Slashdot Mirror
The Military's Latest Enemy: Climate Change
Lasrick writes A surprising report from the Pentagon last month places climate change squarely among the seemingly endless concerns of the US military. Although a Wall Street Journal editorial misrepresented the report in an editorial (subtitled 'Hagel wants to retool the military to stop glaciers from melting'), the report itself is straightforward and addresses practical military issues such as land management of bases and training facilities. "So, this plan is not really about mobilizing against melting glaciers; it's more like making sure our ships have viable facilities from which to launch bombs against ISIS. And the report doesn't just focus on home, though. It casts a wider eye towards how a changing climate will affect defense missions in the future."
Why are we spending so much money on satellites? We could have bought a couple Cold War fighter jets that will never be used and that explode on liftoff!
Our military can *eliminate* this enemy once and for all!
It entertains me when a Slashdot story is insulting other websites' headlines and editing practices. Seriously?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
A Wall Street Journal editorial misrepresented the report in an editorial (subtitled 'Hagel wants to retool the military to stop glaciers from melting'),
The Wall Street Journal has become a tabloid. It is beyond ridiculous.
Such as solar cells and hybrids. see http://www.washingtontimes.com...
Part of the reason was the number of supply convoys hit by attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan and the strategic problem caused by dependency on foreign fuel suppliers. Protecting supply lines can be expensive. But personally I am waiting for this new Congress to kill the initiatives in favor of fossil fuels and the obsolete methods of powering the military.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
This was already posted when it came out last month
http://news.slashdot.org/story/14/10/13/2044217/pentagon-unveils-plan-for-militarys-response-to-climate-change
Nothing new here. Climate Change was identified as a global destabilization factor long ago by the US military. Crop failures, droughts, flooding, etc leading to mass migrations and the conflict and strife that will arise our of these migrations.
It was my sense that the military was examining several factors that can impact their mission and ability to meet that mission over the coming decades. This includes not only the recognized increase in regional conflicts due to displacement of people by flooding and/or changes in food supplies due to climatic changes in rainfall patterns. It also includes thinking about the predictions for ocean rising and that impact on the bases that support the military around the world - naval bases, and airfields near current sea levels aren't something that one moves in a couple of years.
And lastly, thinking about how the impact on troops and equipment might change - will there be more fighting in high heat locations? Heavy rain? What will be the impacts on availability of fuel sources and on supply chains?
The military is a huge "ship" that takes much time to turn. Looking out a few decades and postulating what might be needed is not a bad exercise. They would be soundly criticized later if they hadn't. But it is interesting that the main military supports on the right are also the main body of climate change deniers, which puts the military in a dicey political environment. They need to prepare, but carefully.
Is anyone surprised that a Rupert Murdoch owned paper decided to misrepresent what the military was doing about climate change?
We have met the enemy and he is us?
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
It will be interesting to see the Republican controlled congress debate military funding for a problem they deny the existence of.
Ideology: A tool used primarily to avoid the bother of thinking.
French author Jean Raspail wrote a novel, Camp of the Saints, about a third-world invasion of the first-world. In part the invasion was successful because the first-world powers weren't willing to sink the massive ad-hoc flotilla of ships with millions of refugees onboard, but even though it was far-fetched in some ways, the concept that millions upon millions of people would be willing to risk it all to leave where they are now, where they have no future and possibly no means to survive, to force their way to somewhere else that might have more opportunity even with the new struggles, is already reality. We already have tens of millions of undocumented migrants into "western" countries, and even in developing countries we see people moving around as they feel they have no means to survive where they started out.
The trouble is, there's no solution. We can't go in and dictate to third-world countries how to live; they won't cooperate with us and we can't even come to consensus on what we would do. They won't self-determine in ways that are beneficial the population without some form of discrimination, and they won't self-determine without corruption. If it were easy after all, it would have been solved already.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Just try to be part of the Coast Guard in any state on the northern border of the Mediterranean. It's not going to get better.
Fortunately (?) these changes happen fairly slowly. A few more refugee boat sinkings get wrapped up in Kim Kardishain's latest divorce or another Ebola scare. The US is largely immune from this - I'd worry if I were Canadian, however.
I suppose we could give the refugees an old aircraft carrier ....
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
So we need a few more aircraft carriers. Never let a crisis go to waste.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Because SDI was never mothballed.
There is a tad bit of difference between mass executions and accelerated retirements. The US officer core is very top heavy. How many generals do you need, anyway? There is a clear plan to thin those ranks over the next decade or so. It's slow enough that the largest military in the world (TM) can handle it. Not to worry. Colonels and majors can push paper quite well, thankyouverymuch.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Core / corps - although either one sort of works. Grrr.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
All that is needed would be for new "climate change industrial complex" consisting of industries with huge growth potentials from climate change after-effects (such as dike/levee builders, water management including reclaimation & desalination, fertilisers for new growing regions with marginal soil, mega construction for displaced infrastructure, etc.) to make more money then the coal and petroleum industries. It may not sound like much, but many trillions of dollars will be needed for this.
