U.N. Climate Conflict & Energy Wars

There will be a lot of big headlines this week in the mainstream media as the United Nations’ IPCC releases its most recent report to the world about the state of the climate.  A report that will claim with growing confidence how mankind is changing the climate for the worse.

One of the claims in the report will be that climate change will worsen global security problems and lead to more wars.  An example of the type of scary headline to expect appears in today’s San Francisco Chronicle by AP Science Writer Seth Borenstein.

UN Science Report: Warming Worsens Security Woes

Sunday, March 30, 2014

…” In an authoritative report due out Monday a United Nations climate panel for the first time is connecting hotter global temperatures to hotter global tempers. Top scientists are saying that climate change will complicate and worsen existing global security problems, such as civil wars, strife between nations and refugees.”…

…the chapter on national security says there is “robust evidence” that “human security will be progressively threatened as climate changes.” It says it can destabilize the world in multiple ways by making it harder for people to make a living, increasing mass migrations, and making it harder for countries to keep control of their populations.”

Buried in the article is this comment recognizing the huge challenge the UN will face:

…”Poverty is the issue when it comes to security problems — and policies to fight climate change increase poverty, says David Kreutzer at the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington.”

Meanwhile, the bigger worries and fights between nations will continue to be about energy.  Those countries that have energy assets – oil, gas, uranium, etc., vs those that do not.


Michael Klare wrote about this presciently in his article at The Nation almost two years ago:


“The Energy Wars Heat Up:”

…”Conflict and intrigue over valuable energy supplies have been features of the international landscape for a long time. Major wars over oil have been fought every decade or so since World War I, and smaller engagements have erupted every few years…

… what we are now seeing is a whole cluster of oil-related clashes stretching across the globe, involving a dozen or so countries, with more popping up all the time. Consider these flash-points as signals that we are entering an era of intensified conflict over energy.

…The world has long been bifurcated between energy-surplus and energy-deficit states, with the former deriving enormous political and economic advantages from their privileged condition and the latter struggling mightily to escape their subordinate position.

Now, that bifurcation is looking more like a chasm. In such a global environment, friction and conflict over oil and gas reserves—leading to energy conflicts of all sorts—is only likely to increase.”

While the current U.S. administration appears beholden to the environmentalists to restrict development and delivery of energy supplies on its own soil, other countries look to find energy sources and distribution networks wherever they can get them.  Just ask Putin.


Environmentalism: Fuel for Terror?

Frontpage Magazine writer Daniel Greenfield has an interesting article on the role of environmentalism in the U.S. and how it has changed the world’s political landscape.  Daniel’s view is that environmental policies in the U.S. have created the Arab, Chinese, Afghani and Russian wealth which helped to spread terror worldwide.

These same countries now feel threatened by the recent expansion of North American shale gas production.

…”The Russians and the Saudis are both threatened by American energy production for economic reasons and political reasons. America’s import of oil turned Saudi Arabia from a backward country of goat herders not that much more advanced than Afghanistan into a world power whose armies are the legions of Muslim settlers and terrorists spreading across the world.

Without Saudi oil, the Clash of Civilizations with Islam might not even be happening. Energy also allowed Putin to shore up a flailing government and put it back on the path to becoming an expanding empire. But it wasn’t really the KGB oligarchy or the Saudi monarchy that made those things happen.

It was our own environmentalists.

Islam is spreading terror worldwide fueled by oil and dreams of a global Caliphate. Asian countries face a war with China over oil in the South China Sea. Russia is rebuilding the Soviet Union at gunpoint and gaspoint. As Russia, China and Islamic groups gain more confidence; the scale of their conquests will only increase. And all three have become serious threats because of environmentalism.

Environmentalism drove Western nations to export dirty jobs and industries abroad. China gobbled up American manufacturing while Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar and the UAE took up American energy production.  Putin arrived late to the party, but still managed to do to Europe what the Saudis had done to the US. Europe won’t do anything about Russia’s expansionism because it has come to depend on it.”

More here:



Mann’s Hockey Stick Exposed? We all want to see it.

Strange Bedfellows as Climate Change Skeptics and Mainstream Media team up in a Freedom of Information Act Fight against hockey stick fabricator Michael Mann:

…”Penn State climate scientist Michael Mann was best known as the man responsible for ‘the hockey stick graph,’ a sharply upturned curve plot, showing the rise of temperatures due to global warming. Mann’s plot became the iconic image of climate change, featured in An Inconvenient Truth and printed onto a poster-sized ledger for the report of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

But in recent years Mann has become known for his public battles against climate change-denial interest groups seeking opportunities to discredit his research. When the National Review called him “the Jerry Sandusky of climate science” he took them to court for defamation. He’s also faced a fraud investigation by former Virginia State attorney general Ken Cuccinelli, which was tossed out of the state supreme court two years ago. Mann’s 2012 book, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines, chronicles years of rightwing interference

A verdict is expected soon in one of Mann’s cases, a trial winding through the Virginia courts that, oddly, pits him against the interests of the press. Mann is challenging the American Traditions Institute in court—it has since changed its name to the less charged “Energy & Environment Legal Institute”—after the group attempted to obtain access to his email through a FOIA request. Mann argues that his emails constitute “proprietary information,” a special exemption granted to research institutions under Virginia state law. But after an appellate court issued a strong finding, broadly defining “proprietary information” in a way that would make almost any university document—and potentially government documents—exempt from public release, the press took notice.

Organized by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 17 news organizations, including National Public Radio, Dow Jones, and The Washington Post, submitted an amicus brief in November, supporting the group’s rights to Mann’s emails


Strange bedfellows: Climate change deniers, newspapers partner in a FOIA fight: http://www.cjr.org/the_observatory/michael_mann_versus_the_press.php?page=1#sthash.KP9HB88Y.dpuf

Holdren is a science bully with lots of bull

When the science and facts are on your side, don’t be afraid to challenge a government official.

Roger Pielke Jr, is a professor of environmental studies and director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, Boulder.  Roger is also an expert on the relationship between natural disasters and climate change.

As Roger explains:  “When a political appointee [John Holdren] uses his position not just to disagree on science or policy but to seek to delegitimize a colleague, he has gone too far.”

Roger continues to stand up for himself in his March 5 article at the New Republic:

An Obama Advisor Is Attacking Me for Testifying That Climate Change Hasn’t Increased Extreme Weather

Last Friday, the White House posted on its website a six-page criticism of me by the president’s science advisor, John Holdren, expanding on testimony he had given to Congress last week claiming that my views on climate change and extreme weather are outside of “mainstream scientific opinion.” Holdren was specifically responding to Senate testimony I gave last year where I argued that recent extreme weather events, including hurricanes, droughts, floods, and tornadoes, have not increased in recent decades due to human-caused climate change.

In this debate the facts are on my side. The claims I made in my congressional testimony are no different from the ones made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“Long-term trends in economic disaster losses adjusted for wealth and population increases have not been attributed to climate change, but a role for climate change has not been excluded”) and broadly supported in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Even Warren Buffett recently explained that more extreme events haven’t affected his insurance investments, but that “I love apocalyptic predictions” because they increase insurance rates, earning him more money. When Holdren links specific weather events to human-caused climate change—such as the California drought or the cold winter—he is exaggerating the state of scientific understandings.

His subsequent attack on me has him serving not as science advisor to the president, but rather wielding his political position to delegitimize an academic whose views he finds inconvenient.

For more, read Roger Pielke Jr’s full article at the New Republic here: