 64 page report focuses on the impacts, but mentions next to nothing about the solutions that might alleviate such problems.

According to RT the report states:

“The impacts of climate change may increase the frequency, scale, and complexity of future missions, including defense support to civil authorities, while at the same time undermining the capacity of our domestic installations to support training activities,”

“Climate change poses another significant challenge for the United States and the world at large. As greenhouse gas emissions increase, sea levels are rising, average global temperatures are increasing, and severe weather patterns are accelerating.”

A warming planet will likely “exacerbate water scarcity and lead to sharp increases in food costs,” the report details, leading to devastated infrastructure and living conditions, especially in poorer regions of the world.

In addition, this fierce “resource competition” will only push the likelihood of additional terror threats, the QDR states.

“The pressures caused by climate change will influence resource competition while placing additional burdens on economies, societies, and governance institutions around the world,” the report continues.

“These effects are threat multipliers that will aggravate stressors abroad such as poverty, environmental degradation, political instability, and social tensions – conditions that can enable terrorist activity and other forms of violence.”

As I have said on numerous occasions climate change exists, it has always existed, and it always will exist. The government seems to ignore the fact that the climate has been warmer than this in the past,long before mankind had moved out of caves let alone invented the internal combustion engine.

It’s time to stop this idiocy. The government is referring to global warming, but they can’t call it global warming anymore because quite simply, at this point, the planet isn’t warming. They are using global warming as an excuse to levy ‘green’ taxes, to raise money for a government that can’t afford to pay down it’s debt let alone pay to find ways to solve the food shortage problems that we all know are going to occur.

The government knows that food and in some areas water is going to be in short supply and that the food that is available is going to be wildly expensive.  They are using climate change as a whipping boy, a reason they can tout in public to cover up their lack of investment in their own country.

It is this lack of investment that allowed Monsanto to walk in and adulterate our food supply. The government should have been investing in agriculture, ensuring that the population has food security but instead they got into bed with Monsanto, and that will cost us all dearly.

The government should have been looking at vital infrastructure, at reservoirs and water storage facilities but instead they spent millions on pointless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This is what all the current ‘control’ issues are about ladies and gentlemen.

They need to have gun control in place BEFORE these shortages come to pass.

They need to have information about our daily lives so they know where the ‘troublemakers’ are

The government knows it has failed and from this point all it can do is look at how to control the situation rather than how it can fix it, and it needs to gain that control before the SHTF.

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details).

Contributed by Chris Carrington of The Daily Sheeple.

Chris Carrington is a writer, researcher and lecturer with a background in science, technology and environmental studies. Chris is an editor for The Daily Sheeple. Wake the flock up!

Wake The Flock Up! Please Share With Sheeple Far & Wide:
  • jim_robert

    Here’s a hint for the global warming SCIENCE DENIERS:

    An article by well-known weatherman John Coleman at also discusses the forcing, or runaway global warming phenomenon at noting “It is true that CO2 can absorb heat a little faster than nitrogen and oxygen but it becomes no hotter because it cannot absorb any more heat than there is available to the other gases. This is against the laws of
    thermodynamics. All gases share their heat with the other gases. Gas molecules fly around and are constantly colliding with other gas molecules so they immediately lose any excess heat to other olecules during these collisions. That’s why the air is all one temperature in any limited volume.• Even if CO2 levels were many times higher, radiative heating physics shows that it would make virtually no difference to temperature because it has a very limited
    heating ability. With CO2, the more there is, the less it heats because it quickly becomes saturated. For a detailed explanation go to:” As
    evidence, the article cites Venus and Mars, that have atmospheres that are almost entirely CO2 (97%), yet have no runaway global warming, as well as noting that in the past the Earth has had CO2 concentrations hundreds of times higher, yet there were ice ages at the same time.

    All that “severe weather” caused by AGW? Greg Carbin, a meteorologist at the National Weather Service Storm Prediction Center in Norman, Okla., told the Washington Post in 2012 “We are approaching a theoretical minimum in the annual tornado count for the modern era”; Bob Henson, a meteorologist and science writer for the University Corporation for Atmospheric for Atmospheric Research, in Boulder, CO. concurred, stating “It looks like we are close to having the quietest year for tornadoes on record.” Of course, tornado counts have “inflated” over the years, given the rapidly increasing number of storm chasers, population increase, and advances in technology – so perhaps it might be more statistically fair to adjust today’s numbers downwards – but we’ll leave that
    legerdemain to the warmers. The tornado drought of 2012 broke some other records. July, for example, was an extremely tornado-starved month, with only 37 twisters, according to NOAA. This beat the previous low of 42 tornadoes set in July 1960. There also haven’t been any tornadoes the month of November, which is unusual, Henson said.

