Slashdot Mirror
Panetta Labels Climate Change a National Security Threat
skipkent writes "Defense Secretary Leon Panetta declared global warming a national security threat [Wednesday] during a speech before an environmentalist group in Washington, D.C. 'The area of climate change has a dramatic impact on national security,' Panetta told the Environmental Defense Fund last night. 'Rising sea levels, severe droughts, the melting of the polar caps, the more frequent and devastating natural disasters all raise demand for humanitarian assistance and disaster relief.'"
... starts now.
No one actually sees what is really happening to the climate any more, just what political advantage they can get from it. Because of that it has become just noise.
Was this said on one of his weekly trips from D.C. back to California in a VC plane?
Passionately Indifferent
He's saying what's been said many times before, e.g. this from 2009 about the Pentagons simulations:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/science/earth/09climate.html?pagewanted=all
"Such climate-induced crises could topple governments, feed terrorist movements or destabilize entire regions, say the analysts, experts at the Pentagon and intelligence agencies who for the first time are taking a serious look at the national security implications of climate change."
"The National Intelligence Council, which produces government-wide intelligence analyses, finished the first assessment of the national security implications of climate change just last year. "
Even if it's for the right cause, I can't help but find it weird that dealing with climate change in the US starts by the military declaring it a terrorist.
From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling#1970s_awareness >>> The 1970 "Study of Critical Environmental Problems"[18] reported the possibility of warming from increased carbon dioxide, but no concerns about cooling, setting a lower bound on the beginning of interest in "global cooling". ------- So Global Warming is a phenomenon that the science community was aware of, as a theoretical possibility, as far back as 1970 (that's 42 years ago). ------ But it took several decades for prominent figures like Al Gore to go around popularizing the knowledge. ------ I'm glad Panetta has awoken to the danger. But you gotta admit that it took him and others a while to get to behind the conclusion that there is such a thing as "man-made climate change". ------ Some oil-producing countries like Saudi Arabia still bury their head in the ground about this and go around arguing that "There is no such thing as man-made global warming. Its nothing more than bad science." ---- All that's left to hope is that more people become educated about global warming, and join in the effort to do something about it.
Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
The greenhouse effect creates conditions that will increase plant growth. This removes more CO2. You can TEST THIS YOURSELF.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse
Now go ahead and slaughter me for not posting this AC. I can spare the karma for people who disagree. Feel free to ignore that the science is really split on how the global feedback mechanism actually works. Feel free to ignore that the oceans have not risen and buried Houston, like they said they would for years...
There are all kinds of problems with the videos you presented. See here for a very clear step by step instructions and video showing what your videos are claiming to show, have results that have been fabricated:
Real CO2 in a bottle experiment
The problem is you and so many others not actually understanding the effects that CO2 really has, and only believing in a simplistic view of warming promoted by your cult leaders.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Now everybody can be accused of terrorism: We caught this man attempting a global warming attack by emitting CO2 into the atmosphere. In fact, we had to put him down as he would not stop even after being caught, threatening the security of our agents.
Mind the frickin' laser...
When anyone who isn't a climate change "expert" voices skepticism on climate change, all the believers pile on, outraged, about how the person isn't qualified to be making such statements, how they're abusing their position/authority to sound like they know what they're talking about, &c.. (Remember Bjorn Lomburg?) So I'm sure we'll see the global-warmers express similar outrage about this, right?
And... "national security threat"? This is the same government agency that thinks that bearded malcontents hiding out in desert caves is a "national security threat." This is the same agency that spent decades fighting the "national security threat" posed by tiny little countries like Vietnam and Cuba going communist. I seem to remember an awful lot of progressives dismissing the lunacy of the War on Terror and the Cold War. So I'm sure they'll dismiss and mock this latest attempt by the U.S. military to imagine or invent new threats, right?
Right?
Liberty in your lifetime
In the U.S., EVERYTHING is a threat to national security, it is much easier to get military funding when your enemy is the bogeyman.
...the oceans have not risen and buried Houston...
Yeah, that's too bad...
it will not happen. The reason is that many nations like China will take advantage of this to build up their own economy and hope that other nations do the heavy lifting. Worse, EU and liberals here fall for the trap of emissions PER CAPITA. It is the WORST IDEA EVER. China has not had a changing population, yet, their emissions went up nearly 10 fold over something like a 20 year period. It is about ECONOMIC OUTPUT and how you cheat at it. And yes, China CHEATS HEAVILY. So do many nations.
If we want this solved, America is the solution. We are the largest importers. At this time, we should put a tax on ALL GOODS, both local and imported, based on the CO2 (and later add other pollutants) that is emitted from an area. The CO2 should be measured by satellite and it should be a case of (co2 out - co2 in).
The important part is that the tax is then based as a % of CO2 PER GDP (unleveled) or a combination of CO2/GDP and CO2/land size (deals with farming which can add a lot of CO2).
