Trump will drop climate change from National Security Strategy. Because he's stupid.

theBLADE1

The sharpest poster on the Sher
@Black
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
5,826
Reaction score
170
But you already knew he was stupid so this won't come as a surprise.

5318.jpg


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/18/trump-drop-climate-change-national-security-strategy

The Trump administration will drop climate change from a list of global threats in a new National Security Strategy the president is due to unveil on Monday.

Instead, Trump’s NSS paper will emphasis the need for the US to regain its economic competitiveness in the world.

That stance represents a sharp change from the Obama administration’s NSS, which placed climate change as one of the main dangers facing the nation and made building international consensus on containing global warming a national security priority.

White House officials said on Sunday the Trump NSS was the culmination of 11 months of collaboration between all the leading security, foreign policy and economic agencies of government. The exclusion of climate change as a national security threat appears however to conflict with views previously expressed by the defense secretary, James Mattis.

Reinforces the confirmed fact that Trump is stupid enough to enact legislations that will permanently harm our country and leave the cleaning up of the mess to the next few presidents who come after him. How many of your numbskulls are defending this asshole still????
 
global warming is liberal hoax. all of the politicians paid by fossil fuel companies say so. climate goes in a cycle and such.
 
How did the left's pet horseshit project sneak its way into the National Security Strategy in the first place?
 
global warming is liberal hoax. all of the politicians paid by fossil fuel companies say so. climate goes in a cycle and such.

So the climate doesn't go in cycles.

Well that a new theory.
 
How did the left's pet horseshit project sneak its way into the National Security Strategy in the first place?

global water conflicts, which are already occurring. some claim that it will be a more valuable commodity than oil in the near future. just look at stock market investing in companies that purify/drill water.

climate refugees, and related conflicts. again, already happening.

flooding of certain bases. things like that.
 
it does. but the issue is that scientists are claiming the current change in this cycle is very unusual.

Ah so the issue is how much effect man has on the cycle and what direction the cycle is going in.
 
Throwing money to the government who will then throw it at the problem in the least efficient manner will not have any positive effect on the climate.
 
Ah so the issue is how much effect man has on the cycle and what direction the cycle is going in.

the direction is settled at this point. arguing over how much of an impact we have, and if there is anything we can even do about it, are still reasonable things to discuss.
 
Bill Burr has a great idea for climate issues. He brings it up in every special.

[Yt]
 
global water conflicts, which are already occurring. some claim that it will be a more valuable commodity than oil in the near future. just look at stock market investing in companies that purify/drill water.

climate refugees, and related conflicts. again, already happening.

flooding of certain bases. things like that.
Lol.

Climate Refugees

Please present one example of an undisputable "climate refugee".
 
But you already knew he was stupid so this won't come as a surprise.

5318.jpg


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/18/trump-drop-climate-change-national-security-strategy



Reinforces the confirmed fact that Trump is stupid enough to enact legislations that will permanently harm our country and leave the cleaning up of the mess to the next few presidents who come after him. How many of your numbskulls are defending this asshole still????

Trump isn't stupid. He is just really, really, great, and the best at being retarded.
 
Lol.

Climate Refugees

Please present one example of an undisputable "climate refugee".

wake up

bangladeshi coastal areas are no more. where are those people going? youtube or google this and pick the source of your choosing. arguably the rohingya crisis in myanmar has been made worse by this as well.
 
wake up

bangladeshi coastal areas are no more. where are those people going? youtube or google this and pick the source of your choosing. arguably the rohingya crisis in myanmar has been made worse by this as well.
I'm afraid that's not going to do, you've made an extraordinary claim, and it's going to require extraordinary evidence.

You've made the claim that there is such a thing as a "climate refugee", yet you're unable to present any evidence of such a person existing.

You are aware that coastlines are capable of changing naturally, correct?
 
wake up

bangladeshi coastal areas are no more. where are those people going? youtube or google this and pick the source of your choosing. arguably the rohingya crisis in myanmar has been made worse by this as well.
Nobody should be allowed to pollute, we should all agree on it. That said, the CO2 induced climate debate is, no pun intended, one about degrees (or at least it should be). People need to get used to the fact that sea levels are going to rise, no mitigation efforts are going to change this.

Also, for reference and perspective, this climate change over the next 100 years and associated sea level rise is exceptionally tame compared to what human beings have experience in the not too distant past from natural events. A few degrees and a meter or two of sea level rise over 100 years isn't all that much, especially, considering we're in an incredibly abnormal era of climate (the holocene). We've already exceeded, by several millenia, the longest unbroken interglacial period since modern human beings have been around...and that isn't because of CO2.
 
I'm afraid that's not going to do, you've made an extraordinary claim, and it's going to require extraordinary evidence.

You've made the claim that there is such a thing as a "climate refugee", yet you're unable to present any evidence of such a person existing.

You are aware that coastlines are capable of changing naturally, correct?

well, if i present a source, id guess that youll just attempt to deflect and cast doubt on the source. for example:

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...r-unimaginable-refugee-crisis-senior-military

Climate change is set to cause a refugee crisis of “unimaginable scale”, according to senior military figures, who warn that global warming is the greatest security threat of the 21st century and that mass migration will become the “new normal”.

found this after searching for literally 5 seconds. lets not pretend that you need me to show you this stuff.



how many did she say it displaced?

granted.....this could all just be a coincidence, and a natural cycle of the earth....

i think its common sense though. if you piss in your pool over and over, we know that the water chemistry will change, yes? so if you take things from the ground, and turn them into gasses for more than a century, should we expect nothing to happen? c'mon
 
How did the left's pet horseshit project sneak its way into the National Security Strategy in the first place?
maybe because the pentagon itself has been saying since the 90s that climate change is a national security threat?
 
this is most likely true id bet.
I doubt it could be mitigated even if everyone was on board, which they clearly never will be. I think the best we can do is develop strategies of adaptability.
 
Back
Top