12

Climate changed: Trump reverses Obama, eliminates climate from list of national security threats

Posted by freedomforall 7 months ago to Government
51 comments | Share | Flag

The president’s plan lays out four “vital” national security interests: protecting the homeland and “America’s way of life,” promoting U.S. prosperity, promoting “peace through strength,” and advancing American influence.
“America’s economic security is national security,” the official said. “We will demand fair and reciprocal economic relationships around the world. The economic piece gets much more attention.”
The strategy also affirms the importance to Mr. Trump of alliances such as NATO and the United Nations General Assembly, organizations that have clashed with Mr. Trump’s worldview in the past.
SOURCE URL: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/dec/18/climate-change-removed-from-trump-national-threat-/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by DrZarkov99 6 months, 4 weeks ago
    Obama was laying down a path for Hillary to grab even more control over private industry. With climate change part of a threat to national security, it's easy to invoke emergency Executive powers and enact emission restrictions that Congress and the judiciary can't rescind. We were in real danger of a fascist state.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Dobrien 7 months ago
    Best President in my lifetime.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  allosaur 7 months ago
      Old Dino really liked Reagan, but he did not give the lowdown lamestream media the disrespect they fully deserve.
      To be fair, we did not even have cell phones back then. But would Reagan get into Trumpian Tweeting? Somehow I don't think so.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by JuliBMe 6 months, 4 weeks ago
        Reagan was perfect for his time. A man who should be revered and loved for who he was and what he did in his time in history. He did not have the benefit of seeing the damage the Democrats could do and would do once unleashed and given the license Obama had.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  allosaur 6 months, 4 weeks ago
          Me dino agrees, having lived through that time as a young adult.
          At least Reagan kept the malaise wrought by Jimmy Carter down to four years.
          Carter and even Slick Willie lacked the skin pigment to get away with all the crap Obama pulled.
          But I do vividly recall a smiling Carter stating that those who disagreed with Obama's policies had a racist motive.
          That still turns my stomach.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by JuliBMe 6 months, 4 weeks ago
            Racism is a business to them. They derive their money and power, at least up to recently, from using the race card. They are, obviously, people who don't care about the real consequences to individuals because they will not let the race issue die a natural death (it would have been mostly gone in the '70's and '80's). THEIR racism is why our inner cities are war zones. And, they don't care. Because THEY are racists and narcissistic megalomaniacs who are drunk on the power deceiving people gives them.

            I didn't fully appreciate Reagan when he was in office. I even served under him in the Navy. However, I didn't really pay attention to politics until I had a family and started seeing how much they affected us. But, I've always known that what the left was peddling was just more lies and the first time I was able to vote, I voted against Carter. I didn't vote again for years. Probably against the rapist! LOL.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by term2 6 months, 3 weeks ago
              Reagan expanded government spending and debt a LOT, both in CA and as President. He did some good things and talked a good game, but in the end wasnt he just another statist?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  Dobrien 7 months ago
        I certainly think Reagan had many positives. After being shot his capacity was diminished and continued to deteriorate.Much of his reign was heavily influenced by his VP and GW's cabal of trilateral , CFR, Bilderberg group scum.
        Trump is not in thier camp. GHW Bush couldn't interfere with any comments about Obama's eight year reign of destroying America. But before one year into This admin he can't help but criticize Trump.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by term2 6 months, 3 weeks ago
          Trump is anti the swampish establishment. At this point it seems that the people who criticize Trump are just swamp creatures protecting their turf.

