Mattis: 'Climate change' is a national security threat

[Silver Pines]

Mattis: 'Climate change' is a national security threat


By Paul Bedard
March 14, 2017


In a clash with President Trump's environmental team, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis has declared that climate change is a threat to national security and one military planners must consider in drawing up strategies.

According to a report from ProPublica, Mattis told Democratic senators that climate change is real and "can be a driver of instability."

His position, at odds with President Trump and his Environmental Protection Agency chief, came in answers to questions from senators following his confirmation hearing. They were released to ProPublica which reached out to the White House and Pentagon for comment without success.

Read more at:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/mattis-climate-change-is-a-national-security-threat/article/2617369

[Silver Pines]

"Mattis: "As I noted above, climate change is a challenge that requires a broader, whole-of government response. If confirmed, I will ensure that the Department of Defense plays its appropriate role within such a response by addressing national security aspects.""

I didn't previously view Mattis as an idiot.  Oh, well.

[DCPatriot]

"Mattis: "As I noted above, climate change is a challenge that requires a broader, whole-of government response. If confirmed, I will ensure that the Department of Defense plays its appropriate role within such a response by addressing national security aspects.""

I didn't previously view Mattis as an idiot.  Oh, well.

...unless, as Defense Secretary, he now 'knows' something we peasants don't.   

[Silver Pines]

...unless, as Defense Secretary, he now 'knows' something we peasants don't.   

See, the whole idea that politicians are our betters is what helped develop the Trump cult.

[Night Hides Not]

See, the whole idea that politicians are our betters is what helped develop the Trump cult.

The return of the "best and brightest" meme.

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

People really need to start digging into sources before believing someone else's summary of what was said.  This is an article from the Examiner, citing ProPublica and Mattis' response to questions during the confirmation process.  Most of the stuff being treated as quotes....aren't.  Here's a link to the ProPublica article, which is worth a read:

https://www.propublica.org/article/trumps-defense-secretary-cites-climate-change-national-security-challenge

....In unpublished written testimony provided to the Senate Armed Services Committee after his confirmation hearing in January, Mattis said it was incumbent on the U.S. military to consider how changes like open-water routes in the thawing Arctic and drought in global trouble spots can pose challenges for troops and defense planners. He also stressed this is a real-time issue, not some distant what-if.

“Climate change is impacting stability in areas of the world where our troops are operating today,” Mattis said in written answers to questions posed after the public hearing by Democratic members of the committee. “It is appropriate for the Combatant Commands to incorporate drivers of instability that impact the security environment in their areas into their planning.”

This is about as whitewashed a statement as you could make.  Of course weather patterns can affect drivers of instability, and he's just pointing out that it is something they have to consider.  He wasn't specific about "Man-made climate change" -- he talked about climate change generally, which nobody disputes.  And in areas of the ME that were hit hard recently by drought, like Syria, it is relevant to defense issues because that drought created some of that instability.

This is yet another pro-left source trying to create an issue where none exists.

[Cripplecreek]

"Mattis: "As I noted above, climate change is a challenge that requires a broader, whole-of government response. If confirmed, I will ensure that the Department of Defense plays its appropriate role within such a response by addressing national security aspects.""

I didn't previously view Mattis as an idiot.  Oh, well.

But Trump picks only the very best.....

[Wingnut]

According to a report from ProPublica

If anyone read any further than that line, and believed it... you may be a democrat.

[ABX]

His comments have to be put into context.  He didn't say "Man-made climate change" -- he talked about climate change generally.  And in areas of the ME that were hit hard recently by drought, like Syria, it is relevant to defense issues because that drought created some of that instability.

Exactly correct.

[edpc]

His comments have to be put into context.  He didn't say "Man-made climate change" -- he talked about climate change generally.  And in areas of the ME that were hit hard recently by drought, like Syria, it is relevant to defense issues because that drought created some of that instability.

Exactly.  Climate change is a fact.  It has happened and will continue to occur.  There's nothing we can do to stop it and man made contributions are miniscule in comparison to the effects solar cycles and volcanic activity have had in the past, long before automobile and the industrial age.

[Silver Pines]

@Maj. Bill Martin

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't post from the list of approved sources?  My mistake.


"The issue of global warming and climate change flashed in the past week when EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt questioned the impact of man on the environment.
 
When asked about the impact of carbon dioxide, he said, "I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there's tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see." He added, "We need to continue the debate and continue the review and the analysis."

Mattis, on the other hand, accepts the science of global warming"

And we know what that science teaches.

From your article:

"Mattis’ statements on climate change, for instance, recognize the same body of science that Scott Pruitt, the new Environmental Protection Agency administrator, seems dead-set on rejecting. In a CNBC interview last Thursday, Pruitt rejected established science pointing to carbon dioxide as the main driver of recent global warming."

It seems there's more evidence for concluding Mattis believes in man-made global warming than for assuming the opposite.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

People really need to start digging into sources before believing someone else's summary of what was said.  This is an article from the Examiner, citing ProPublica and Mattis' response to questions during the confirmation process.  Most of the stuff being treated as quotes....aren't.  Here's a link to the ProPublica article, which is worth a read:

https://www.propublica.org/article/trumps-defense-secretary-cites-climate-change-national-security-challenge

....In unpublished written testimony provided to the Senate Armed Services Committee after his confirmation hearing in January, Mattis said it was incumbent on the U.S. military to consider how changes like open-water routes in the thawing Arctic and drought in global trouble spots can pose challenges for troops and defense planners. He also stressed this is a real-time issue, not some distant what-if.

“Climate change is impacting stability in areas of the world where our troops are operating today,” Mattis said in written answers to questions posed after the public hearing by Democratic members of the committee. “It is appropriate for the Combatant Commands to incorporate drivers of instability that impact the security environment in their areas into their planning.”

This is about as whitewashed a statement as you could make.  Of course weather patterns can affect drivers of instability, and he's just pointing out that it is something they have to consider.  He wasn't specific about "Man-made climate change" -- he talked about climate change generally, which nobody disputes.  And in areas of the ME that were hit hard recently by drought, like Syria, it is relevant to defense issues because that drought created some of that instability.

This is yet another pro-left source trying to create an issue where none exists.

As long as his focus is on getting our troops to be able to be prepared in extreme weather and not trying to get the whole army to run on switch grass and corn oil, I don't think this will be a huge problem. Just my dos centavos. It's not like he's running the EPA.

[DCPatriot]

See, the whole idea that politicians are our betters is what helped develop the Trump cult.

Don't be so naive.  He's in charge of our nation's ability to defend itself against any CONCEIVABLE threat.

Furthermore, if our top spooks discovered that China had developed an orbital laser-weapon, able to destroy entire city blocks.....do you think the average citizen should know that?

Heck...now that we're on it....do you think the average citizen in the US should know if OUR military has that capability?

[Idaho_Cowboy]

@Maj. Bill Martin

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't post from the list of approved sources?  My mistake.


"The issue of global warming and climate change flashed in the past week when EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt questioned the impact of man on the environment.
 
When asked about the impact of carbon dioxide, he said, "I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there's tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see." He added, "We need to continue the debate and continue the review and the analysis."

Mattis, on the other hand, accepts the science of global warming"

And we know what that science teaches.

From your article:

"Mattis’ statements on climate change, for instance, recognize the same body of science that Scott Pruitt, the new Environmental Protection Agency administrator, seems dead-set on rejecting. In a CNBC interview last Thursday, Pruitt rejected established science pointing to carbon dioxide as the main driver of recent global warming."

It seems there's more evidence for concluding Mattis believes in man-made global warming than for assuming the opposite.

So who should replace him?


I get your point I just like playing devil's advocate. 

[Rivergirl]

Nice distraction from his disastrous choice as his second in command.  Twice now he has attempted to place a MuslimBrotherhood adherent into a position in our State Department.......AGAIN.

[Frank Cannon]

People really need to start digging into sources before believing someone else's summary of what was said.  This is an article from the Examiner, citing ProPublica and Mattis' response to questions during the confirmation process.  Most of the stuff being treated as quotes....aren't.  Here's a link to the ProPublica article, which is worth a read:

https://www.propublica.org/article/trumps-defense-secretary-cites-climate-change-national-security-challenge

....In unpublished written testimony provided to the Senate Armed Services Committee after his confirmation hearing in January, Mattis said it was incumbent on the U.S. military to consider how changes like open-water routes in the thawing Arctic and drought in global trouble spots can pose challenges for troops and defense planners. He also stressed this is a real-time issue, not some distant what-if.

“Climate change is impacting stability in areas of the world where our troops are operating today,” Mattis said in written answers to questions posed after the public hearing by Democratic members of the committee. “It is appropriate for the Combatant Commands to incorporate drivers of instability that impact the security environment in their areas into their planning.”

This is about as whitewashed a statement as you could make.  Of course weather patterns can affect drivers of instability, and he's just pointing out that it is something they have to consider.  He wasn't specific about "Man-made climate change" -- he talked about climate change generally, which nobody disputes.  And in areas of the ME that were hit hard recently by drought, like Syria, it is relevant to defense issues because that drought created some of that instability.

This is yet another pro-left source trying to create an issue where none exists.

Beat me to the punch. This is fake news.

 :thumbsup2:

[Silver Pines]

So who should replace him?


I get your point I just like playing devil's advocate. 

@Idaho_Cowboy

So do I.  *wink*

I don't propose he should be replaced.  I just state he's a moron on this issue.

[Silver Pines]

Don't be so naive.  He's in charge of our nation's ability to defend itself against any CONCEIVABLE threat.

Furthermore, if our top spooks discovered that China had developed an orbital laser-weapon, able to destroy entire city blocks.....do you think the average citizen should know that?

Heck...now that we're on it....do you think the average citizen in the US should know if OUR military has that capability?

@DCPatriot, you're absolutely right.  Because Mattis said so, I'm going to drop what I know about "climate science" and go side with the left.  Because it was bullcrap until he agreed with them, but now...hey, he knows.

[DCPatriot]

@DCPatriot, you're absolutely right.  Because Mattis said so, I'm going to drop what I know about "climate science" and go side with the left.  Because it was bullcrap until he agreed with them, but now...hey, he knows.

Maybe something was discovered near the South Pole?   Maybe it's adversely affecting the earth's axis?

I'm not challenging what you "..know about "climate science".

GLOBAL SHOCK: The Antarctic is turning LUMINOUS GREEN   http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/779141/Green-ice-Antarctica-NASA-pictures-mystery-theory

"Here's your office, Secretary Mattis....and oh, BTW....they've discovered some nasty green ooze emanating from below the surface in Antartica...ocean life is running for its survival...UN coalition down there right now around the clock.  Global leaders flying in and out......welcome aboard, sir!"

 

...as an example.   

[Maj. Bill Martin]

@Maj. Bill Martin

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't post from the list of approved sources?  My mistake.

Huh?  I wasn't criticizing you, or the source you used  -- there's nothing wrong with citing to the Washington Examiner.  My point is that judging someone (like Mattis) on how someone else paraphrases their remarks is dicey, especially when there are political agendas in play.  The problem is that even the source article cited by the Washington Examiner generally paraphrased/characterized his statements, rather than quoting him directly.

So, the reliability of the story is depending upon whether or not you trust the reporter in question.  But there's absolutely nothing wrong with posting the article.

"The issue of global warming and climate change flashed in the past week when EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt questioned the impact of man on the environment.
 
When asked about the impact of carbon dioxide, he said, "I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there's tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see." He added, "We need to continue the debate and continue the review and the analysis."

Mattis, on the other hand, accepts the science of global warming"

That is the reporter's spin.  Can't you see that?  He is trying to create a controversy about global warming.  Heck, what Mattis thinks about the causes are more or less irrelevant anyway.  His job is to deal with the effects, not the causes.  And why should he create a political controversy by arguing against global warming?  That was just bait for the Democrats to finda reason to oppose him, and he didn't bite.

From your article:

"Mattis’ statements on climate change, for instance, recognize the same body of science that Scott Pruitt, the new Environmental Protection Agency administrator, seems dead-set on rejecting. In a CNBC interview last Thursday, Pruitt rejected established science pointing to carbon dioxide as the main driver of recent global warming."

