Joins Other Pro-Climate Leaders in Condemning Regressive Move
WASHINGTON – Congresswoman Elaine Luria (VA-02) and other members of the New Democrat Coalition Climate Change Task Force this week condemned President Trump’s announcement that the U.S. would begin the withdrawal process from the Paris Climate Accord, leaving America as the only nation to abandon the global effort to combat climate change.
The four task force leaders stressed the importance of the United States’ recommitment to the agreement and our nation’s role as a global leader in combatting climate change:
“The President’s decision to begin formally withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement threatens our coastal community and puts our military readiness at risk,” NDC Climate Change Task Force Co-Chair Luria said. “The Department of Defense found that climate change is a ‘national security issue’ and ‘the greater Hampton Roads area is very vulnerable to flooding caused by rising sea levels and land subsidence.’ The Administration should listen to our military and reverse this decision.”
“In abandoning the Paris Agreement, the United States resigns its role as a global leader in the fight against climate change. The U.S. will become the sole major carbon polluter not a party to this agreement, abdicating our responsibility and compromising our ability to negotiate future international agreements,” NDC Climate Change Task Force Co-Chair Don Beyer (VA-08) said. “Taking us out of the Paris Accords isolates and embarrasses our country on the world stage. The United States must preserve its commitments at home and abroad.”
“As our country continues to experience dangerous wildfires, flooding, and extreme weather events, we need bold leadership on climate. Instead, President Trump has abdicated our role as a world leader in combating the climate crisis to side with polluters,” NDC Climate Change Task Force Co-Chair Sean Casten (IL-06) said. “The Administration’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement is a catastrophic mistake – for our environment, our global standing, and our economy. America should be a leader in climate action, not the only nation not taking action. America is better than this. We must demand action on climate now.”
“The Administration has sent official notice to the United Nations to become the only nation in the world not in the Paris Climate Accord. Months ago, the House passed the Climate Action Now Act to take this crisis seriously. It is now more important than ever that Senate Majority leader McConnell brings this to a vote in the Senate,” NDC Climate Change Task Force Co-Chair Susan Wild (PA-07) said.
“This is not the time for our nation to step away from the world stage. Just look at our region. Tribal members and coastal homeowners facing rising waters, shellfish growers watching changing ocean chemistry hurt their operations, and firefighters wrestling with more severe fires will tell you climate change is here,” NDC Chair Derek Kilmer (WA-06) said. “President Trump should listen to the American people who are not just demanding action – but leadership to counter the impacts of climate change.”
The NDC is committed to combatting climate change with the urgency it demands through durable, long-lasting, and pragmatic policy solutions. The Coalition, led by the Climate Change Task Force, recently released its Priorities for U.S. Climate Policy, a comprehensive pathway to addressing climate change through American leadership and global action toward decarbonization efforts and the attainment of net-zero emissions in the U.S. by 2050 at the latest. The NDC also endorsed a slate of 12 bills – 7 of which are bipartisan, including Congresswoman Luria’s Nuclear Energy Leadership Act – to take action on the priorities and begin pushing legislation forward. Among that slate of bills was H.R. 9, The Climate Action Now Act, which prohibits the United States from withdrawing from the Paris Climate Accord.
Background: The Paris Climate Accord is an international treaty developed under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 2015. The accord aimed to bring all nations together into a common initiative to ambitiously combat climate change and adapt to its effects by drastically reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The reduction in emissions looked to hold global temperature rise in the 21st century well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels with efforts to limit increases even further to 1.5 degrees Celsius. President Trump first notified the United Nations of his intention to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord on June 1, 2017; however, the Paris Agreement entered into force on November 4, 2016, with stipulations that no country could leave the accord for three years, after which there is a one-year waiting period for the withdrawal process to be finalized.
Paul Plante says
Where to even begin with all this horse****?
So how about at the beginning, which would be the United Nations informational document entitled “What is the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change?” where we have as follows:
The UNFCCC entered into force on 21 March 1994.
Today, it has near-universal membership.
The 197 countries that have ratified the Convention are called Parties to the Convention.
end quotes
So, okay, but so what?
Where is it supposed to go from there, and here, like Congresswoman Luria, who the New York Times identifies as a member of a group of other moderate female first-term Democrats who call themselves the “badasses,” I am speaking as a graduate engineer?