If America was to do this, it would impact the world over. Basically, nations that have been working on lowering their emissions will have lower taxes. Those like China which continue to cheat, would have top taxes applied to them.
Ideally, ALL nations that care should do this. They will encourage all other nations to move quickly towards dropping their emissions.
Since the economy is fragile, the maximum tax should start low and build yearly. That gives nations time to adjust.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Of course the outcome will be the same. Plenty of new justifications for eliminating freedoms, just different ones and different excuses (e.g., stealing more of your property by taxing you for your "carbon footprint"). And it'll be a bunch of Blue State contractors cleaning up on this (e.g., "green energy" producers).
Liberty in your lifetime
And that is human nature, and precisely why nothing ever gets done before it's too fucking late to make any difference whatsoever.
And THAT is human nature. The ability to believe dire warnings that benefit someone else without any proof whatsoever.
Man in inherently gullible, as you so aptly demonstrate. Those few simply asking for some small bit of proof are so often shouted down by the panicky mob insisting something "must be done" "for the children".
On the other hand the willing suspension of disbelief that is part of human nature makes it easier to enjoy movies so we have that going for us.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It's the "War On Climate Change" ... get it right.
The only "obvious" solution is a complete government take over of all things that produce CO2 ... in other words ... socialism. People, Factories, Vehicles, ect ... all property of the state and may only be used if they give the ok, but not before they make you feel horrible about it.
Who cares that the US Debt:GDP has surpassed 1:1 and that true unemployment is well over 16% ... let’s focus on the climate and stop worrying about that whole economy thing.
If it's a "national security threat", that means more government money needs to be spent on it... Maybe they'll even declare the entire country a "disaster zone" at some point?
Nicely said!
I just get a kick out of the people that want to "Save the Planet" by making reasoned argument "Troll" but may have a device or two on this list... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vampire_power
Be Very Afraid: The Church of The Climate is getting it's own Armed Inquisitition.
Life Imitates Super Bowl Ad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ml54UuAoLSo
The ability to believe dire warnings that benefit someone else without any proof whatsoever.
Right. In this case, it's the fossil fuel industries that have the most to lose. The oil/natural gas companies are the largest, wealthiest, most powerful legal entities on the planet.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2011/performers/companies/profits/
I don't respond to AC's.
Yes, there is an effect or at least a potential effect on national security, just like climate change has potential impacts on everything from where and how people live to agriculture to industry. In fact, the effects in all those areas will be more important and deeper than the effects on defense.
But to say it has a dramatic impact is just bullshit. Its effects will be gradual and we will see them as they happen and they will be slow enough for us to adjust gradually to the changing situation.
Meanwhile, there are other things that will dramatically affect defense: the emergence of China as a dominant international economic and military power, economic changes in Africa, population expansion, the proliferation of weapons technology, the potential to attack countries by sabotaging and surveilling their communications, control of shipping routes, new ideologies and religions, the fact that we can't afford to spend money on defense like we used to...
You're 100% right.
Unfortunately, most of the US looks like something out of the movie Idiocracy, now. People want to buy shit cheap. That's really all they care about.
I don't respond to AC's.
It would probably be workable if you also applied it to native products. To make exports competitive, you could give them back a credit for any exports (let the other countries enact similar taxes for their imports).
Of course, this is just another way of implementing something like Kyoto, but without all that pesky international co-operation :)
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Only in some conditions for some plants see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photorespiration
Higher temperatures above a certain point decrease efficiency, to differing levels for different plants, and can lead to death or decreased yields. This could well render California's wine industry economically unsustainable with only a few degrees change see http://news.stanford.edu/news/2011/june/wines-global-warming-063011.html.
It is true that to sea level rises will be minor, more a problem for a few cities on coastal swampland and some protected habitats but this is not the damage that real scientists have been most worried about, at least for America. If you got your idea on climate scientists opinions from newspapers understand that the often twist the subject to use fear to sell the paper and are often too scientifically illiterate to know when they crossed the line form exaggerating into lies. This is a problem they also have with everything form climate yes and diet advice eg super foods and medicine eg cancer drugs and even computer science (have you read a computer security article in a normal newspaper recently?).
The real problems are smaller but still important like the desertification that is currently happening in places like Texas, Global warming increases average rainfall but also makes it more "patchy" and increases evaporation. Also how do you like hurricanes? Because increased surface temperature and sea level moisture directly drive stronger storms in the American "hurricane ally" http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/hurricanes-and-climate-change.html. How a bout a bit of malaria or Lyme disease ect, as increase temperatures will drive the movement of biting insects. Note that none of these are a global doom scenario but go tell a Texan farmer the drought was not important, even if they do not believe in global warming reality is not a matter of opinion and the pain it has caused them is very real.
Way to frame the world's politics into your own myopic worldviews, you redneck yankee merkin, you. Shit, if we frame everything into american politics, everybody else in the world is a leftist extremist. That why you keep starting wars on bloody everything? Now you have a lucrative, long-term business opportunity and you're still complaining.