Then they will be able to give/bribe more money to politicians, who will the universally accept climate change as fact and change the public perception.
Until then there is enough money from a new "climate change industrial complex", public doubt will remain.
Rising sea levels mean we need a larger navy. There is more ocean to patrol, to one.
Time to nuke global warming!!!
"If the sea level rises even three meters most of these will be under water."
At the current rate, that will be one thousand years from now. http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/f...
military does this kind of stuff a lot. Anti war demonstrators like to insult the military saying it's stupid and "military intelligence" is an oxymoron, etc. But actually the military has many forward thinkers and they do a lot of planning and debating "what if" scenarios.
Back in the 60's they did a lot of strategizing about a possible moon base, in the 80's they did thought exercises on the possible implications of a Soviet meltdown, what would happen to our military capabilities in a worldwide AIDS/Anthrax pandemic, and so on. Now AGW is all over the news and they're doing contingency plans for that. No big deal, really.
... Obama needs to put boots on the ground.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
The notion that illiteracy is rising on the Internet is a liberal hoax.
Why are we spending so much money on satellites? We could have bought a couple Cold War fighter jets that will never be used and that explode on liftoff!
Is that parody or is that news? I cannot believe that one-sided, war-mongering, short-sighted propaganda piece is called 'News'. It packs more lies, ridicule, non sequiturs, and manipulation into three minutes than I've even seen before. Are people really expected watch that and then form their own opinions? If that is how Americans get their news, it explains so much about American ignorance, xenophobia, and thirst for war.
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
#cuethedeniers
Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question
I cannot believe that one-sided, war-mongering, short-sighted propaganda piece is called 'News'.
I used to work for a guy who founded a software company in Sunnyvale. After Bush got reelected, he decided to sell the company to Agilent for a couple million bucks, went back to Australia, and formed a new company there. He comes back to visit sometimes, and says that he now gets a lot of questions from people in Australia- "What happened over there? Americans used to be smart!" His standard answer: "No, it's not that they're stupid, but the news they get in the U.S. is really bad."
Is there some reason you'd expect the Sonaran Desert to be anythng like Miami Beach? Aside from both having sand, anyway.
I'm a navy vet, and I was smart enough to know how vital protecting oil supplies is. Most ships run on oil. Most military equipment runs on various refined petroleum products. Most civilian technology uses refined petroleum products as ingredients, in the manufacturing processes, and/or in transportation. Even if the US was entirely petroleum-free (not actually possible in the real world) we'd STILL have to be deeply involved in protecting free commerce (keeping the sea lanes open, etc) because we'd still have allies and enemies who depend on the stuff. We burn oil making thins, moving things and powering things. We use oil in plastics. We lubricate nearly every mechanical thing that moves with petroleum (yes, including parts in nuclear plants and wind turbines). Nobody born in the past hundred years even knows how to live without petroleum, and certainly no modern economy can work without it... we cannot even manufacture solar panels without using petroleum.
One thing I am truly tired of, however, is the "perfumed princes" in the pentagon who've never worn a uniform while going in harm's way and who blow with the political winds emanating from their community organizing masters' mouths as they waste billions of dollars on things like algea fuels (making us buy $60.00+ per gallon fuel) in the name of being "green" so some big-money political donor hacks in San Francisco (who also have never worn a uniform) will fund more cash into their campaigns. This sort of garbage leads to a military budget that seems huge but is insufficient to meet the mandates and treaty obligations that are in place. If we are going to spend billions in the military fighting global warming, then we ought to at least be freed from spending billions defending our morally-superior liberal "allies". They ought to be freed to move billions from their superior national health and retirement programs into their armed forces and relieved of the need to talk down to us for not providing such generous things to our citizens. Oh, and before we buy one more gallon of algea fuel, we ought to spend this apprently surplus money on eliminating the backlog for medical care at the VA.
The better question would be why is pure flamebait getting modded informative?
Don't worry. When the guys at ABC, MSNBC, and CBS all have someone who works either for, or under the current administration in some form you're going to run into problems. People like to complain about Bush and all that, but under Obama it's been a run of "how can we bury this to protect our guy." At least under Bush they were willing to actually be reporters.
Om, nomnomnom...
Navy is having to consider what's going to happen as sea level inches upwards. At Norfolk (the largest naval base on the East Coast) and the surrounding communities, we're seeing a measurable increase in flooding, particularly in the past two decades. Most of the area is less than 20 feet above mean low tide. Storms like Isabel, which brought 12 feet of storm surge with it, show the area is at risk. It's possible that the base will be under water at some point, possibly within a century if IPCC estimates are correct (a long time, to be sure). That's a serious concern that they would be foolish not to begin planning for.