But that's exactly my point.  Look at that bolded language -- that isn't a quote from Mattis himself; that's how the reporter characterized Mattis' remarks.  But where are the actual, direct quotes from Mattis specifically talking about man-made climate change?  The reporter doesn't provide them even though they would go to the core of the point the reporter s trying to make.  Why is that?

The entire focus of Mattis' remarks wasn't on the existence/causes of climate change, but rather how any climate change would affect the mission of the DoD.  He didn't present himself as an expert on the underlying subject, and didn't offer an expert opinion.  All he cares about -- and all he was really commenting on -- was what climate change means for the DoD.

[Silver Pines]

Maybe something was discovered near the South Pole?   Maybe it's adversely affecting the earth's axis?

I'm not challenging what you "..know about "climate science".

GLOBAL SHOCK: The Antarctic is turning LUMINOUS GREEN   http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/779141/Green-ice-Antarctica-NASA-pictures-mystery-theory

"Here's your office, Secretary Mattis....and oh, BTW....they've discovered some nasty green ooze emanating from below the surface in Antartica...ocean life is running for its survival...UN coalition down there right now around the clock.  Global leaders flying in and out......welcome aboard, sir!"

 

...as an example.

@DCPatriot

I haven't heard anything about the Clintons visiting the Antarctic.  So much for the green ooze.

[Emjay]

"Mattis: "As I noted above, climate change is a challenge that requires a broader, whole-of government response. If confirmed, I will ensure that the Department of Defense plays its appropriate role within such a response by addressing national security aspects.""

I didn't previously view Mattis as an idiot.  Oh, well.

I went over and read this.  Apparently it is based on answers given to senators prior to his confirmation hearing.  I'm not sure how much this reflects his total thinking on climate change.  I hope this is a bit slanted because I think he's a pretty sharp dude and I'm not gonna reduce him to idiot status based on this story.

[Emjay]

People really need to start digging into sources before believing someone else's summary of what was said.  This is an article from the Examiner, citing ProPublica and Mattis' response to questions during the confirmation process.  Most of the stuff being treated as quotes....aren't.  Here's a link to the ProPublica article, which is worth a read:

https://www.propublica.org/article/trumps-defense-secretary-cites-climate-change-national-security-challenge

....In unpublished written testimony provided to the Senate Armed Services Committee after his confirmation hearing in January, Mattis said it was incumbent on the U.S. military to consider how changes like open-water routes in the thawing Arctic and drought in global trouble spots can pose challenges for troops and defense planners. He also stressed this is a real-time issue, not some distant what-if.

“Climate change is impacting stability in areas of the world where our troops are operating today,” Mattis said in written answers to questions posed after the public hearing by Democratic members of the committee. “It is appropriate for the Combatant Commands to incorporate drivers of instability that impact the security environment in their areas into their planning.”

This is about as whitewashed a statement as you could make.  Of course weather patterns can affect drivers of instability, and he's just pointing out that it is something they have to consider.  He wasn't specific about "Man-made climate change" -- he talked about climate change generally, which nobody disputes.  And in areas of the ME that were hit hard recently by drought, like Syria, it is relevant to defense issues because that drought created some of that instability.

This is yet another pro-left source trying to create an issue where none exists.

Thanks for actually looking into this. 

"This is yet another pro-left source trying to create an issue where none exists."

Nothing could be more true and it happens every single day.  What I don't understand is why people on this forum leap on this kind of thing like vultures on a carcass ... immediately believe the worst and pronounce it Trump's fault (by inference).

Could someone 'splain that to me.

[Cyber Liberty]

The return of the "best and brightest" meme.

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

And those who DO remember history are doomed to be dragged to Hell by those who don't.

[geronl]

"Mattis: "As I noted above, climate change is a challenge that requires a broader, whole-of government response. If confirmed, I will ensure that the Department of Defense plays its appropriate role within such a response by addressing national security aspects.""

The military has contingency plans for everything, we probably have several plans on how to invade Canada. Every possible threat has to be taken into account.