So what if the USA ends up doing the heavy lifting on this one? You're still using way more than your fair share of resources like, oh, energy, and have for quite a while. Go on, learn how to do with less. Then sell the technology —of course you'll involve technology somehow, you're American— and get even richer. You should like free market enterprise, no? Or are you some sort of commie hippie or something?
Arguing over the factuality of climate change misses the most important point, though: It bypasses the whole moral/ethical question of whether or not the government should be regulating people's lives and livelihoods to this extent to begin with. You've already accepted the progressives' idea of utilitarianism ("the State should do whatever is good and ban whatever is bad") and technocracy ("political decisions made by experts"), and rejected the principles of liberalism and freedom that our society is supposed to be based upon.
Liberty in your lifetime
Flooding in New York is most likely to come from a Tsunami caussed by that rock hanging by a thread in the Canary Islands.
The Alarmist In Chief recanted last week and said they were all exagerating, which was covered by, oh, wait, slashdot.
Maybe get him to read this:
http://politics.slashdot.org/story/12/04/25/1325241/gaia-scientist-admits-mispredicting-rate-of-climate-change
Need Mercedes parts ?
Any person found to be emitting any amount of CO2 will be detained for permanent questioning under the Patriotic Clean Air and Water Anti-terrorism Act. Only government officials are allowed to emit CO2.
There is also a simple issue with the experiment; the amount of CO2 in the bottles. In 2009 the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was 0.0387%. That is 387 parts per million. By allowing the CO2 from the generator to freely flow into the bottle and the fact that CO2 is heavier than air it will displace the regular atmosphere out the top of the open bottle. In effect one will have nearly 100% CO2 in the bottle, lets say 90% to account for some mixing. Between 1960 and 2010 atmospheric CO2 at Muana Loahas increased from 315 ppm to 385 ppm. That is a 20% increase. To go from .0387% to 90% is a 232000% increase. It all comes down to a statement at the 9 second mark in the video; "The problems occur when we have too much carbon dioxide". Obviously a 23200% increase in the concentration of CO2 is too much but where is the line between enough and too much? This experiment does not show that. Comparing the actions of a mostly nitrogen atmosphere to a mostly carbon dioxide atmosphere is no where near what is happening on earth.
I never though this day would come. Someone in Washington actually gets it. Now what they do with it is another story but I remain guardedly optimistic.
"We are just a war away from Amerikastan. When god vs god the undoing of man." Dave Mustaine
Hold on. If you apply a tax against imports, that is a tariff. If you apply it to imports AND LOCAL goods, then it is a regular sales tax. The first will be shot down by WTO, in spite of the fact that nations like China have over 400 tariffs (and are supposed to have less than 20). The second is LEGAL by ALL TREATIES. More importantly, we in America, will not feel pressure to lower our own emissions, UNLESS we have a tax that is going to go up. With this approach, it gives nations time to avoid the tax. They simply spend their money on dropping their own emissions and that way, they can continue to export.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Mod parent up. The grandparent post is offering a tiny experiment as proof against the clear consensus of the world's climatologists. The only people who agree with houstonbofh are *some* Republicans and those funded by the energy companies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy#Inquiries_and_reports
This issue has been investigated to death by the following organizations:
4.1 House of Commons Science and Technology Committee
4.2 Science Assessment Panel
4.3 Pennsylvania State University
4.4 Independent Climate Change Email Review
4.5 United States Environmental Protection Agency report
4.6 Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Commerce
4.7 National Science Foundation
No scientific wrong doing has ever been found. The quotes that the tinfoil heads have used to show that "Phil Jones admitted manipulating data" were taken out of context and completely misunderstood. So please go take your willfull ignorance and hang out with the young earth creationists and the flat earthers, and stop interfering with the rest of us while we try to save our asses and your sorry ass from this building world disaster.
-- QED
You're really trying to say that an entire planet's climate system can be reduced to a simple glass box?
Most people think it's just a bit more complex.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
The way a greenhouse works is an entirely different thing than how the greenhouse effect works.
And the oceans have been rising faster than predicted. When you hear predictions like that you should pay attention to the time frame they're talking about. Current predictions for sea level rise by 2100 are in the 3-6 foot range.
Are you saying it isn't a disaster zone?
- Climate deniers elected to Congress
- Intelligent Design taught in schools
- Epidemics of preventable diseases rampant
- States permit chiropractors to openly practice
Looks like a disaster to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect
if the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression.
If the DOD is concerned about the effects that CO2 will have on the atmosphere then they, as one of the largest consumers of energy in this federation, are in a unique position to actually do something about it.
Every US Navy ship of a certain minimum size should be nuclear powered. They've retired the last oil fired aircraft carrier not too long ago. As far as I know all the submarines in the fleet are nuclear powered. Now move that technology to the amphibious assault ships, frigates, destroyers, oilers, supply ships, hospital ships, and so on. Only the smallest vessels of the Navy should still run on oil.
