Combating Climate Risks With 3D Printing

Lasrick writes: While security risks that emanate from climate change will not always require military responses, the technological innovations that 3D printing makes possible can significantly improve the tools available for both militaries and civilian institutions when responding to, preparing for, and mitigating those risks. These benefits come in five main forms, and this article details what they are and how each may work: Rapid response and prototyping; Democratization of preparedness and response; De-globalizing hazards; Increasing accessibility; Enhancing energy efficiency. The authors clearly believe that 3D printing will be a key tool in mitigating effects from natural disasters: "If the United States, including the Department of Defense, truly believes that climate change presents 'immediate risks to national security,' then developing all the tools necessary to combat those risks should be a high priority. 3D printing, given its potential utility in helping us adapt to and mitigate climate risks, and doing so cost-effectively, is one tool that deserves close attention."

Comments

3D printing fanboi much?

[Irate Engineer]

3D printing! It slices, it dices, it cures erectile dysfunction (even yours!), it fucking prints money! It. will. save. the. world.

Whoa Sparky...slow down. Breathe.

3D printing may be useful, great, but kill the hyperbole. It is a technology, and all technologies have a niche. Be a 3D printing fanbois all you want, but you cannot jam 3D printing into places where it is not wanted or is not useful. The users will know the difference and 3D printing will settle into its niche naturally.

Re:3D printing fanboi much?

[mi]

Hey, don't be too harsh. At least, they aren't claiming, Twitter will help.

Re:3D printing fanboi much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Help us 3D printing, you're our only hope.

Re:3D printing fanboi much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can we get a network of 3D printed things?

sorry, let me re-word that for the New Slashdot

You Won't Believe this Network of 3D Printed Things!

things you might also like:
-Top 10 Linux Celebs
-The problem between keyboard and chair might be closer than you think
-Why E3 Matters This Year

Re:3D printing fanboi much?

[Penguinisto]

Well you know, if you have a sufficiently large 3D printer and enough material, you could conceivably 3D-print a whole other Earth... /me ducks and runs like hell...

Re:3D printing fanboi much?

[LinuxIsGarbage]

Can we get a network of 3D printed things?

sorry, let me re-word that for the New Slashdot

You Won't Believe this Network of 3D Printed Things!

Is it a Beowulf cluster? Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these things!

Re:3D printing fanboi much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well you know, if you have a sufficiently large 3D printer and enough material, you could conceivably 3D-print a whole other Earth... /me ducks and runs like hell...

I also would like to print some of those ducks.

Re:3D printing fanboi much?

[David_Hart]

Well you know, if you have a sufficiently large 3D printer and enough material, you could conceivably 3D-print a whole other Earth... /me ducks and runs like hell...

I also would like to print some of those ducks.

But first you have to print the hen, rooster, chicken, then the duck... mmm, chicken....

Re:3D printing fanboi much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Damnit; I was going to side with you against the grandparent; then I read this:

In the future, printers might even use disaster debris as raw materials to print temporary shelters for people displaced by hurricanes or typhoons.

Because, it's easier to put up a building sized 3d printer than it is to deliver and put up a bunch of tents. I see this as the New New Orleans. We can find a major disaster; get billions of dollars of aid and instead of wasting it on feeding or housing the poor residents, we can spend it all on DARPA 3D printing experiments which might, theoretically, help a future special case disaster.

Re:3D printing fanboi much?

[dpilot]

They're already out there, but the Magratheans aren't selling them.

Re:3D printing fanboi much?

[ciaran2014]

Just print some eggs. I hear they came first.

Re:3D printing fanboi much?

[RabidReindeer]

A three-dimensional Beowulf cluster of these things!

Re:3D printing fanboi much?

[Anonymous Coward]

does this mean I can 3d print Natalie Portman, while pouring hot grits down my pants?

Re:3D printing fanboi much?

[CaptainDork]

We need to get together and donate 3d printers to the Red Cross.

Red Cross Spent Half a Billion Dollars to Build Six Homes in Haiti

Re: 3D printing fanboi much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not exactly true. I think the meme was that the money should've been donated (taken by) the gov't who of course would've done a better job...
http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/27927/has-the-red-cross-raised-half-a-billion-dollars-for-haiti-to-build-6-houses

Re:3D printing fanboi much?

[gstoddart]

You realize the mice are going to be really angry, right?

Re:3D printing fanboi much?

[Anonymous Coward]

1. 3D print Natalie Portman
2. Pour hot grits down pants
3. ???
4. Profit!

Re:3D printing fanboi much?

[TheRealHocusLocus]

I see this as the New New Orleans. We can find a major disaster; get billions of dollars of aid and instead of wasting it on feeding or housing the poor residents, we can spend it all on DARPA 3D printing experiments which might, theoretically, help a future special case disaster.

3D PRINTING ARTICLES OF THE FUTURE

From Sten Guns to Stem Cells: A Look Back What was the world like before ubiquitous crossover technology revolutionized technology and biology? Its difficult to imagine a time when the plastic steak was the brunt of jokes, years before the plastic human was perfected. Now both steak and human alike are produced from the same Universal Cartridge, and this fascinating short documentary pokes fun at the metaphorical difficulties experienced by what we now call '2D Humans' when trying to imagine the possibilities of today.

3D-Printed Food and Furniture for Disaster Relief: Look what's on the menu! The challenge of providing an appropriate and timely response to disaster, such as when Mother Gaia's tummy gets upset, has been hampered by problems of supply and distribution. Thanks to the application of the same advanced computer models used to verify and adjust historical climate records with uncanny precision, it was discovered that there is more than one practical approach to solving the old adage 'Greatest Good for the Greatest Number with Greatest Assurance of Success'. Traditional response models attempted to solve for Greatest Good, providing a comprehensive disaster response to (regrettably) few people. By maximizing instead for Greatest Number and working towards proactive not reactive measures, the new paradigm calls for global distribution of a package of items that provide a complete measure of support --- food, clothing, shelter, on a smaller scale.

Color your world (stuff your printer-gullet) with Rainbow Slime! It walks like a duck, talks like a duck... but it looks like a rainbow! Why make old things look old when everything can look new? Rainbow Slime is made from old things that once came in old colors, in olden times. These old things have been sorted and composted and re-mogrified with the extrusive dynamacism of Rainbow Eye-Searing Technology until the vividness is palpable and delectable. WARNING: The most vivid of the hues, especially those that glow in the dark, are not approved for human consumption.

3D Printed Cellphone Covers Rock Your World and are an FDA-approved alternative to unprotected sex. Your time spent selecting a style that is uniquely your own from our catalog is time well spent, because the World of Today is Hand-Crafted To Order (tm). Now that the extrusion of copper wire, electrical engineering, steel fabrication and industrial mass-production has all been supplanted by the industrial mass-production of 3D printers, Mankind now has the leisure time once envisioned by such forward-seers as Orwell and Huxley. Celebrate your future! You are you and you is good. Select a cell phone cover today.

Re:3D printing fanboi much?

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, that was fucking hilarious. Too bad Quantum Apostrophe was banned from Fark.com (it's not news, it's Fark, but it's very very serious to mock people's hobbies) for having the same outlook.

Re:3D printing fanboi much?

[tehcyder]

I had actually assumed that slashdot had gone full Onion and this was satire.

Re:3D printing fanboi much?

[colekane7745]

hah, man this sounds little funny!

3D printing

[Anonymous Coward]

'cause...3D printing.

Granted I could see some of the military uses, most of the rest was gooblygook.

3D printing could solve the issue of car manufacturers not getting parts cause the factory flooded...umm, i'll wait, thanks anyway.
Most of the rest they use the military stuff as an example of civilian uses.
A 3D printed weather station to save costs...WTF cost is NOT one of the features of 3D printing. Short of being in Antarctica with a loaded 3D printer where the freight might be a bit high, I just don't get it.

Who is fishing for funding?

Re:3D printing

[Irate Engineer]

I'm not sure what they are fishing for. The authors are with the Center for Climate and Security (http://climateandsecurity.org/staff/), but don't have any obvious reasons to be 3D printing shills (which is possibly why the article reads like crap). The Center for Climate and Security has a lot of generals and admirals on its board of trustees. I'm wondering if this isn't some wild backdoor appropriations move. I'm actually interested to see if any of them are holding a lot of stock in 3D printing development firms. There is money at the bottom of this somewhere.

Re:3D printing

[LinuxIsGarbage]

The article also seems to think 3D printers can make anything out of thin air. You save transportation costs because you don't need to ship anything, and you avoid supply chain disruptions because you don't have to ship anything.

From the article:

The effects of natural disasters extend far beyond individual companies. In 2012, a severe drought temporarily halted the transport of goods down the Mississippi River, affecting the entire region. This is the type of problem likely to become more common in a changing climate. The ability to print goods where they are needed would clearly decrease vulnerability to droughts and other disruptive weather events.

From the linked Bloomberg Article on the drought:

which could be shut to cargo from companies including Archer-Daniels-Midland Co. next month.

-Agricultural. We can print food now?

“If you’re shipping raw materials to a steel mill in Chicago, you’re trying to figure out if you can go to Cincinnati or Louisville, Kentucky, unload it out of the barge and rail it up to the steel mill.”

-Thank god 3D printers can print steel out of nothing

Barges on the Mississippi handle about 60 percent of the nation’s grain exports entering the Gulf of Mexico through New Orleans, as well as 22 percent of its petroleum and 20 percent of its coal.

Good thing we can print fossil fuels now too.

Re: 3D printing

[Anonymous Coward]

there is currently a major deal in negotiation.

also angela is feeling like she is doing important things with this carbon emission ban.

now throw in 3d printing if you are clueless and want to say something.

Re:3D printing

[Irate Engineer]

Very good point. 3D printing basically lets you remotely manufacture a part if the raw manufacturing materials are present on site . And it does jack shit to fuel your equipment.

