Pentagon Planning for Climate Change

[nickman54 0]

Dems / Repubs are simply fighting over which multinational corporations to favor. For Dems, it is usually Insurance (finance / lawyers) and Medical... and for Repubs, it is usally Defense & Energy... both support Wall Street.

 

I argue that they're all greedy bastards.

 

When was the last time you read a story about a billionaire's son or daughter you died for our freedoms... really.

 

Not a bad point at all. Tis the problem though, the .gov people own everything and put out the news they want the sheep to know. How do we get past the partisan media inflicted BS and take our country back?

[ND3 0]

Not a bad point at all. Tis the problem though, the .gov people own everything and put out the news they want the sheep to know. How do we get past the partisan media inflicted BS and take our country back?

 

Abandon the idea that a 3rd party vote is a wasted vote. Acknowledge the fact that we're getting screwed by both parties in power and stop voting for either one.

[nickman54 0]

Abandon the idea that a 3rd party vote is a wasted vote. Acknowledge the fact that we're getting screwed by both parties in power and stop voting for either one.

 

Agreed. I just can't see this country going that route anymore, it would truly take a special person to accomplish this. So many people are straight ticket voters. For example establishment republicans that embraced the "tea party" movement are now public ally trashing them. The Republican Party is so dis functional that I could see them getting their clock cleaned in the next election. Our constitution use to mean something, but now it's considered an outdated document to most politicians. Fact of matter I have met more people on the "left" lately and discussed what is going on in Washington. We aren't really all that far apart on the issues that are of most importance for our country.

[piratey 6]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/26/sponsors-of-pentagons-alarm-raising-climate-study-/

 

Game.Set.Match.

 

One of the CNA panel’s vice chairmen, retired Navy Vice Adm. Lee Gunn, is president of a private think tank, the American Security Project, whose prime issue is warning about climate change.

The other vice chairman, retired Army Brig. Gen. Gerald E. Galloway Jr., is a prominent adviser to the Center for Climate and Security, a climate change group.

In all, four CNA board members sit on the panel of advisers to the Center for Climate and Security, whose statements on climate change are similar to those found in the CNA report

 

The CNA advisory panel is headed by retired four-star Army Gen. Paul Kern, who sits on the board of directors of a company that sells climate-detection products to the Pentagon and other government agencies. At least two other board members are employed in businesses that sell climate change expertise and products.

 

Climate change has become big business. The U.S. government alone increased spending by more than $100 billion from 2003 to 2010, according to the Government Accountability Office.

Nations around the world are buying sensors, imaging technologies and airborne monitors.

That means huge contracts for consulting, studies and technologies to analyze the Earth and its environment.

Gen. Kern, the CNA advisory board chairman, is on the board of directors of Exelis Inc. (formerly ITT), a broad-based defense contractor that is also in the climate change business. It sells climate-detection systems to the Pentagon as well as to private industries.

 

This month, SpaceNews.com reported that Exelis Geospatial Systems won two climate-related contracts worth a potential $200 million — one for a NASA monitoring system, the other for Japan’s Greenhouse Gases Observing Satellite

 

You have to be kidding yourself if you don't see through this BS for the cash grab that it is. The only thing "Man-Made" about global warming is the notion that it is man-made.

 

Every single person who wrote this little study has their hand in the global warming cookie jar. 100 billion dollars have been pumped into this sham over the last 3 years. It's almost absurd how much money is being made by these snake oil salesmen.

 

In the end...it looks like one of us was proven right.

Edited May 27, 2014 by piratey

[piratey 6]

Pentagon reacting to bogus, unsettled science ... wasting more taxpayer money to fight conflicts that won't come about because climate change is a farce perpetrated by money-grubbing scientists getting fat from the government trough.

 

Pentagon reacting to bogus, unsettled science ... by lining their own pockets, further perpetrating the farce and joining up with the money-grubbing scientists getting fat from the government trough.

[1qa 0]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/26/sponsors-of-pentagons-alarm-raising-climate-study-/

 

Game.Set.Match.

 

 

You have to be kidding yourself if you don't see through this BS for the cash grab that it is. The only thing "Man-Made" about global warming is the notion that it is man-made.

....

 

In the end...it looks like one of us was proven right.

 

Your logic...

Scientists & Corporate shills get money to study climate change and promote their solution. Ergo, they must be little piggies taking government money and threatening a wealth grab from the greater population.

 

 

Your logic ignores ...

Pseudo-scientists and Corporate shills getting money to re-inforce petroleum-based energy solutions; the status quo benefits from non-action as their assets are all productive.

 

Is there ever a honest debate about anything then?

 

For whatever reason, you cannot accept that the scientific debate, within scientific circles, has been honest, or the data is clean. Somehow, everything that has been done on this topic is tainted with money... except only the "good and honest" money is fighting a change to the status quo.

 

Most of the refuting articles are from business magazines filled with pseudoscience.

 

The rational and informed person will say ... global warming (climate change) is observed, and the TREND is consistent with increased amonuts of CO2 in the atmosphere, even when accounting for season WEATHER variations, sun spot variation and so on.

 

Whether the proposed solutions effectively mitigate or slow this trend, which is tied to money, is an entirely different debate.

[piratey 6]

Your logic...

Scientists & Corporate shills get money to study climate change and promote their solution. Ergo, they must be little piggies taking government money and threatening a wealth grab from the greater population.

 

 

Your logic ignores ...

Pseudo-scientists and Corporate shills getting money to re-inforce petroleum-based energy solutions; the status quo benefits from non-action as their assets are all productive.

 

Is there ever a honest debate about anything then?

 

For whatever reason, you cannot accept that the scientific debate, within scientific circles, has been honest, or the data is clean. Somehow, everything that has been done on this topic is tainted with money... except only the "good and honest" money is fighting a change to the status quo.

 

Most of the refuting articles are from business magazines filled with pseudoscience.

 

The rational and informed person will say ... global warming (climate change) is observed, and the TREND is consistent with increased amonuts of CO2 in the atmosphere, even when accounting for season WEATHER variations, sun spot variation and so on.

 

Whether the proposed solutions effectively mitigate or slow this trend, which is tied to money, is an entirely different debate.

 

But it's not. IT'S NOT OBSERVED. Wake up! There has been absolutely no proof of warming in the last 17+ years. None. Nada. Zip. Zero. Zilch.

 

 

So in the 423-month Remote Sensing Systems satellite records, since January 1979, 213 months have been recorded as having no increase in warming. Half.

 

Also... The fastest centennial warming rate was in Central England from 1663-1762, at 0.9 Cº per century, before the industrial revolution began. It cannot have been our fault right? These mucky mucks at the IPCC are steadfast in their doomsday 3.7 Cº for 2100. They won't deviate from it, even though it looks utterly absurd and is based on no evidence.

 

It's a cash grab. There is no proof that humans cause increased temperatures. It's a giant cash grab.

[piratey 6]

And so you want me to believe it's pure coincidence that every single person the Pentagon had work on this report was directly related to companies and organizations that stood to make money on their findings? You don't find that the least bit shady?

 

The advisory board CHAIRMAN of the whole thing, is on the board of directors of a company that just won two bids, one for NASA, one for the Japanese, worth $200 million dollars, for climate-detection systems.

[IrishGuy 178]

But it's not. IT'S NOT OBSERVED. Wake up! There has been absolutely no proof of warming in the last 17+ years. None. Nada. Zip. Zero. Zilch.

 

 

So in the 423-month Remote Sensing Systems satellite records, since January 1979, 213 months have been recorded as having no increase in warming. Half.

 

Also... The fastest centennial warming rate was in Central England from 1663-1762, at 0.9 Cº per century, before the industrial revolution began. It cannot have been our fault right? These mucky mucks at the IPCC are steadfast in their doomsday 3.7 Cº for 2100. They won't deviate from it, even though it looks utterly absurd and is based on no evidence.

 

It's a cash grab. There is no proof that humans cause increased temperatures. It's a giant cash grab.

 

I don't know man....I think your graph is nice n all, but it doesn't explain the very much observable receding glaciers, giant chunks of ice calving off Antarctica, reducing winter ice (amount and duration) in the arctic, droughts, and reduced flow in major rivers throughout the world.

 

I am fully convinced that you will find whatever answer you are looking to find. I neither agree or disagree with global warming (ok...ok...climate change) being man made, but I am not so blind that I cannot see "something" is up.

[nickman54 0]

I don't know man....I think your graph is nice n all, but it doesn't explain the very much observable receding glaciers, giant chunks of ice calving off Antarctica, reducing winter ice (amount and duration) in the arctic, droughts, and reduced flow in major rivers throughout the world.

 

I am fully convinced that you will find whatever answer you are looking to find. I neither agree or disagree with global warming (ok...ok...climate change) being man made, but I am not so blind that I cannot see "something" is up.