When it comes to tanks, jeeps, helicopters, airplanes, and other vehicles where nuclear power would not be practical the DOD has the opportunity to invest in research in synthetic fuels. It appears that they are doing this but it's going to take a lot more research before the price can compete with petroleum fuels. Even if the process works the energy has to come from somewhere. That "somewhere' is likely going to be nuclear power.
The DOD has all kinds of large bases in this federation (and other nations) and these bases require all the infrastructure of a city. This includes needs for electricity. Because of things like radar, communications, heavy equipment, and other such necessities to run a military base the power needs are often much higher than your typical city. Also, to avoid panic and issues of warrior morale there should be a means to provide power to the surrounding community as well. A soldier is not going to be as effective if they know that the base is all lit up and running but his/her family is off base, in the dark, stuck in traffic, or whatever. In this case all military bases should have an on site nuclear power plant capable of powering the base and the community that surrounds it.
While I feel that nuclear power will play a very very large part in the future of our federation's security and independence I do see needs for investment into wind and solar power. I recall a Marine General talk about the "river of diesel" that has to flow into the small bases out in the battlefield. These places are where the trucks, tanks, and self propelled artillery go to get refueled, repaired, and take on a new crew. These vehicles need fuel. The people working at these bases need electricity for cooking, refrigeration, heating, cooling, lights, communications, and so on. Right now that mean diesel generators.
For every truck carrying diesel fuel there is a risk that some driver will lose his or her life to an attack. Reducing the need to bring in that fuel means fewer lives lost. It's not likely that they can remove the need for diesel fuel but they can reduce it by not running those generators. This could mean putting up solar panels and windmills for electricity. If the technology becomes more advanced then we might see nuclear reactors that fit on a 40 foot ISO trailer.
My point is that the DOD should not be complaining about the problem that carbon output has on the climate but should instead do everything in its power to remove their own need for fossil fuels. They are already doing some of this but this does not yet seem to be a priority. If it were a priority then there would no longer be a debate on whether the next generation destroyers would be nuclear powered or not. If carbon output were a priority then we should be reading about how every military base is building nuclear power plants, putting up solar panels, and seeking out the best spots for windmills on base.
Even if we got all these windmills, solar panels, and nuclear power plants the DOD will still be sucking up large amounts of petroleum to power existing aircraft, surface ships, trucks, tanks, and so on. This will likely continue for more than thirty years since that is the typical lifespan of a military design. With that in mind we need the DOD to speak up in favor of sources of petroleum that is domestic and from friendly nations. The DOD needs to speak up in favor
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
there are mountains of evidence for climate change
There sure are. Pretty much the entire history of the Earth.
What is less obvious is how much we are changing things, and in fact if higher levels of CO2 are really bad at all even IF they are making any kind of changes off the tangent of normal climatic change.
The lie is always so much easier to believe when peppered with a dash of truth...
As I said - gullible.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Right. In this case, it's the fossil fuel industries that have the most to lose.
Actually not true. They will be involved in energy distribution, whatever the form. Oil is just one form. The solar shingles I have been looking at for my house are from Dow...
The people with the most to lose are the ones like windmill and solar manufacturers that have bet the farm on one horse - and have been handsomely rewarded by fat government loans they skim from until going bankrupt. If we can't panic more people into spending WAY too much for energy solutions (which BTW hardly reduce the CO2 load anyway because of manufacturing) then THOSE companies will fold, and THAT means lots of Green money not going into politicians pockets.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I can see why the EPA would need some law enforcement types at their disposal. Many times when a business is likely to be shut down and there is a lot of money on the line trouble might soon breakout. The reason some people resist the notion of global warming is simply that they are forced to understand that they will not have as nice a life as they have planned. Further, if they continue to live as they used to they will cause large numbers of people to starve and be ruined in poverty.
I can't believe you are falling for Bill Nye, a guy who repeatedly had weaker science shows than a someone who worked with a guy in a rat suit.
Note that Ol' Bill there never says WHY any of the things he lists as shortcomings are shortcomings - a thicker lid? Really?
The link I presented carefully laid out the full bill of materials used in the experiment. Bill never responded to a question at your link asking for the list of "appropriate" materials.
As far as open science goes, so far my link wins hands down.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
If you're going to be a skeptic, at least be consistanlty skeptical.
I am. I believe in people that show fully how I can replicate an experiment, not people that make hand-waving claims in a video with obvious cuts. Not people that refuse to reveal data and try to prevent publication of opposing viewpoints.
The video I linked to gave the full bill of materials used to create his experiment, and a set by step guide to what he did.
I've seen some commentary saying what he did was flawed but NEVER why, what step was wrong and why. Pretty odd as if there were actually a problem it's very easy to tag exactly what part of the experiment should be changed.