Here is what the UN says, to wit:
Preventing “dangerous” human interference with the climate system is the ultimate aim of the UNFCCC.
end quotes
Now, talk about a “pregnant statement,” alright – that one is a doozy.
What, pray tell, Congresswoman Luria, you “badass” you, is “dangerous” human interference with the climate system?
And what punitive measures do you and your fellow Democrats on this NDC Climate Change Task Force of yours plan to use on the rest of us to make us kow-tow?
And when will you provide us with a list of what actually constitutes “dangerous” human interference with the climate system so we too can know what it is you are going to force on us?
Will nuclear power generation top that list, as it should, given what happened in France just last summer, when the poor froggies, over there were cooking themselves as a result of all the waste heat they were pumping into their rivers over there from their nuclear power plants?
Getting back to what the UN has to say here, we have:
The ultimate objective of the Convention is to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations “at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic (human induced) interference with the climate system.”
It states that “such a level should be achieved within a time-frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened, and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.”
end quotes
All of which is mindless pablum mixed with horse****, because that, like so much associated with politics anymore, like this press release above here, is a formula for doing nothing at all, while making it sound to the gullible and ignorant, and boy, in this country we a chock-a-block with them, as the so-called “education” system in this country turns out more and more people with pure **** for brains, which makes them GOOD DEMOCRATS, people unable to think, and therefore unable to question the political crap that flows forth from this Democrat NDC Climate Change Task Force, that a whole lot is being done when it is really “bidness as usual” and empty talk.
So before moving on, let’s recap for the moment here, before this mountain of bull**** being thrown at us and dumped on us by this NDC Climate Change Task Force buries us forever:
If, Congresswoman Luria, the ultimate objective of the Convention is to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations “at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic (human induced) interference with the climate system,” what exactly is that level, and how are YOU calculating it?
And please, don’t hand us that hodge-podge crazy quilt, cherry-picked “science” being handed to us by the political-appointee “scientists” on this IPCC who are literally throwing established science in the trashcan so they can come up with their “justification” of this “Climate Accord,” which is nothing but empty blather.
And Congresswoman Luria, with respect to the statement that “such a level should be achieved within a time-frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened, and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner,” in which year in the future do you and your fellow NDC Climate Change Task Force members see the “ecosystem” adapting naturally to climate change?
How many years do you see for that to take place?
And since “ecosystems” are in fact a part of the earth, as are humans, and climate change is a part of the earth’s natural cycles, as well, wouldn’t their adaptation today and tomarrow have to be as natural as it has been for the last several millennia?
And with those questions posed for the “badass” Congresswoman to answer, let me conclude with these words from the real acknowledged expert on the earth’s ever-changing climate, that being Hubert H. Lamb, founder of the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia College in England, taken from his authoritative “CLIMATE, HISTORY AND THE MODERN WORLD,” Second Edition, where we have as follows:
Taking an overall view of the changes of climate established during the millennia with which this chapter is concerned, it is clear that they have to do with the end of the warmest post-glacial times.
It would be presumptuous to suppose that human activities had much to do with it.
There were several abrupt cooling stages and sometimes the recoveries, though these were either shorter lived or incomplete, were quite rapid too.
The difference of mean temperature between the warmest and coldest individual centuries between 3500 and 500 BC in central Europe may well have amounted to 2°C or perhaps a little more.
end quotes
Based on the real science, Congresswoman Luria, as opposed to the contrived science of the political IPCC, the expert says, “it would be presumptuous to suppose that human activities had much to do with it,” that being the change in the earth’s climate that has us getting colder.
How do you and your fellow “badass” Democrats reconcile your position today that humans are the sole cause of climate change with that position taken by an eminent scientist based on real, not contrived scientific evidence, that it would be presumptuous to suppose that human activities had much to do with changing the earth’s climate?
Are you saying that you personally have evidence that he is wrong?
If so, please take a moment and share it with us.
Deborah Bender says
I think I just felt the earth shift!
Paul Plante says
To see the horse**** nature of this contrived “science” from the political-appointee “scientists” comprising this IPCC crowd that Congresswoman Luria is pushing with her call that we, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, allow the United States of America to be subsumed into what is in essence a very undemocratic and opaque world government that we have no voice in as American citizens, let’s go back to the United Nations informational document entitled “What is the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change?” where we have as follows:
The Convention recognized that there was a problem.
This was remarkable for its time.
Remember, in 1994, when the UNFCCC took effect, there was less scientific evidence than there is now.
end quotes
And that is pure horse****, people, because by September 1981, as we can clearly see from the PREFACE to the authoritative and comprehensive “CLIMATE, HISTORY AND THE MODERN WORLD,” Second Edition, by Hubert H. Lamb, founder of the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia College in England, as follows:
We live in a world that is increasingly vulnerable to climatic shocks.
After some decades in which it seemed that technological advance had conferred on mankind a considerable degree of immunity to the harvest failures and famines that afflicted our forefathers, population pressure and some other features of the modern world have changed the situation.
In the years since about 1960, moreover, the climate has behaved less obligingly than we had become used to earlier in the century.
end quotes
By the climate acting less obligingly after 1960, by way of example, the author provides as follows with respect to the history of climate change on earth, which is a constant process:
The slow rise of world sea level, amounting in all probably to one metre or less, that seems to have been going on over the warmer centuries in Roman times, not only submerged the earlier harbour installations in the Mediterranean but by AD 400 produced a notable incursion of the sea from the Wash into the English fenland and maintained estuaries and inlets that were navigable by small craft on the continental shore of the North Sea from Flanders to Jutland (fig. 60).
end quotes
Now, I am sure that when the sea levels rose back around AD 400 and submerged the harbor installations in the Mediterranean, those people we probably screaming “CLIMATE CRISIS,” as well, but such it is, the earth didn’t hear that the earth doesn’t care, which brings us back to the question of why it has starting getting COLDER after the Roman Warm Times.
As to “climate crises”:
The transgression of the sea over the previous coastline of Flanders and the Netherlands between about AD 250 and 275 had caused a depopulation of the coastal plain there.
Close study by Sylvia Hallam over many years of the history of human settlement near the coast of the Wash in eastern England (Antiquity, vol. 35, pp. 152–6, 1961) has indicated that sea level was rising from some centuries before up to a maximum attained in the last century BC.
There was then some recession of the water until about AD 200, followed by a major high stand and incursion of the sea around AD 300–400.
Sea level was again rather lower in the seventh and eighth centuries and possibly later, but seems to have been again high in the late thirteenth to fifteenth centuries.
The present writer’s opinion is that the impression of a high level of the sea as late as the fifteenth century may in reality owe a good deal to storm surges — i.e. to recurrent sea floods as storminess increased.
end quotes
So when the UN, and by extension, Congresswoman Luria tell us there was less scientific evidence than there is now, that is pure BULL****.
The problem for them, since they have a political agenda, as we saw above where the UN tells us that the ultimate objective of the Convention is to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations “at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic (human induced) interference with the climate system.”
end quotes
For their political agenda to succeed, they need a “new” science which would displace the science presented by Lamb, and according to this “new” science being literally created by the IPCC crowd, the climate is only changing because of human activity.
On its own it would have stayed the same, which takes us back to Lamb as follows:
And there is alarm about how man’s activities might inadvertently upset the familiar climatic regime and therefore disrupt the food production which is geared to it.
This concern has in recent years largely replaced the debate which had begun earlier about the possibilities of deliberate action to change world climate so as to increase the total cultivable area.
Serious anxieties have been aroused by respected scientists, acknowledged as experts in the field, warning of dire perils: that the next ice age may be now due to begin, and could come upon us very quickly, or that the side-effects of man’s activities and their ever-growing scale may soon tip the balance of world climate the other way and for a few centuries produce a climate warm enough to melt the Greenland and Antarctic ice-caps, raising the sea level and drowning most of the world’s great cities.
This book examines what we know about climate, and its impact on human affairs now and in the historical and prehistoric past, and how we may better understand the problem of climatic fluctuations and changes.
Climatic forecasting in the strict sense may be far off, though premature claims are made from many sides.
But much has been learnt about the laws which govern the behaviour of climate.
end quotes
The laws which govern the behavior of climate, people.