 

I saw reports last year of new ice forming on some of the caps. Too tired to find now, probably wont look tomorrow either. My give a **** meter is broken. Our country is ran by scumbags. Me thinks all of the horseshit that is fed to us on a daily basis is exactly what it is, horseshit.

[echo88 74]

The proliferation of the internet is to blame, facilitating the conveyance of idiocy and agenda-driven "facts". The benefits obviously outweigh the damage, but IMO this is a dangerous version of the telephone game on a much grander scale.

Edited May 28, 2014 by echo88

[1qa 0]

The proliferation of the internet is to blame, facilitating the conveyance of idiocy and agenda-driven "facts". The benefits obviously outweigh the damage, but IMO this is a dangerous version of the telephone game on a much grander scale.

 

The comparison to arguing evolution is apt... not sure where you stand on that side of the debate, but the internet enables people to find information and people to re-inforce their BELIEF, to create their own echo chambers.

[piratey 6]

The proliferation of the internet is to blame, facilitating the conveyance of idiocy and agenda-driven "facts". The benefits obviously outweigh the damage, but IMO this is a dangerous version of the telephone game on a much grander scale.

 

Yeah... Like hamstringing most industry, while creating a fiscally unsustainable one in its stead.

 

Honestly? This is about redistribution of wealth with the help of a boogeyman. It's about diverting time and effort from real pressing issues and driving a media agenda. Does it make some sense to make up this crap? Sure. If we want to look at industry around the world, what do we got? Korea makes batteries. Japan does electronics. China and southeast Asia have the market on textiles. With Europe on the brink of utter collapse in the next decade...the shift in power is going East. We make up a boogeyman, regulate their wanton industrial complex, pump wealth back to the west.

 

But it's not going to work. China/Russia/Brasil/Arabian Peninsula aren't going to play by our rules for much longer. You think they give a flying **** about our myth of man-made global warming? No. They want to grow, they want to gain clout. And you do that by producing energy.

[piratey 6]

The comparison to arguing evolution is apt... not sure where you stand on that side of the debate, but the internet enables people to find information and people to re-inforce their BELIEF, to create their own echo chambers.

 

No it's not. You're full of it. Evolution has millions of years of sample size. Evolution serves no agenda outside of the pursuit of knowledge. Your little MAN-MADE global warming has a laughably small sample size with no real proof. But the money...oh man the money is ripe. It's a billion dollar industry that is so soaked in political ties, it's insane. Harry Reid's son, Rory, is the primary representative for ENN Energy Group, a Chinese green energy company that is building a $5 billion solar farm and panel manufacturing plant in Nevada.

Edited May 28, 2014 by piratey

[echo88 74]

Yeah... Like hamstringing most industry, while creating a fiscally unsustainable one in its stead.

 

Honestly? This is about redistribution of wealth with the help of a boogeyman. It's about diverting time and effort from real pressing issues and driving a media agenda. Does it make some sense to make up this crap? Sure. If we want to look at industry around the world, what do we got? Korea makes batteries. Japan does electronics. China and southeast Asia have the market on textiles. With Europe on the brink of utter collapse in the next decade...the shift in power is going East. We make up a boogeyman, regulate their wanton industrial complex, pump wealth back to the west.

 

But it's not going to work. China/Russia/Brasil/Arabian Peninsula aren't going to play by our rules for much longer. You think they give a flying **** about our myth of man-made global warming? No. They want to grow, they want to gain clout. And you do that by producing energy.

 

LOL I was talking about the internet (benefits vs. damage).....not GW......

[echo88 74]

No it's not. You're full of it. Evolution has millions of years of sample size. Evolution serves no agenda outside of the pursuit of knowledge. Your little MAN-MADE global warming has a laughably small sample size with no real proof. But the money...oh man the money is ripe. It's a billion dollar industry that is so soaked in political ties, it's insane. Harry Reid's son, Rory, is the primary representative for ENN Energy Group, a Chinese green energy company that is building a $5 billion solar farm in Nevada.

 

I think you're so spun up about this that you're no longer able to identify those who agree with you. I compared the argument of GW to evolution because, just like evolution, science supports a certain side. Science supports evolution. Science supports the NON-EXISTENCE of GW. I was supporting your assertion that there is no evidence of GW.

 

And yes, evolution does serve a substantive agenda---it's called religion. Religion is the only item that stands in the way of those who don't accept evolution. Religion is money.