Otherwise the videos you linked to worked by changing the water vapor content and have nothing to do with CO2. I suppose we should Nuke the Unborn Gay Ocean for Christ? Although heads up, that might just increase water vapor too...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Several years ago the DoD listed it as one of the primary threats to national security for this century.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
The real problems are smaller but still important like the desertification that is currently happening in places like Texas, Global warming increases average rainfall but also makes it more "patchy" and increases evaporation. Also how do you like hurricanes? Because increased surface temperature and sea level moisture directly drive stronger storms in the American "hurricane ally" http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/hurricanes-and-climate-change.html. How a bout a bit of malaria or Lyme disease ect, as increase temperatures will drive the movement of biting insects. Note that none of these are a global doom scenario but go tell a Texan farmer the drought was not important, even if they do not believe in global warming reality is not a matter of opinion and the pain it has caused them is very real.
Did you see my handle before choosing Texas? Yep, last years drought was bad. Very bad. And the wild fires were worse. At one point more land in Texas was on fire than the total amount of land in several north-eastern states. And it has happened before. And Ike was bad. Almost the same as Alicia in 1983. And we had a bunch of tropical storms for about 2 years... And the timing was dead on with El Nino... See, having actually lived in Texas for over 40 years, I know that the cycles we are in now are not outside the range of normal. For Texas... And this means absolutely nothing in relation to Global Climate Change. It is just Texas.
I was giving a stupid example to counteract his stupid example. At least mine was a box. His was only jars...
The reason is that many nations like China will take advantage of this to build up their own economy
Worse, EU and liberals here fall for the trap of emissions PER CAPITA. It is the WORST IDEA EVER. China has not had a changing population, yet, their emissions went up nearly 10 fold over something like a 20 year period
If emissions went up, and population was constant, then per capita emissions also went up. Why are you implying that per capita is therefore not a useful measure? It should also be noted that China's emissions have gone up because it is now manufacturing the majority of the world's stuff. If you want to control emissions based on manufacturing and economic output, then China is going to be given a huge share.
Anyway, the belief that everyone should have an equal share (per capita) is an ethical and moral issue. Some people believe that everyone should be entitled to an equal share. Some people believe that people of their own nationality or ethnicity should have a greater share of pollution rights than people who don't share a nationality or ethnicity. Climate change without the hot air - great book for people interested in the actual numbers - has this insight:
assuming that “something needs to be done” to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, who has a special responsibility to do something? As I said, that’s an ethical question. But I find it hard to imagine any system of ethics that denies that the responsibility falls especially on the countries ... whose emissions are
two, three, or four times the world average. Countries that are most able
to pay. Countries like Britain and the USA, for example.
It's a good point. It is not easy to construct a moral argument as to why people of one nationality or ethnicity should be allowed to pollute more than others. And since you can trade credits, the argument that it should be about GDP is invalid, because the high GDP nations can easily buy more credits from the low GDP nations.
Also, see this diagram of cumulative emissions.
If we assume that the climate has been damaged by human activity, and that someone needs to x it, who should pay? Some people say “the polluter should pay.” The preceding pictures showed who’s doing the polluting today. But it isn’t the rate of CO2 pollution that matters, it’s the cumulative total emissions; much of the emitted carbon dioxide (about one third of it) will hang around in the atmosphere for at least 50 or 100 years. If we accept the ethical idea that “the polluter should pay” then we should ask how big is each country’s historical footprint.
So, in terms of CO2 in the air right now, the USA, Western Europe and Russia are responsible for the vast majority of historic emissions because we have been digging up, drilling, and burning fossil fuels for longer.
Consider this thought experiment: residents of your city got into the habit of dumping rubbish in the city. The wealthy people dumped far more than the poor. Over time all this rubbish has accumulated and now someone needs to pay to have it cleaned up. Who should pay? Should all residents pay an equal amount, regardless of who actually dumped the rubbish? Should the poor pay? The rich? Should the people who actually dumped the rubbish be the ones that pay to clean it up? What about the people who are still dumping huge amounts of rubbish? Should they be paying more than the ones who dump very little?
And the oceans have been rising faster than predicted. When you hear predictions like that you should pay attention to the time frame they're talking about. Current predictions for sea level rise by 2100 are in the 3-6 foot range.
I have been hearing that for 30 years, and all of them have been wrong. Actually living on the ocean helps to notice those things. I lived on a boat in a marina constructed in the 40's. Concrete piers... And mysteriously above water...
Burning leaves and not recycling.
and rejected the principles of liberalism and freedom that our society is supposed to be based upon.
And who is making this supposition? What makes that kind of liberty moral?
Arguing over the factuality of climate change misses the most important point
So if North Africa runs out of water, the people should die of dehydration rather than violate your sense of liberty?
So you freedom and liberty trump the factuality of climate change? Reality imposes its own rules that no one can avoid. If you really value your freedom you need to live in the real world and not ignore the facts.
they'd probably be called 'Minister of Defence' or somesuch. /. is a US-focused site
anyway, stuff like this had happened before,
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
You're still ignoring the time frame.