Recent example:
Climate change --> drought in Syria --> crop failures --> population movement to cities -->
Ass-hat regime pushes population to rebellion --> civil war --> [...] --> Islamic State.
Cryonics - Keep cool and carry on.
"It casts a wider eye towards how a changing climate will affect defense missions in the future."
Tech people have a special obligation to quit using this Orwellian euphemism when talking about the US military.
Is that parody or is that news? I cannot believe that one-sided, war-mongering, short-sighted propaganda piece is called 'News'.
Personally I'm in great anticipation of the upcoming flag day, when some particularly onerous climate-change related events (e.g. the permanent evacuation of Miami, or perhaps just food shortages due to widespread crop failures) occur, and Fox News shifts seamlessly from denying the existence of global warming to blaming the Democrats for not having done enough to prevent it. Good times.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Now, with the rise of ISIS, a newly expansionist Russia, and the spectra of a waking dragon, the US officer core is saying weather is our biggest threat.
Ignoring the "spectra of a waking dragon" (whatever the hell that is), and fact that you don't appear to understand the difference between 'weather' and 'climate' -- can you point to the place in the report where it says that "climate change is our biggest threat"?
I suspect you cannot, and the reason you cannot is because you pulled that claim out of your ass.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Why is it flamebait? (It got modded as flamebait but went back up to a 5). This video is two years old, but that's the new guy who's now going to head the Environment and Public Works Committee in 2015. He's already bragging that his staff is been poring over NSF studies to compile a list of "wasteful studies" to be targeted in 2015, and says that one of his "top three priorities" for that committee is going to be âoeshining a lightâ on wasteful funding of climate scientists.
Is that parody or is that news? I cannot believe that one-sided, war-mongering, short-sighted propaganda piece is called 'News'.
Personally I'm in great anticipation of the upcoming flag day, when some particularly onerous climate-change related events (e.g. the permanent evacuation of Miami, or perhaps just food shortages due to widespread crop failures) occur, and Fox News shifts seamlessly from denying the existence of global warming to blaming the Democrats for not having done enough to prevent it. Good times.
They don't need to shift. Fox News is perfectly capable of denying it exists, blaming the Democrats for it, and blaming the Democrats for not doing enough about it, all the same time from the same speaking head. That wouldn't even be anything unusual, we call that day Tuesday.
If the news you get makes you stupid... it is because you are stupid.
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
Joe Biden is a square shooter. Joe Biden for 2016.
and that idiot just got re-elected to the senate, where he will now be in charge of the Environment and Public Works Committe, giving him direct oversight of the EPA, an agency he wants to kill.
he is the single worst science denier in the congress now that Broun is gone.
he thinks Michael Cricton is a climate expert. no seriously, he called him as a "expert" witness at a committee hearing.
he thinks the earth hasnt warmed. at all. in fact he says its the world's greatest hoax.
he thinks scientists are secretive liars engaged in a conspiracy and wants to "shine a light” on scientist’s activities.
he said that AGW is a myth because...the bible:
The Genesis 8:22 that I use in there is that ‘as long as the earth remains there will be seed time and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, day and night.’ My point is, God’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."
The man is dangerous....who who is more foolish?
the fool? or the fools that all voted overwhelmingly for him?
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Sorry that is not factually true.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
I would rather put it an other way, if you only hear one side of the story and you can't really be bothered to research the subject, why should you have an other opinion? Do you know how boring most news is? The special problem in the US is that it appears that there is collusion between news sources. In most western countries there are multiple news sources, yes they all push an agenda to a certain degree, but they are in competition. In addition a well informed individual will look at multiple news sources from different countries. But in the US, unless you really go out of your way you will not get different points of view, because the same point of view will be parroted over and over. Most people do not want to spend that mental effort...
Al Gore said the polar ice caps would be gone by 2013 due to climate change.
But they are still there! How can this be? Mr. Gore is a politician; he CAN'T possibly be wrong!
There is only one explanation - Dr. Evil is behind it all.
"Hmm.. Let's see... (rubs hands together)... Imposing a global carbon tax and launching a massive military campaign to "fight" global warming should do it...
Now there's just the problem with the non-believers - who are obviously unpatriotic tin-foil hat wearing terrorists; conspiracy kooks who refuse to do their part or think of the children. Two words for them - 'Guantanamo Bay' ".
Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
How is that tinfoil hat rant insightful?
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
He didn't say "immediate evacuation". Learn to read. At some stage in the future -- our children's future -- there will be ocean where Miami is. So there will be a permanent evacuation. Probably after some storm surge or king tide. Dummy.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Come on, Lasrick, haven't you heard that aircraft carriers don't need "facilities" from which to launch bomb strikes? Or that the B2/B52/F117 aircraft are more than capable of flying from the US to any damned place in the world to drop a bomb? Mid-air refueling and all that....