          They came together for this tax bill because they all want to loot a bigger economy. For me, I will cut back working if taxes are lowered, and NOT expand my spending
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 6 months, 3 weeks ago
    I am definitely NOT interested in sacrificing now for the sake of future generations. I dont believe we can affect the climate that much anyway, If there is global heating or cooling like has happened many times in the past, its going to happen anyway. If you live too close to a coast that might be affected, you have 50 years to move to another place.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 7 months ago
    Except for climate change, (COLD/not warm) dangers for "growing food" but, then again, we don't want the national security idiots involved with that!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  allosaur 6 months, 4 weeks ago
      Yeah, climate change is not a national security threat.
      The sun may at times be that, but I wouldn't issue a declaration of war. Uh, whatever those declarations are for, since no one has any use for those things anymore.
      When O was the great and powerful, he said climate change was the greatest national security threat, but that's what me dino considered him to be for 8 long years.
      Me dino does not know at what level O the Deep State great and powerful should be enumerated at. Maybe it's where George Soros should be numbered.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  Dobrien 6 months, 3 weeks ago
        Yes the greatest national security threat. No one can defeat the US from outside it has to be done from the inside. I anxiously await the offensive in the "uncivil war ". I think Pres.Trump has somethings up his sleeve.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  allosaur 6 months, 3 weeks ago
          You remind me of something Rush said on the radio today while I was driving to Concord to get my usual Friday catfish dinner.
          Rush said that while The Donald keeps the Drive-By Media and the rest of Libtard World distracted with his Tweets, he is hidden away in the White House quietly "brick by brick dismantling" all the Obamanation that King Barry built.
          Note: Me dino just told you what Rush said in my own words, more of less.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Ben_C 6 months, 4 weeks ago
    Philosophical abstracts don't cut it for me. As stated in the Dragnet TV series by Sgt Friday: "Just the facts mam, just the facts." I can prove the climate changes daily. What I can't prove is what is going to happen one hundred years from now - its simply speculation. It became crystal clear to me when Al Gore invented the "carbon credits" that the driving agenda was money and control.
    No one wants pollution. Getting rid of the lead in paint and gasoline was a good thing. I fully support recycling. My SUV now gets about 20 mpg. My first SUV got about 8 mpg. Yes, on the whole we are making progress. But I get really tired of the doomsday people stating: "there is evidence the earth is warming." I am from Missouri - show me.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • -1
    Posted by  $  Susanne 6 months, 4 weeks ago
    It's kind of fun, as we were watching this show the other night about the people diving these inundated sites in the Caribbean, Mediterranean, and off the coast. Wonder how political those rising sea waters were as well... Probably plenty back then saying Climate Change wasn't real as the sea level rose...

    Sorry,I don't believe in dogma or politician worship making the evidentiary truth non-existent.. The climate IS changing, and if you don't acknowledge it's reality, it's like not acknowledging that being hit multiple times in the cranium with a baseball bat might cause your brains to leak out of your skull.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 6 months, 4 weeks ago
      We are in an inter-glacial period. It gets warmer ice melts and the sea level rises. As you point out there are sites inundated in other parts of the world. Obviously not the result of the industrial age and carbon dioxide.

      No one doubts that the climate changes. What is doubted is the specific theories as to what will happen as an increase in carbon dioxide.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  blarman 6 months, 4 weeks ago
      No one questions that the climate changes. The thing that is questioned are the mechanics of those changes and the veracity of the claims of those arguing humans are ruining the planet when they are more often manipulating the data or outright lying for money.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • -4
        Posted by rashisway 6 months, 4 weeks ago
        You see, man is good at producing one thing, which is waste, a by-product of his consumption. A lot of the said waste does not decompose readily and accumulates. Most of the problems climate faces are due to the attempts made at disposing of this waste. Certain methods of disposal, vehicular emissions and industrial emissions(all waste products) lead to an increase in the green house gases ( COx, NOx, SOx, polyhalocarbons, etc) . Now, these gases have existed on earth since the origin of life and are responsible for absorbing some heat from the sun rays before they are reflected back, so as to keep the earth warm. The only reason life can be supported on the planet.
        What humans have done is, contributed to an increase in their proportion. Obviously this would increase the overall temperature of the planet. This rise in temperature is termed as the global warming and is responsible for the melting of polar ice caps. There is no argument whether it is majorly caused by the ever increasing human population. The fact that certain someone use the 'global warming' jargon to extort money, or the lack of importance given to the scientific reports proving that our actions have lead to the climate change is 'politics' and irrelevant.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  blarman 6 months, 4 weeks ago
          One organism's by-products are another organism's inputs. Plants love the extra CO2 and their growth around the globe has been demonstrably measured in positive terms in farm production. The other gases you mention are frequently produced by volcanoes in far greater volume and frequency than anything produced by man, so again your argument there is unpersuasive.