The two issues have nothing to do with one another---until the government tries to use climate change to infringe upon people's freedom.
"Reality" is not imposing these rules. It is not "reality" that will be extracting "carbon taxes" from people; that's the government. It is not "reality" that wants to incrementally force people to stop driving gasoline-powered vehicles; that's the government. It is not "reality" that taxes, regulates, forces, and coerces; that's the government. The government is made up of conscious individuals who make choices to act (or not act) in certain ways.
To say otherwise is to deny the reality that human beings are responsible for their own actions, regardless of their excuses and justifications. I have known men who tried to claim that their wife "made me hit her," but those arguments really don't have much credibility with me. :)
Liberty in your lifetime
Did anybody happen to notice that the only link in this /. article is to a site whose focus is on denying the existence of global warming?
An odd place to find "news" I think.
The non-aggression principle.
You can probably find a solution here: Free-market environmentalism, without resorting to the laziness of collective responsibility and coercion.
Liberty in your lifetime
finally, the US government will do more about it?
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
This is akin to NASA saying that one of or their primary mission (I forget which) is outreach to muslims.
The CIA, FBI, NSA, etc are concerned with HUMANS not with the f'ing atmosphere. Leave that to the organizations that deal with that just as it's the state department's problem to worry about diplomacy and not f'ing NASA.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
OK, I'll go for that. A box is closer to the real world than a jar.
Not much, but closer....
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Its a war on ${topic_of_the_day}.
And of course this means suspending civil liberties, the Constitution and public discussion. We'll need to reinstate HUAC and drag all of you SUV drivers into congressional hearings before McCarthy Jr.
Have gnu, will travel.
You're still ignoring the time frame.
70 years... No noticeable rise. Who is ignoring what again?
China actually produces what you are buying, almost all of it. 90% of your seafood comes out of Asia.
I mean, your comment is borderline hilarious and insane.
As to taxing everything, why not? You already are taxing everything, just bring it up some more, see how that works out for you, when you can't actually afford anything. You already can't afford Chinese goods without the Chinese constantly loaning you the money to buy the products they, themselves create.
It's time for the Chinese gov't to stop printing the Yuan, stop buying up the USD and subsidising all this conspicuous consumption by all these other nations.
In fact if the Chinese can't just stop printing Yuan, they'd be better served just printing them and giving them away to their own people rather than buying US dollars and Euro and other crap with them. There, I said it, it's so ridiculous to do that, but it would make more sense than what they are doing now!
You can't handle the truth.
This could well render California's wine industry economically unsustainable with only a few degrees change
So one state's booze production qualifies as a national security issue? Ha ha, that's rich! :D 'Mericaaa FUCK YEAH!
Also how do you like hurricanes? Because increased surface temperature and sea level moisture directly drive stronger storms in the American "hurricane ally"
The world's leading predictor of hurricanes, Dr. William Gray has his well educated opinion. You have yours. Hmmm, a Ph.D who has been accurately predicting hurricane frequency and intensity for decades... or some AC preaching about disease, famine, and plagues of locutus? Sorry mate, but you sound a bit religious to me.
So allow me to pull a play out of the climate cult's playbook. Coorelation equals causation: In this graph we show the last 10000 years of human population. And in this one we show the global mean temperature over the same period. Population increases with temperature, therefore we can conclude warmer weather is resulting in more people. Obviously, there's no flaw in the logic, and we have a consensus among scientists regarding these two facts. So it is true. Global warming is good for the human race. Any argument about this point means you are a "denier."
Care to argue? Of course you do. That's the stupidest thing anyone has ever said. Yet, if you exchange population with CO2, it is the exact argument you are presenting.
It blows my mind how many people believe warming is such a dangerous thing. Far more people are killed by the cold each year. Give me warming any day.
To use your logic, over 97% of scientists that work in the climate fields agree humans are causing/contributing to climate change... therefor, your piddly ass opinion doesn't mean shit.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
We need more dollars and legislation to maintain our strategic air supply.
And an 'air czar'
---- Booth was a patriot ----
*I'm still waiting for the first perfect day, you insensitive clod!*
You managed to incite me to trashing /. mod rules, and take out my rage on you via mod points...then I read this comment....Hmmmm...
Having dealt with those very issues you described, your comment invoked the disgust I felt at the time.
So, I replied instead.
Prior to this post of yours, the only thought that I had was, 'No fanatic like a new convert.'
My advice would be to back off your certainty a bit, and convert that energy to more research/learning before you "Ride, boldly ride!"
I think you may have had a few holes in your argument early on.
BTW, I somewhat agree with some of what you say, but not all of it. :-)
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
Sea level has risen about 4 inches since 1940. At the current rate of SLR of 3 mm per year we'll get another 4 inches in about 33 years but the rate is expected to go above 3 mm per year before too long.
No, reality may destroy our civilization though if we don't take it into account.