    Finally, science has never been decided by consensus, but rather by experimentation and hypothesis testing (and of course, there is not even close to a consensus!) but if we want to play that game, go to YouTube and search for the founder of the Weather Channel,
    John Coleman+global warming,

  • jim_robert

    … and here’s more for the AGW science deniers:

    Professor Emeritus Friedrich Karl Ewert a geologist from Paderborn
    University noted the “evaluation of long-term temperature readings . . . disprove that we have man-made global warming,” and presented the results of his analysis at a CFACT meeting in 2011 that of
    over 1,100 temperature curves from around the world, concluding, “the final result is that in 74% of all stations of the world we had no
    warming.” While the UN has often been told there will be terrible consequences if the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere remains at or increases from the current 390 parts per million (ppm), Dr. Ewert pointed out that “in the geological past, we had the
    greatest glaciation of the earth (the glacier went down to 35 degrees north) when we have carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere of 1400 [ppm]. That means it was several times higher than today.” In other words, the historical evidence proves CO2 does not control earth’s climate. Dr. Ewert summarizes “It is necessary to conclude that the particular effect of manmade carbon dioxide production is not recognizable, in other words, does not exist.”

    “I am a skeptic on climate change. I know the climate is changing, and it always has been. I’ve studied this intensively over many years. I started what I call the Carbon Project here in British Columbia back in 1989 in order to bring everybody together to discuss this subject and figure out the facts behind it. Since then, I have watched as hysteria has grown, as if the whole world is going to come to an end
    and civilization is going to die because of humans causing this climate change. I don’t buy that, and I certainly know we don’t have any proof of it. I’m not denying that we might be playing some role, but the natural factors that have always caused climate change have not suddenly disappeared. I’m very skeptical of the alarmist nature of climate campaigning.” – Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace

    “…hard data from ice cores, dripstones, tree rings and ocean or lake
    sediment cores reveal significant temperature changes of more than 1°C, with warm and cold phases alternating in a 1,000-year cycle. These include the Minoan Warm Period 3,000 years ago and the Roman Warm Period 2,000 years ago. During the Medieval Warm Phase around 1,000 years ago, Greenland was colonised
    and grapes for wine grew in England. The Little Ice Age lasted from the 15th to the 19th century. All these fluctuations occurred before man-made CO2. Based on climate reconstructions from North Atlantic deep-sea sediment cores, Professor Gerard Bond discovered that the millennial-scale climate cycles ran
    largely parallel to solar cycles, including the Eddy Cycle which is – guess what – 1,000 years long. So it is really the Sun that shaped the temperature roller-coaster of the past 10,000 years… Furthermore, what is little known is that CO2 also requires a strong amplifier if it were to aggressively shape future climate as envisaged by the IPCC. CO2 alone, without so-called feedbacks, would only generate a moderate warming of 1.1°C per CO2 doubling” – Fritz
    Vahrenholt, one of Germany’s earliest green energy investors and global warming supporters.

    And what is the actual presence of CO2 in the atmosphere? notes that it is 390 ppm, or less than
    0.04%, up from 320 ppm, or 0.032% 50 years ago. Of the remaining percentages,nitrogen amounts for 78%, oxygen 21%. Of the 1% that then remains, 90% of that is argon, with less than 4% of that 1% being carbon dioxide (these percentages exclude highly variable water vapor, which is usually around 1 – 4% of the atmosphere – and a much more major contributor to global warming, estimated at
    being 50-90% of the greenhouse effect). Of course the logarithmic effect of CO2 means each additional increase has less impact that the prior, same sized increase. Even more, about 96 to 97% of carbon dioxide comes from natural sources, such as animals, plant decay and volcanoes. In fact, relative to volcanoes, former FDA investigator Dr. Arthur Evangelista, noted that the 2010 eruption of Eyafjallajokull in Iceland emitted, in four days, enough CO2
    in four days to negate every single effort mankind made that year to reduce CO2. But this volcano was a piker compared to Mt. Pinatubo, which when it erupted in the Philippines in 1991 “spewed out
    more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in its entire 40 MILLION YEARS on earth.”
    And this doesn’t include that fact that, as he notes the “bush fire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year.”

    Headquarters and former Chief of the Atmospheric Dynamics & Radiation Branch. Mr. Theon also noted in a Jan. 28, 2008 report that computer models used to determine future climate are not scientific, in part, because researchers resist “making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists.” This violates a fundamental tenet of the scientific principle. J. Scott Armstrong, founder of the “International Journal
    of Forecasting,” confirmed Theon’s statement, noting, “The computer models underpinning the work of many scientific institutions concerned with global warming are fundamentally flawed,” and Theon and Armstrong both noted the 1995 IPPC report contained only opinions, no scientific forecasts, and revealed an audit of the procedures used to come to their conclusion “clearly violated 72 scientific principles of forecasting,” with the
    forecasts following this one simply again repeating the same procedural errors. (Apparently, it was not only the French nobility of the 1700s of whom it might be said “they learned nothing, and they forgot nothing.)”

  • jim_robert

    And you want a real hoot? Google “Dr Tim Ball picea glauca” (that’s “white spruce” for you anti-science leftists). Scroll down a few pages, and tell me HOW that ancient tree stump got several hundred km north of today’s treeline. The Archeological Survey of Canada also says the treeline was several hundred km NORTH of where it was today during the MWP (what’s that? You lefties never heard of the MWP? But of course not!). In fact, if you go to the Vatnajokull glacier system, the 3rd largest in the world, and stand at the bottom of it, as I have, you will see park signs that state in Icelandic and English that the glacier is currently covering about 40 Viking era farms that ***are today buried under the glacier*** (they know this from preserved deeds), and that the glacier is TODAY disgorging bits of ancient trees and greenery.

  • jim_robert

    Not that any leftist or AGWer has ever answered a single one of these questions below. Or any of these:

    “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” – Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

    “Inevitably in climate science, when data conflicts with models, a small coterie of scientists can be counted upon to modify the data…That the data should always need correcting to agree with models is totally implausible and indicative of a certain corruption within the climate science community.” Dr. Richard
    Lindzen, MIT

    Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

    “The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board
    member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

    “Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” – Environmental Scientist
    Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

    “The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC “are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” – Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

    “It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” – U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

    “Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

    “After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet.” – Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics
    Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

    “For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?” – Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is
    currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

    “Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” – Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in
    man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

    “Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” – Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination
    Center in Pittsburgh.

    “Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” – Environmental
    Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

    “CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.”
    – Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and
    Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

    “The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” – Award-winning
    Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.

    “Climate is not responding to greenhouse gases in
    the way we thought it might. If increasing carbon dioxide is in fact increasing climate change, its impact is smaller than natural variation.”Prof Christopher de Freitas, of the University of Auckland, NZ said there was no evidence to suggest carbon dioxide was the major driver of climate change (see (In 2003, Dr. de Freitas, who edits the journal Climate
    Research, had published a peer-reviewed article saying the recent
    warming is not unusual, relative to previous historical climate changes in the past 1,000 years. As you might suspect, Dr. de Freitas had to withstand multiple demands he be fired from his editorial job, as well as his university position.

    “I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man made,” John Theon wrote to the Minority Office at the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 15, 2009. “I was, in effect, Hansen’s supervisor because I had to justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate his results,” Theon is former Chief of the Climate Processes Research Program at NASA

    “Over the years, the IPCC has changed from a scientific
    institution that tries to be policy relevant to a political institution that
    pretends to be scientific. I regret that. There are already more than enough climate activists, while there are too few solid and neutral bodies that make down-to-earth and well-founded statements about climate change and climate policy.” Economist Richard Tol, in a prepared statement for the Dutch parliament examining climate-related controversies, or

    even IPCC uber-warmer Ken Trenberth has stated “It’s very clear we do not
    have a climate observing system… This may be a shock to many people who assume
    that we do know adequately what’s going on with the climate, but we don’t.”

  • Rick E.

    Good God, it’s the PENTAGON that enables terrorism! Up is down, and down is up. War is peace, and Obomba is our savior! <THIS is the logic that we are dealing with here!
    May God help us. (and I'm not too religious, lol).

  • Erin Tarn

    Human beings generally don’t like “hot” so it’s easy to create fear from the populace by claiming “if you don’t listen to us (global warmotards) it’s going to get hotter!”

  • James Jagermeister

    What do raw milk sellers have in common with Osama bin Rag Head? Before we go any further a working definition of terror must be agreed upon so there is zero confusion.
    I mean am I a terrorist for playing with a water pistol in public? You tell me because I am in the dark.