          CO2 is a cooling gas, however - not a warming one. Its effect due to a negligible concentration in the atmosphere is still a subject of much debate. The more credible heat trapping gas is actually water vapor. What also gets missed in much of climate change ties more closely to things called Maunder Minimums (others on the Board here are far more knowledgeable - there are some great investigative pieces if you do a quick search). These are solar cycles and far more closely align with temperature phenomenon than gas levels in the atmosphere. Indeed, since ALL energy on earth came from the Sun at one point, it seems a far more illustrative solution to take a look at the Sun first and foremost as the source of climate, which unfortunately most of the global warming crowd fails to do.

          PS - the polar ice caps aren't melting in aggregate. What is being melted off one is accumulating - and then some - on the other, with a net effect in that the ice caps (in aggregate) are actually growing - not shrinking. There are also more polar bears now than there were 30 years ago - another common but demonstrably false myth spouted by the global warming fanatics.

          "There is no argument whether it is majorly caused by the ever increasing human population."

          Yes, there is. In fact, our earth hasn't warmed at all in twenty years - despite Al Gore's dire predictions that the US West Coast would be under water by 2010. And this despite unprecedented growth in human population and industry.

          Now I'm not going to argue that humans are infallible and we aren't doing anything to ruin the planet. One look at Hudson Bay or the Yangtze River in China can tell you otherwise. I'm just saying that I'm not buying the global warming hysteria because it is all based on junk science and charlatanism from a bunch of ideologues who call themselves scientists yet won't look at the actual evidence. And what is their proposal? Its basically to kill off people and destroy industry "for the good of the planet". And they get paid government grants to make it sound like it will be the end of the world if we don't allow government to tax us to death - literally.

          For a really good read, try Michael Crichton's State of Fear. What many don't know is that when Crichton started out to write the book, it was going to be along all the same lines you've just given: that humankind was destroying the earth and bringing on an apocalypse. But Crichton always puts a tremendous amount of research into his books (you can see it on the first page of each chapter) and what he found was that the evidence actually contradicted the narrative of catastrophic, human-induced climate change. Crichton was forced to completely re-write his book to match the evidence.

          There's lots more, but that's all I'm going to post for the moment.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • -3
    Posted by rashisway 6 months, 4 weeks ago
    'You can't consume what you can't produce'

    This completely applies to nature. Nature is the producer here and man is the lowest form of moocher. One who doesn't even entirely comprehend the adverse effects of his actions. Man has consumed what the nature has produced. Not realising that the rate of production by nature is much lower than the rate of consumption by man. The untoward and unthought of acts of mooching by men since centuries are finally showing their results. Climate change is a real threat. Very real.

    The problem with the society is, people with the knowledge to make amends or at least slow down the rate of deterioration are not the ones with the power to affect public policy. A world where the decision making power does not lie with the people who comprehend the situation, the need and urgency of action, is bound to fall and crumble.

    None of us might be able to witness that happening. But all of us must realise that this is our legacy, our footprint that will be left behind.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 6 months, 4 weeks ago
      Certainly in the realm of food, what man consumes is not completely produced by nature. Man's intellect and effort has modified naturally occurring foods until they are vastly more effective as food. Very few of the things we eat are not changed by the will of man.

      You speak of the "rate of deterioration". There is no deterioration in the ability to sustain life. We have the highest world standard of living in history -- and it gets better every year. The idea that there is a deterioration that must be fought is an effort to seize control over production to stop it.

      And, if the maunder minimum doesn't come in the next decade and cause global cooling and the globe gets warming, it will generally be good. Historically people do well in times of warming and poorly in times of cooling.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  blarman 6 months, 4 weeks ago
      Sure the climate changes. But exactly how it does so and to what effect Man is responsible is very much in question. What is not in question is that those pushing the global warming hysteria are fighting the science - not confirming it. From the falsification of records at East Anglia to the wildly inaccurate models for the past twenty years, there is literally nothing on which advocates can stand.

      What we should recognize is that Nature is pretty doggone resilient and does a pretty good job compensating for whatever man does. The argument that man controls this planet has too much hubris and not enough reality for me to take seriously.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by CaptainKirk 6 months, 4 weeks ago
        The planet was here long before man, and will be here long after.

        I wish these deranged dems could SEE that their view means killing people helps the planet. And some socialist is going to take them up on that offer...
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo