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.
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.
They already sent a directive in the budget that they are not to spend money preparing for global warming related issues. That includes things like loosing some of the atoll emergency landing strips in the far east, the failure of the south Florida fresh water supply. Coastal base issues etc.
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?
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.
"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...
You know that the current Secretary of Defense, top guy in the Pentagon, appointed by President Obama, is a Republican, having served as such as senator from Nebraska in the US Senate for two terms. Also being a former Army enlisted squad leader in Vietnam with two Purple Hearts, I doubt he would adjust his views much and sell out the armed forces for Democratic Party politics.
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.
Yes in my experience there are a lot of smart people in the military. It is the politicians that send the military into quagmires that are stupid.
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."
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...
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.
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.
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.
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...
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
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.