It is those laws that the IPCC is changing to suit the political agenda of the UN, which we clearly see in the following sentence from the UN, to wit:
The UNFCCC borrowed a very important line from one of the most successful multilateral environmental treaties in history (the Montreal Protocol, in 1987): it bound member states to act in the interests of human safety even in the face of scientific uncertainty.
end quotes
Even in the face of scientific uncertainty?
But we didn’t have any scientific uncertainty before it was created by the IPCC for political purposes – the record of the history of the world’s ever-changing climate is well-documented, and that well-documented history defies this carbon dioxide model being pushed on us by the IPCC crowd, so the UN crowd has conveniently brought in that nebulous catch-all phrase “act in the interests of human safety even in the face of scientific uncertainty,” which is a license for the IPCC to practice crack-pot science and pass it off as the real thing, because of that thing of “uncertainty.”
And when we look further on that website for the “science” which is supposed to justify anything the UN is doing, we come to this mealy-mouth horsecrap, to wit:
How does the UN climate change regime promote science and policy interaction?
Effective interaction between climate science and policy is important for moving climate negotiations forwards.
Scientific observations, research and assessment continues to inform the international climate regime, as well as national and regional climate policies.
The UN climate change process, under the Convention bodies, relies on scientific information on climate change through a number of work streams.
end quotes
And that’s it, people, which then takes us to this, to wit:
Cooperation with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
The IPCC assesses the scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for understanding the risk of human-induced climate change.
end quotes
And that should read the IPCC sorts through and cherry-picks and then jury-rigs together a hodge-podge, crazy quilt “science” intended to lay all the blame for “climate change” on human beings, starting with us, as again we see from the following:
Puts the onus on developed countries to lead the way.
• The idea is that, as they are the source of most past and current greenhouse gas emissions, industrialized countries are expected to do the most to cut emissions on home ground.
Directs new funds to climate change activities in developing countries.
• Industrialized nations agree under the Convention to support climate change activities in developing countries by providing financial support for action on climate change — above and beyond any financial assistance they already provide to these countries.
end quotes
So it is about cash flow, people.
The haves versus the have nots.
Because the IPCC crowd has created a new science that shows we the American people are guilty of causing the earth’s climate to change, which is now harming all these “have-not” nations, we now have an obligation to provide them financial support for action on “climate change,” a very nebulous term that invites graft and corruption, above and beyond any financial assistance that we already provide to these countries.
That is what Congresswoman Luria is trying to force on us.
The question is why.
Why does Congresswoman Luria want to surrender the United States of America to this IPCC crowd?
What pray tell is up with that?
Paul Plante says
And while we are on the subject of mealy-mouth horse****, let’s one more time go back to the United Nations informational document entitled “What is the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change?” where we have as follows:
Economic development is particularly vital to the world’s poorer countries.
end quotes
Yes, people, that is what this whole show is really all about – a wealth transfer to the world’s poorer countries to make “universal human flourishing” possible, which requires “global social democracy” with universal provision of social services and global democratic control over earth’s systems governance.
This CLIMATE CRISIS caused by CARBON DIOXIDE (BOO! HISS!) being put forward by Congresswoman Luria is simply a convenient excuse, as we see by going back to the UN document, as follows:
Such progress is difficult to achieve even without the complications added by climate change.
The Convention takes this into consideration by accepting that the share of greenhouse gas emissions produced by developing nations will grow in the coming years.
end quotes
But wait a minute, wasn’t this about the ultimate objective of the Convention being to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations “at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic (human induced) interference with the climate system?”
So why then is the “Convention” accepting that the share of greenhouse gas emissions produced by developing nations will grow in the coming years?
More to the point, why is Congresswoman Luria accepting that, when it is she who is saying we have a climate crisis that requires everybody in the whole world, including we American people, to cut our carbon dioxide emission or the world will end in 2030?
What is it that we are missing here, Congresswoman Luria?
Can you please step in here and explain this seeming discrepancy to us?
And as to rough seas and a real climate crisis, at least for the Romans, on at least two occasions (255 and 253 BC) during the first Punic War, whole Roman fleets were destroyed in bad weather; the disaster off Camarina in 255 BC counted 270 ships and 119,280 men lost, the greatest single loss in history.
Perhaps we should feel lucky the seas are not so hungry in our times, n’est-ce pas?
Paul Plante says
So to see where Congresswoman Luria and her NDC Climate Change Task Force crowd want to take the nation, we need to again go back to the United Nations informational document entitled “What is the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change?” to wit:
Directs new funds to climate change activities in developing countries.