Without government your freedom is in peril. Then it becomes whoever else has the most power can take what they want. How much freedom do the citizen's of Somalia (other than the warlords) have?
If global warming is a factual reality what would your proposed solution be?
And if the non-aggression principle is wrong? And as for free-market environmentalism, who owns the stuff in the first place? And is your free-market dogma any less lazy than the positions you attack?
This could well render California's wine industry economically unsustainable with only a few degrees change see http://news.stanford.edu/news/2011/june/wines-global-warming-063011.html.
No, it will push the wine growers slightly higher up into the mountains, and will allow the central valley to grow oranges and other crops that can't freeze. A few degrees increase in California will mean that large tracts of farmland will no longer have to endure freezing winters, and will become a Zone 10 hardiness zone instead of Zone 9. It will be brilliant for one of the world's most fertile agriculture areas.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
It's amazing to me that you'd put down a guy who has worked tirelessly to promote science in a country that is failing at science.
Wrong, he's a Disney tool and Beakman is 10x the kid-scientist he ever was. Sorry if I don't agree that your corporate tool is some kind of science god.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
No, it doesn't. If plants could actually increase their growth, they'd had used all atmospheric CO2 up already.
Simply speaking, for plants to grow they need both energy (in form of sunlight) and building material (in form of CO2). If you want to increase plant growth, you need both more CO2 and more sunlight at the same time (not to speak of nitrate, phosphate, potassium and so on). If you just add CO2, it won't help at all.
Besides, a greenhouse (as a device) does not increase plant growth. It just bewares foreign plants from freezing or lets some local plants grow out of season.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Panetta, thy name is Pander.
If global warming is a factual reality what would your proposed solution be?
Move up-hill?
Say goodbye to cute white bears? Well, cute unless you're within their scent range and they happen to be hungry.
Should we also assume in your hypothetical question that global warming is entirely man-made?
I have a much, much, much better idea: Start a forth branch of the Department of Defense whose mandate is to blanket the land with state of the art fission power plants that they build and then operate, selling the power produced, at very low rates, to local utilities. One of the beauties of this is that we could re-instate the universal draft, so every young man and woman would spend a few years serving their country without any of them having to risk getting shot. Obviously, part of this is the repudiation for "national security reasons" of the ban on breeder reactors.
Social Credit would solve everything...
From the science I've seen the warming we've seen is at least 80% from human causes.
Sea level rise and the demise of polar bears are just a couple of the myriad of possible effects of global warming and ocean acidification.
If the non-aggression principle is wrong, then it's perfectly okay for me to come over there and settle this debate through violence.
Ownership originates from self-ownership. This article is a pretty good explanation of the concept of self-ownership and its implications.
The free market is only "lazy" in that it lets people solve their own problems and make their own choices without external interference. Sure, you can call it "lazy"---in that people don't meddle in other people's business.
Liberty in your lifetime
You just described government itself with that second sentence.
Virtually all of the violence in Somalia is being caused by other states (the U.S., the U.N., the surrounding nation-states) meddling in the country, using the locals to try to take control of Somalia.
Would there violence without states? Sure. But there's plenty of violence with statism. Eliminating statism isn't going to eliminate violence---but it is going to eliminate the centralization of a massive amount of violence under a name arrogantly claims its violence is "legitimate."
There are plenty of solutions.
Liberty in your lifetime
Are you kidding? Long past time that our government started framing the issue in this way since, in reality that's just exactly what it is.
While virulent teabagging " Nixon and Reagan were too far left / let's end-the- EPA ! " narcissists who compromised their rationality by coke-snorted their way through the 80s go apoplectic over some poor NAFTA-shafted Mexican coming over to trim their freaking hedges, the specter of massive uncontrolled global destabilization borne of crop failures, oceanic dead-zones and mass population migrations is hurtling towards reality.
Think carbon trading is going to cost you money? Try ponying up for perpetual, open-ended colossal military and intelligence efforts that dwarf the Iraq and Afghanistan efforts combined.
If the fundie freaks want to think they inhabit a child-like universe characterized by a perfect moral justice personally overseen by Santa-God then that's their business ....until they start trying to make everyone else live in their land of make-believe as Sen Inhofe (OK) in determined to do:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/zingularity/2012/03/09/james-inhofe-says-god-decreed-there-will-be-no-global-warming/
Inhofe:
Well actually the Genesis 8:22 that I use in there is that âoeas long as the earth remains there will be springtime and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, day and night.â My point is, Godâ(TM)s still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous.
There's a strong argument to be made that democracy has already failed. It's possible that we've waited so long we cannot stop runaway greenhouse gas emissions.
No one really knows with certainty if the methane-sequestering perma-frost will go into a positive feedback loop or not.
Whatever the probability of that or some other unforeseen positive feedback loop accidentally being invoked, like the runaway acidification of the oceans wiping out marine life and toppling the food chain- the fact is we've - strike that - CONSERVATIVES - have brought us so close to what we knew to be the edge of disaster that it's now possibly nothing more than a matter of chance whether we live or die.
