But it will not look like the orderly pattern of descent which characterized the conflict of 1861-65. It will appear more like the Yugoslavia break-up, or the Russian and Chinese civil wars of the 20th Century.
It will appear as an evolving chaos.
And the next US civil war, though it yet may be arrested to a degree by the formal hand of centralized government, will destabilize many other nation-states, including the People’s Republic of China (PRC).
It may, in other words, be short-lived simply because the uprising will probably not be based upon the decisions of constituent states (which, in the US Civil War, created a break-away confederacy), acting within their own perception of a legal process. It is more probable that the 21st Century event would contage as a gradual breakdown of law and order.
Lt. Gen McMaster the Trump White House’s recent National Security Advisor appears to have slipped through the Trump Cabinet assessment process, when in fact he has quite a Progressive resume. Given that McMaster was nominated for his current post by none other than US Senator John McCain (R), a major opponent to the Trump health care bill, should have given the Trump administration cause to pause and reconsider.
White House National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster served at a UK-based think tank financed by a controversial, George Soros-funded group identified by the Obama White House as central in helping to sell the Iran nuclear deal to the public and news media.
From September 2006 to February 2017, McMaster is listed as a member of International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), where he served as consulting senior fellow. The IISS describes itself as a “world-leading authority on global security, political risk and military conflict.”
The IISS has been supportive of the Obama administration-brokered 2015 nuclear accord with Iran, and the group has repeatedly hit back against charges that Tehran has violated the agreement.
McMaster himself has been accused of purging the National Security Council of hardliners on Iran, and he is seen as a leading proponent of the Iran nuclear accord within the Trump administration. He has reportedly urged the White House to recertify Iran’s compliance with the Iran nuclear deal.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Exactly why Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ordered FBI Director Robert Mueller to make a secret airplane trip to Russia on Sept. 21, 2009, to return a sample of uranium that had been seized in a CIA sting operation in the Republic of Georgia nearly four years earlier remains so shrouded in mystery, the cable revealed by WikiLeaks exposing the clandestine mission demands further investigation.
Particularly troubling in Clinton’s diplomatic cable <https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09STATE85588_a.html> of Aug. 17, 2009, detailing Mueller’s clandestine mission is the detail that appropriate arrangements “need to be made to ensure the transfer of the material is conducted at the airport, plane-side, upon the arrival of the Director’s [Mueller’s] aircraft.”
Recent statistically anchored and peer reviewed research<https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf> reveals that “nearly all” of the warming shown in current temperature datasets from NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Met Office in the United Kingdom are the result of adjustments made to the datasets after temperatures were recorded, calling into question just how much warming is real and how much is pure fantasy.
In the report, titled “On the Validity of NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU Global Average Surface Temperature Data and the Validity of EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding,” authors James P. Wallace III, Joseph S. D’Aleo and Craig Idso examine the accuracy of global average surface temperature data.
“The objective of this research was to test the hypothesis that Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) data, produced by NOAA, NASA, and HADLEY, are sufficiently credible estimates of global average temperatures such that they can be relied upon for climate modeling and policy analysis purposes,” the authors wrote.
Many people misunderstand how global temperature is calculated. As the authors of the study note, GAST data is not simply the raw temperature recordings. Rather, the data is adjusted after it is recorded to account for various problems, such as “contamination by urbanization.” Because many temperature recordings come from urban areas, where numerous factors affect temperature readings, they need to be adjusted to more accurately reflect the true temperature.
Critics of the most widely used global average surface temperature datasets have said they think these adjustments have been exaggerated to favor the view humans are causing climate change.
To test the validity of the GAST data adjustments, the researchers examined other historical data and known cyclical patterns to determine whether the adjustments were appropriate.
“As a result, this research sought to validate the current estimates of GAST using the best available relevant data,” the authors wrote. “This included the best documented and understood data sets from the U.S. and elsewhere as well as global data from satellites that provide far more extensive global coverage and are not contaminated by bad siting and urbanization impacts.”
The researchers concluded based on their study that “the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality.”
“The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality,” the authors wrote. “In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever — despite current claims of record setting warming.”
“Nearly all of the warming they are now showing are in the adjustments,” meteorologist Joe D’Aleo, who co-authored the study, said to the Daily Caller News Foundation. <http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclusive-study-finds-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/> “Each dataset pushed down the 1940s warming and pushed up the current warming.”
“You would think that when you make adjustments you’d sometimes get warming and sometimes get cooling. That’s almost never happened,” D’Aleo said.
The noted climate-skeptic website Watts Up With That? called the study a “bombshell.” <https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/06/bombshell-study-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-government-climate-data/>
If the researchers’ findings are accurate, it would mean that the global temperature data most often used to show increasing temperatures are potentially not accurate and that the true global temperature is likely lower than is currently reported, further undermining climate-change alarmists’ claims.