• Industrialized nations agree under the Convention to support climate change activities in developing countries by providing financial support for action on climate change — above and beyond any financial assistance they already provide to these countries.
end quotes
And that phrase “above and beyond any financial assistance they already provide to these countries” in its turn takes us in two directions, first to REMARKS BY THE MINISTER OF WATER AND CLIMATE HONOURABLE OPPAH. C.Z. MUCHINGURI-KASHIRI (MP) AT COP 23, Bonn, Germany, which point to the future that Congresswoman Luria wants to saddle us with, and at the same time back to an Address to the UN by Secretary of State Kissinger in New York on April 15, 1974, where on behalf of WE, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE in whose name he was appearing there, make no mistake about that, Dr. Kissinger said:
The Challenge of Interdependence
We are gathered here in a continuing venture to realize mankind’s hopes for a more prosperous, humane, just, and cooperative world.
As members of this organization, we are pledged not only to free the world from the scourge of war but to free mankind from the fear of hunger, poverty, and disease.
The quest for justice and dignity — which finds expression in the economic and social articles of the United Nations Charter — has global meaning in an age of instantaneous communication.
Improving the quality of human life has become a universal political demand, a technical possibility, and a moral imperative.
We meet here at a moment when the world economy is under severe stress.
The energy crisis first dramatized its fragility.
But the issues transcend that particular crisis.
Each of the problems we face — of combating inflation and stimulating growth, of feeding the hungry and lifting the impoverished, of the scarcity of physical resources and the surplus of despair — is part of an interrelated global problem.
Let us begin by discarding outdated generalities and sterile slogans we have — all of us — lived with for so long.
The great issues of development can no longer realistically be perceived in terms of confrontation between the “haves” and “have-nots” or as a struggle over the distribution of statist wealth.
Whatever our ideological belief or social structure, we are part of a single international economic system on which all of our national economic objectives depend.
end quotes
Now, let’s focus in on these statements from that address which brings us to the present moment, to wit:
Let us begin by discarding outdated generalities and sterile slogans we have — all of us — lived with for so long.
The great issues of development can no longer realistically be perceived in terms of confrontation between the “haves” and “have-nots” or as a struggle over the distribution of statist wealth.
end quotes
But the Democrats cannot do that, discard their outdated generalities and sterile slogans they have lived with for so long, because slogans are all they have, and as to the great issues of development, the Democrats cannot stop perceiving them in terms of confrontation between the “haves” and “have-nots” and as a struggle over the distribution of statist wealth, because the Democrats market themselves as the CHAMPIONS of the have-nots, so have-nots we will have to the end of time, because it represents a flow of money to the Democrat that can be milked for graft, and that in turn takes us to the dude from corrupt Zimbabwe with its triple digit inflation, as follows:
We would like to see the Paris Agreement upholding the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities in light of national circumstances.
end quotes
The national circumstances of Zimbabawe are that it is a corrupt ****hole that would use this Paris Agreement as a means of getting a suction hose into the pockets of the U.S taxpayers forever into the future, the way the Paris Agreement is written, to wit:
Global peaking and ‘climate neutrality’ (Art. 4)
To achieve this temperature goal, Parties aim to reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) as soon as possible, recognizing peaking will take longer for developing country Parties, so as to achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of GHGs in the second half of the century.
end quotes
So, as these things go, and remember, the UN itself is deemed a corrupt body, “as soon as possible” where cash flow is involved means “take forever,” which takes us back to the dude from Zimbabwe, as follows:
We believe that climate action in developing countries should be backed by strong financial support from the developed world which is responsible for the bulk of historical greenhouse gas emissions.
end quotes
To which Congresswoman Luria rushes forward vigorously waving a SURRENDER FLAG while her fellow Democrats lower the American flag forever, to replace it with the weak blue flag of the United Nations, instead.
“WE OWE THE PEOPLE OF ZIMBABWE, SO IT IS ONLY RIGHT THAT WE NOW OPEN OUR TREASURY TO THEM, AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CAN WORK A FEW EXTRA HOURS A WEEK TO PAY THE TAXES TO KEEP THAT CASH FLOW GOING!”
That is what joining the Paris Agreement will buy us, people -eternal servitude to every corrupt ****hole on the face of the earth looking to fund their corruption with American taxpayer dollars.
Democrat Congresswoman Luria is for that, funding corruption in other nations like Zimbabwe; as an American citizen, I am not, and thank you to the Cape Charles Mirror for allowing me the opportunity to make myself incandescently clear on that matter.
Paul Plante says
So, bringing this discussion back into the present moment where Congresswoman Luria intended it to be with this press release above here, where we were informed “Congresswoman Elaine Luria (VA-02) and other members of the New Democrat Coalition Climate Change Task Force this week condemned President Trump’s announcement that the U.S. would begin the withdrawal process from the Paris Climate Accord, leaving America as the only nation to abandon the global effort to combat climate change, we were informed by Congresswoman Luria, as follows in what is an obvious political statement, to wit:
The four task force leaders stressed the importance of the United States’ recommitment to the agreement and our nation’s role as a global leader in combatting climate change:
“The President’s decision to begin formally withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement threatens our coastal community and puts our military readiness at risk,” NDC Climate Change Task Force Co-Chair Luria said.
end quotes
But as we can clearly see from the above commentary, that is not at all true, because the so-called “Paris Agreement,” which is nothing more than a blatant and never-ending wealth transfer scheme from those who have to those who want, in no way, shape or manner protects anything in the United States of America other than a steady stream of graft the Democrats can feed off into eternity, which is manna from heaven for them, at our expense.
The Paris Agreement, which is a transparent sham, does nothing to protect our coastal communities from anything, so who does this Congresswoman think she is kidding here with this partisan political gibberish she is spewing here?
If OUR coastal communities are indeed at risk from something, then it would behoove us as a nation and as a people to do something about it, as opposed to joining the Paris Agreement as Congresswoman Luria is demanding and then waiting for Zimbabwe, and Kenya, and The Congo and Chad to come to our rescue.
So why is Congresswoman Luria demanding that we as a nation and as a people do something stupid by wasting valuable time with this parasitic Paris Agreement crowd, as opposed to rolling up our sleeves and bending our backs to save our own people who are in jeopardy first?
And then she says: “The Department of Defense found that climate change is a ‘national security issue’ and ‘the greater Hampton Roads area is very vulnerable to flooding caused by rising sea levels and land subsidence.’”
No kidding, Congresswoman!
As to land subsidence, of course, that has nothing to do with climate change whatsoever, and there is absolutely nothing all the Paris Agreement crowd’s horses and the Paris Agreement crowd’s men can do about the fact that land all along the East Coast of the United States is sinking due to natural geological forces the Navy has known about probably for a century now, so why should Trump join the Paris Agreement because the East Coast of the United States of America is sinking?
As to the greater Hampton Roads area, which is part of the Tidewater region of Virginia consisting of generally flat and low flooded river plains composed of tidal marsh and large expanses of swamp with the name Tidewater region getting its name from the effects of the changing tides on local rivers, sounds, and the ocean, with gradually disappearing islands and shoreline, being is very vulnerable to flooding caused by rising sea levels, why is the United States Navy hoping that somehow, this Paris Agreement crowd will somehow step in and save their bacon for them while pulling their fat out of the fire by making the ocean stop rising?
Is the U.S. Navy now unable to think for itself, and to take actions to save itself as a military force?
Is that why we now have to join this Paris Agreement, to save our Navy from disaster?
If that is the case, how pitifully weak as a nation we have become.
Paul Plante says
Getting back to this statement by NDC Climate Change Task Force Co-Chair Luria that “(T)he President’s decision to begin formally withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement puts our military readiness at risk,” how can that possibly be, people?
What possible relationship does NDC Climate Change Task Force Co-Chair Luria see that in any way links our military readiness with the so-called Paris Agreement, which is nothing more than a wealth transfer scheme?
How could there possibly be any type of linkage between our military readiness and the so-called Paris Agreement, given that the Paris Agreement is nothing more than a wealth transfer scheme which would weaken us as a nation, not strengthen us in any way?
What game is NDC Climate Change Task Force Co-Chair Luria playing at here, people, and why?
