Moving a few people off the planet and providing "new pastures" will not significantly reduce the current population, nor will it enhance our current ability to constantly improve the food source.

I think there must be an upper limit because ultimate the amount of plant material that the planet can support is limited by the available sunlight.  Regardless of what that limit is, if we ever fail at improving the food sources or fail at food distribution, then we unleash devastation and the amount of that devastation gets stronger each year.  Our society is actually rather brittle

None of which has to do with global warming...

The bolded parts: distribution is the real problem. My contract job involves looking at the freight logistics of some of our major food distributors. If Americans knew how few mega producers and distributors there are in charge of the majority of what they eat every day, and how much they rely on only two major infrastructure systems (rail and highway) which are too neglected and insufficiently secured, they'd worry about their next meal every day. A third distribution system is of course the seas for getting food from the big producers to countries all over the globe. ALL of these systems rely on fossil fuel with the irrelevant exception of one or two nuclear powered cargo ships.

Without fossil fuels there will be mass starvation in very short order. The continued production of fossil fuels is crucial to support this planet's human population. It would take time for local communities to ramp up heir own production again. The movement away from locally produced food and toward mass distribution has resulted in economies of scale but at the cost of becoming dependent on those very distribution systems.

We are perhaps decades or even centuries away from developing an alternative energy source for freight transportation. Electrified rail, hydrogen fuel cells, etc. all rely on fossil fuels or alternatives to produce and we are a long way away from having the non-fossil alternatives in place to support such schemes. Money and time it will take and in the meantime we are vulnerable to the delicate situation we're in now. Massive amounts of food rotting in one location while people starve elsewhere is a very possible outcome if we don't stay on top of continued fossil fuel production to bridge us to that future.

I enjoyed the cartoon at the beginning of the article.

Even if one accepts that man made climate change is real and is a significant problem, I don't see how declaring it a national security threat will do anything except take away money and resources from dealing with actual national security threats.

I'm actually interested in what Steingar has to say on this. I'd like to know what steps he thinks we should take by declaring it a national security threat.

Duh. The obvious solution is to raise a carbon tax or otherwise increase money coming into FedGov so they can just “Do SOMETHING!” about MMGW, such as paying money to good democrat donors’”green” companies. And that will get a pleasing nod by the UN MMGW propagandists too. Winning!

I doubt it will pass, and as it has mutated it probably shouldn't.  Not a reflection on Trump IMO, he did his bit, this is 100% owned by McConnell and Ryan who just continue to underwhelm and disappoint.  The establishment has the long knives out for Trump and will not give him any wins, whoever said McConnell would rather be Minority Leader was spot on, the Republicans are like battered wives.

The real problem here is Trump operates from a belief that like most businesses, people will not knowingly and willingly take decisions and actions that go against their own best interests - politicians and deep state wonks have demonstrated more clearly than ever over the last 2 years or so that they are only interested in their own power and they will not tolerate interlopers from the great unwashed masses getting into their business.

Truly a disappointment, but at least we are getting to see that it really is as Limbaugh has said, the ruling class vs. the rest of us.  Unfortunately, not much we can do about it shy of watering the tree of liberty.

'Gimp

If you take a look at the election results, you'll see that Republicans did not come out and vote for Moore. He got less votes than Trump did in the presidential election. True, turnout is lower for special elections but the turnout for Doug Jones was massive.

 If you look at the election results you will see that the McConnell cabal's last ditch plan worked.  The write in candidate crowd would have given Moore the election had Mr. Turtle and his crew not pushed republicans to write in a candidate.  This is the classic "vote split" game to take down the front runner.

 And please don't try to say those write in voters were democrat, they weren't.  Plain and simple, the republicans threw this election in favor of a progressive loon.  McConnell owns it.

Hope the procedures go well.  And I do hope you give a thought to all those left leaning scientists and researchers who made it so those procedures could be carried out safely.  What do you know, academia can be more than a bastion of evil.

Have you ever noticed how freely you generalize about others whilst loudly lambasting them for doing the same?

I wrote a thank you letter to the surgeons and staff for saving my life.  The first surgery was of the emergency type.  I am grateful for all people who have chosen to enter the healing professions, and I let them know so whenever I encounter them.

They hate our 2nd Amendment.  Not like it really affects any of them, but for some reason many over there (and in other countries) cannot seem to abide the existence of guns.

I think they've just been holding a grudge for the last 242 years.

Elementary scho...I mean indoctrination centers, are working on the next generation so by the time time they are old enough to vote and begin to run things, gun possession will be as abhorrent as drowning kittens.

Between a tenth to a third of the total.  The vast majority were loans given by and to folks trying to make a quick buck.

No, they were ALL given by folks trying to make a buck.

When the government says "do this or else", and IF you do this, we will guarantee that you don't lose, what lending institution is going to refuse that?

Let's see,
If I don't make these risky loans, then I will be ineligible to go to the lending window at the Fed and I will go out of business.
But if I do make these risky loans, the government will assume the risk and I will make a profit even if the loan goes Tango Uniform.

Duh,

LOCKER ROOM TALK IS AS BAD AS BEING ACCUSED OF ACTUAL ASSAULT?

If the accused is a conservative?  Oh hell yea!