[piratey 6]

I think you're so spun up about this that you're no longer able to identify those who agree with you. I compared the argument of GW to evolution because, just like evolution, science supports a certain side. Science supports evolution. Science supports the NON-EXISTENCE of GW. I was supporting your assertion that there is no evidence of GW.

 

And yes, evolution does serve a substantive agenda---it's called religion. Religion is the only item that stands in the way of those who don't accept evolution. Religion is money.

 

1.2 billion Catholics in the world and we're all cool with evolution...Pope Pius XII said so himself back in the 50's. Just cause some loud new age protestants want to claim the earth is like 6000 years and humans just popped into existence doesn't mean squat. It's the atheists who form these straw man debates with themselves that raise much of the hoopla. The catholic church is actually quite progressive when it comes to science...We're cool with evolution...we're cool with the big bang. Just don't tell us there is no soul

[piratey 6]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-28/chamber-study-predicts-obama-climate-rule-will-kill-jobs.html

 

In an analysis set for release today -- days before the Environmental Protection Agency unveils a proposal to cut carbon dioxide emissions from power plants -- the Chamber says that an ambitious pollution-control effort could force more than a third of the coal-fired power capacity to close by 2030, resulting in economic losses of $50 billion a year and the elimination of 224,000 jobs.

[ND3 0]

Cherry-picking 17 years does not prove or disprove climate change. 17 years is completely insignificant. In fact, if you look at those years, they are consistent with what we would expect to happen given the El Nino/La Nina phases of the oceans.

 

http://i.imgur.com/yG1jNH3.jpg

 

Rather than just looking at 17 years, let's look at the 134 years of reliable temperature data that we have:

 

http://www.carbonbrief.org/media/265437/10warmestyears_550x310.jpg

 

Is it significant that the 10 warmest years have all happened since 1998? Absolutely.

[piratey 6]

Cherry-picking 17 years does not prove or disprove climate change. 17 years is completely insignificant. In fact, if you look at those years, they are consistent with what we would expect to happen given the El Nino/La Nina phases of the oceans.

 

http://i.imgur.com/yG1jNH3.jpg

 

Rather than just looking at 17 years, let's look at the 134 years of reliable temperature data that we have:

 

http://www.carbonbrief.org/media/265437/10warmestyears_550x310.jpg

 

Is it significant that the 10 warmest years have all happened since 1998? Absolutely.

 

You're aware that they have been fudging historical records right? And that 89% of weather stations in the U.S. fail to comply with the National Weather Service’s own siting requirements because they are located too close to heat sources.

 

Jeff Masters and [Christopher C. Burt] recently received an interesting email from Ken Towe who has been researching the NCDC historical temperature database and came across what appeared to be some startling inconsistencies. Namely that the average state temperature records used in the current trends analysis by the NCDC (National Climate Data Center) do not reflect the actual published records of such as they appeared in the Monthly Weather Reviews and Climatological Data Summaries of years past. Here is why.

 

Here is a typical example of what Ken uncovered. Below is a copy of the national weather data summary for February 1934. If we look at, say Arizona, for the month we see that the state average temperature for that month was 52.0°F. [Ed.: This is the paper version that was published at the time.]

 

However, if we look at the current NCDC temperature analysis (which runs from 1895-present) we see that for Arizona in February 1934 they have a state average of 48.9°F, not the 52.0°F that was originally published.

 

http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/screenhunter_385-jan-08-21-34.jpg?w=640&h=460

 

The reason the graph above is relevant is because we're talking about the LOCATION and POPULATION of these stations. Where are they located? Already 89% are located in an invalid spot... So if they are moving these stations, it really affects data points.

 

Let's take for example, where I live, Ann Arbor Michigan

http://www.weather.com/weather/wxclimatology/monthly/graph/48109

 

Then compare to where my parents live, 30 minutes away in Livonia

http://www.weather.com/weather/wxclimatology/monthly/graph/USMI0496

 

Livonia is 2º warmer.... So what if they eliminated the Ann Arbor station in favor of the Livonia station, because Livonia had a higher average reading? Which isn't at all far fetched because they have been removing stations since 1990, declining from more than 6,000 stations to fewer than 1,500. And many of those eliminated are in higher latitudes and altitudes, inland areas away from the sea, as well as more rural locations. Keep those stations in densely populated areas and concrete jungles...

Edited May 28, 2014 by piratey