That the Paris Agreement being pushed above here by NDC Climate Change Task Force Co-Chair Luria is little more than a SCAM can readily be seen as follows from p.10 of a book entitled “Ecomodernism: Technology, Politics and The Climate Crisis” by Jonathan Symons, copyright 2019, as follows:
Social psychology also tells us that people are generally much more likely to acknowledge the existence of a threat if they believe others have caused it.
Consider the 2015 Paris Agreement’s aspirational target of limiting warming 1.5°C.
This goal was always a fantasy whose adoption suggests a collective desire to avoid difficult truths.
Even if all emissions ceased today, warming might eventually exceed 1.5°C (Hansen et al. 2008).
The more ambitious 2°C now also looks practically unfeasible.
Full implementation of the Paris Agreement pledges would bridge only about twenty-two percent of the gap between our current emissions trajectory and a pathway consistent with limiting this century’s warming to 2°C (UNFCCC 2015b, p. 44).
At the time of writing, no major developed economy is on track to meet even these feeble pledges Victor et al. 2017).
end quotes
That house-of-cards farce is what NDC Climate Change Task Force Co-Chair Luria wants us to base our military readiness on in this country.
WHY?
Why are we being asked by NDC Climate Change Task Force Co-Chair Luria to base our military readiness on a SCAM?
As to Hampton Roads, itself, has the Navy become so incompetent these days that it no longer realizes how fragile and unprotected from the ocean Hampton Roads really is?
And how can the Navy be so stupid when they, like all the rest of us, have access to THE HURRICANE HISTORY OF CENTRAL AND EASTERN VIRGINIA, where we are informed as follows:
Continuous weather records for the Hampton Roads Area of Virginia began on January 1, 1871 when the National Weather Service was established in downtown Norfolk.
The recorded history of significant tropical storms that affected the area goes back much further.
Prior to 1871, very early storms have been located in ship logs, newspaper accounts, history books, and countless other writings.
The residents of coastal Virginia during Colonial times were very much aware of the weather.
They were a people that lived near the water and largely derived their livelihood from the sea.
To them, a tropical storm was indeed a noteworthy event.
The excellent records left by some of Virginia’s early settlers and from official records of the National Weather Service are summarized below.
Learning from the past will help us prepare for the future.
end quotes
Except if you are the U.S. Navy of today, apparently, if we are to believe a word NDC Climate Change Task Force Co-Chair Luria is telling us, which takes us to that history she and the Navy are apparently unaware of, as follows:
SEVENTEENTH AND EIGHTEENTH CENTURIES
1635 August 24 – First historical reference to a major hurricane that could have affected the VA coast.
1667 September 6 – It appears likely this hurricane caused the widening of the Lynnhaven River.
The Bay rose 12 feet above normal and many people had to flee.
1693 October 29 – From the Royal Society of London, There happened a most violent storm in VA which stopped the course of ancient channels and made some where there never were any.
1749 October 19 – Tremendous hurricane. A sand spit of 800 acres was washed up and with the help of a hurricane in 1806 it became Willoughby Spit.
The Bay rose 15 feet above normal.
NINETEENTH CENTURY
1806 August 23 – Called the Great Coastal Hurricane of 1806.
1821 September 3 – The Norfolk-Long Island Hurricane.
One of the most violent hurricanes on record.
Ships in Norfolk were washed ashore by winds, waves, and storm surge.
Storm surge estimated to be around 10 feet in some areas.
1878 October 23 – Cobb and Smith Islands, on the Eastern Shore, were completely submerged.
1879 August 18 – Tide in Norfolk 7.77 feet above Mean Lower Low Water.
Average 5 minute wind speed at Cape Henry 76 mph with 100 mph estimated gusts.
1887 October 31 – Average 5 minute wind speed at Cape Henry 78 mph.
The storm caused a record number of marine disasters.
1897 October 25 – Lasted 60 hours. Norfolk tides 8.1 feet above Mean Lower Low Water.
1899 October 31 – Average 5 minute wind at Cape Henry 72 mph. Tide in Norfolk reached 8.9 feet above MLLW.
end quotes
So how come NDC Climate Change Task Force Co-Chair Luria is surprised by any of this when it is high school level history readily available to anyone in this country including NDC Climate Change Task Force Co-Chair Luria?
And what does she think this Paris Agreement crowd is going to do to put an end to that violence the ocean and nature like to inflict on the Hampton Roads area of Virginia?