A system of government that permits its nation and people to be brought to the brink of a known, well understood and scientifically proven extinction process- save for luck- is pretty much the definition of a failed system of government. We may be in for a future in which our civil liberties and standard of living are simply going to be greatly curtailed, whether we like it or not.
The first organizing principle of any society is not democracy, not "freedom of speech" or "freedom of religion" or any specific set of freedoms at all. It's survival.
Rest assured that whether we survive or not, we WILL implement a form of government that maximizes our chances of doing so at the expense of everything else. Have no doubt about that at all.
We need to act right now. Right this very second. Right this very election. We can do a lot worse than implementing the set of recommendations known as the Princeton Wedges.
http://cmi.princeton.edu/wedges/
This approach is distinguished by it's immediate implementability. It doesn't rely on any single silver bullet. It doesn't rely on merely possible future technological advances. The cost is bearable, even minimal and the benefits are not just ecological long term ones but also immediate economic ones.
It's time for America to man-up, get up, shake off the dreamlike, narcissistic just-so fairy-tales promulgated by the sociopathic and mentally enfeebled forces in our society and do what it
If the non-aggression principle is wrong, then it's perfectly okay for me to come over there and settle this debate through violence.
So either it's never correct to initiate violence, or it's always correct. Yep, I detect a logical fallacy here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy
From your freekeene.com link:
Again, the fact that one can exercise some control over one's body does not mean that one has total control over it. Another false dichotomy.
Also, the writer does not distinguish between responsibility and ownership.
Sure, you can call it "lazy"---in that people don't meddle in other people's business.
And if the environment is other people's business? Can someone own the air? It's not obvious how one goes from self ownership to air ownership.
Rothbard wrote about how to deal with pollution. The pertinent paragraph:
Liberty in your lifetime
Okay, so when is it okay to initiate violence? And what's your justification for doing so?
You either control yourself or you don't. If you don't control yourself completely, then you don't at all---whatever "control" you think you have over yourself is merely at the whim of whoever else controls you. (In other words, any "rights" you have in a statist society is at the government's whim.)
Liberty in your lifetime
The point of per capita is because the poor people in developing countries aspire to the same lifestyle as the ones in developed countries. This corresponds to energy consumption, as opposed to economic output.
The tax should be in terms of energy consumption, not economic output (manufacturing will always be more directly polluting than services, however service economies push out far more pollution into the world via lifestyle choices - cars, gas|oil burning power plants, plastic consumption, air travel, refrigeration of food ....).
I can throw myself at the ground, and miss.
And how do we establish in a court of law whose pollution is attacking my lungs?
Back when the government allowed people to challenge polluters in court, how do you think they did it? I don't know the details myself, but there are obviously ways of doing this since this is how it used to be done.
Or are you just looking for ways of shooting down an alternative, noncoercive solution to the problem of pollution?
Liberty in your lifetime
Did the government prosecute companies for putting pollutants into somebody's lungs, or did they prosecute for putting pollutants into the air? It's easier to show that a firm's pollutants left its own smokestacks than to show it entered someone's lungs.
Or are you just looking for ways of shooting down an alternative, noncoercive solution to the problem of pollution?
I more concerned about the physics of pollution than noncoercion.
The latter. Pollution was handled in civil court, as a "nuisance" claim. This would require that some individual claimed damages. It wouldn't have to be as direct as pollution going into someone's lungs---if there house was damaged by soot, their water polluted with chemicals, or whatever, that would be a sufficient tort. (Although I'm not sure why you think it's so difficult to show pollution entered someone's lungs---if they're breathing in the presence of the pollution, that the pollution entered their lungs is an obvious conclusion.)
To the point where you support pointing guns at innocent people?
Liberty in your lifetime
Although I'm not sure why you think it's so difficult to show pollution entered someone's lungs---if they're breathing in the presence of the pollution, that the pollution entered their lungs is an obvious conclusion.
But you still have to show whose pollution it was. And how did people show lung damage in the 19th century? The cities of the time had many factories that polluted; how do you assign blame to any one of them in particular?
Since medical science was more primitive then, people probably didn't realize they had lung damage until they were experiencing noticeable symptoms like difficulty breathing, coughing, pneumonia, &c..
If multiple factories are polluting all in the same manner, and someone is suffering damage as a result of this pollution, they can sue all of the factories. The lawsuits were about injunctions, not collecting damages, so assigning specific, quantifiable, apportionable blame is less important than simply proving that any given factory is polluting, and therefore must be stopped.
Liberty in your lifetime
Do you have any specific cases where such injunctions were granted?
http://www.nuisancelaw.com/learn/historical discusses the development of nuisance law, including uses of it to control air and water pollution all the way back to the 1300s. Following, in the section on U.S. nuisance law, there are multiple footnotes, one including the following citations:
Liberty in your lifetime