If you want credibility, don't spout inanities.
Why are we spending so much money on satellites? We could have bought a couple Cold War fighter jets that will never be used and that explode on liftoff!
Is that parody or is that news? I cannot believe that one-sided, war-mongering, short-sighted propaganda piece is called 'News'. It packs more lies, ridicule, non sequiturs, and manipulation into three minutes than I've even seen before. Are people really expected watch that and then form their own opinions? If that is how Americans get their news, it explains so much about American ignorance, xenophobia, and thirst for war.
Aren't you understating what the Americans receive from Fox, CBS, NBC, etc? Americans are for the most part, kept ignorant about whats happening outside of the football or baseball field.
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
There is an age-old adage; you're not paranoid if someone is actually out to get you.
In predicting climate change, there are always the best-case scenarios and the worst case scenarios.
And, there is always intentional ignorance, like denying the reality that climate change has the potential to cause, "an immediate evacuation of major cities over a short period of time."
We built our major manufacturing and population centers based on the stable climate that had existed for thousands of years. A huge chunk is situated near sea-level. Look at the United States. Every major city except for Chicago (San Francisco, Boston, New York, Los Angeles, DC) is threatened by rising sea levels, as well as plenty of minor cities such as Houston and Seattle. A huge chunk of the population lives and works in areas that are near sea level.
Surges that may have caused minor damages in the past, especially the huge surges that can be caused by hurricanes and earthquakes will be more likely to utterly devastate these areas in the future, due to the rising sea levels. This could easily necessitate the evacuation of a major population center such as Manhattan or Boston, similar to what happened in New Orleans during Katrina.
So yeah, if it is "alarmist" to plan for worst-case scenarios, then I will proudly wear that badge, because it is not paranoid to plan for something that will probably happen somewhere at some point in the future due to climate change. If New Orleans and the federal government had taken an "alarmist" position on New Orleans's potential for storm-surge flooding, then a lot more people would still be alive today.
I would rather not be the guy playing my fiddle and yelling out, "you guys are all alarmists" when the world starts to burn.
Why is it flamebait?
Because it's obviously off-topic, worded in a way that's intentionally incorrect and hopelessly hyperbolic, and evidently meant to evict an emotional response. It's the intellectual equivalent of saying "Hurr Durr, FOX is teh dumb and Micro$$$oft maeks crappy computers!". The article is about the military trying to plan for global warming, but you're taken it as an opportunity to slag random talking heads on the news and Lockheed Martin all in one stroke.
Or did you mean "why am I posting flamebait"? I'm not sure about the answer to that one, but I assume it's because you have nothing interesting to say about the actual article but are lonely and want someone to argue with. Was there some other reason which I'm not seeing?
No, that's not news. Fox News is unbiased. That's an opinion piece designed to look like news. Those taken in confuse editorial opinions for news. But nobody calls that News, not even Fox News. Well, their viewers call it news, but only the dumb ones. We are still struggling to find a non-dumb one, though.
Learn to love Alaska
Really? How many people from the various news agencies have someone either directly or indirectly working at the Whitehouse these days, or in the recent 6 years. You've got the presidents of ABC and CBS who have relatives who work there. You've got Carney who's married to a ABC news contributor, though he's no longer there. Yeah the list goes on, and on, and on.
Speaking of which, when was the last time you heard the media trot out the "deaths of american soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan" bit? I'll bet it was right about the time Bush Jr., left office. Of course the reporting just happened to be no longer news worthy right? Or that in the last 6 years under Obama he's accumulated ~70% of the total deaths of Americans since the entire series of wars started in that region.
Damn those facts.
Om, nomnomnom...
Climate is nothing more or less than the integral of weather.
Sure, in the same way that everyday mechanical physics is nothing more or less than the integral of quantum mechanics.
The statement is technically true, but also quite misleading, in that in both cases knowing something about the behavior at one scale isn't going to give you much intuition about how things behave at the other.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Want to defend Fox "news"?
why haven't we declared a "war on earth" yet? it totally deserves it for what it's done to us.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
The point is that if you are unable to derive a good (predictive) model for a function (weather in this case), then you have no hope of modeling the integral of that function (climate)./quote.
My point is that the above is simply not true -- for example, despite the fact that at the quantum level events are happening randomly and unpredictably all the time, we are nevertheless able to use Newton's and Einstein's laws to predict the future positions of planets and spaceships with amazing accuracy.
In a similar fashion, climate scientists can predict long-term climate trends with much better accuracy than the weatherman can predict the weather, precisely because all the little random events average each other out over a large enough sample size.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.