One of the most dangerous jobs in the U.S. military in the Iraq war was to be a driver in a convoy - the folks that had to haul fuel, water, and supplies through unfriendly country. I worry that some asshat in the Pentagon is going to read this article (written by asshats) and think that 3D printing magically makes supply lines invisible ("in the cloud, derp!"). The only result will be that the folks hauling fuel, water, supplies, and multicolored 3D printer filament spools will die in the next war.

Re:3D printing

[Anonymous Coward]

"Very good point. 3D printing basically lets you remotely manufacture a part if the raw manufacturing materials are present on site . And it does jack shit to fuel your equipment."

One of the more ridiculous claims in the Article was this:
"A new generator, for example, could be printed on the spot."
No, it can not. Not unless there is available Copper for the windings, Iron for the Magnetic stuff, Steel or Aluminum for the frame, not to mention Insulation, Lubrication, Bearings... and that is just the Generator. If it needs an Engine...

But the Clincher is this:
"... a replacement part for a broken water pump handle..."
That is what Vice Grip Pliers are for, especially if the damn "Printer" needs now-unavailable Water Cooling.

"The Bulletin" has an interesting history. (I was once a Subscriber, and I knew a couple of the Founders.) Among other things, it explored Science and Tech that is not quite ready for Prime Time, but feasible.
But this Article is dreadful. The Famous Quote applies: "It's not even wrong."

Leave 3D Printing to the Gun Nuts for now. They are still little kids playing with firecrackers, but with a lot of ready funds and available time.
And leave it for those who are absolutely intent in printing out their own Shower Rings.
Adults have better things to think about.

Re: 3D printing

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, every solution that is profitable is being tried ... Except fixing the actual problem of global warming in the first place.

Keep going after those band-AIDS and hope that nobody calls them on their obvious stalling tactic.

Re:3D printing

[CaptainDork]

By the power invested in me by me, I mod this +1 Informative.

Re:3D printing

[Headw1nd]

You are absolutely right, you can't make raw materials out of thin air, and introducing 3D printers just means there are a more raw materials being added to the mix.However, I'm going to jump off this comment to make a counterpoint: 3D printing has the possibility to make specialized finished goods as fungible as raw materials. Rather than worrying whether a person needs a shoe, a splint or a crutch, you can just send the raw plastic and the printer and figure it out on a case by case basis, which could be both faster and more efficient. It simplifies not only the logistics of bringing things into the area, but distribution as well. It's not uncommon in disasters for needed supplies to be in the affected zone, but in the wrong area with no available transport, or forgotten entirely. If you are making the goods as needed, this becomes less of a problem.

That all said, 3D printing is just not yet nearly fast or versatile enough to be helpful in disasters, outside of a few specialized niches.

Re:3D printing

[tehcyder]

You are absolutely right, you can't make raw materials out of thin air

Not yet, maybe, but in five years' time...

Dumbest Article Ever

[Anonymous Coward]

boggles the mind anyone could take this seriously

Re:Dumbest Article Ever

[Anonymous Coward]

3D printing hype was always the most asinine thing ever.

-QA

Re:Dumbest Article Ever

[Anonymous Coward]

> 3D printing hype was always the most asinine thing ever.

Hey, knock it all you want for being over-hyped... it is pretty fucking amazing what people are doing with it, and some of us want to read about new and interesting applications for the technology.

Unfortunately, this article is not it. :(

Buzzword bingo

[goodmanj]

Peak Oil may be a ways off, but we've definitely hit Peak Buzzword.

Re:Buzzword bingo

[smaddox]

Unfortunately, the discovery of buzzword reserves has not yet peaked, so we're still at least 30 years off from Peak Buzzword.

Yes, 3D Printers are amazing!

[BadPirate]

On an unrelated note, is anyone interested in buying a barely used and a slightly dusty 3D printer?

Re:Yes, 3D Printers are amazing!

[tehcyder]

On an unrelated note, is anyone interested in buying a barely used and a slightly dusty 3D printer?

Why don't you 3D print a copy of it and I'll take it off your hands for the costs of the materials?

Confusing Article

[BlueStrat]

TFA is unclear.

Are the 3D-printing fanbois trying to ride on the Warmist's :"perceived-legitimacy" coattails, or is it the Wamists who are attempting to ride 3D-printing's "perceived-legitimacy" coattails?

Seems to be a lose-lose either way.

Strat

Re:Confusing Article

[virens]

You don't get it: the authors are from Political Science!

Don't you see it? No analysis, no statistics (hey, we are POLITICAL majors, c'mon!), buzzwords eveywhere ("De-globalizing hazards" and "Democratization of preparedness and response"). Pseudoscience in its finest: lots of talks and nothing valuable. Besides, one of the authors is so shy he didn't even include his education in the linkedin profile. They've just heard 3D printing is cool and pumped out a useless empty paper like TFA.

What is really depressing is that morons like the authors of TFA are employed, while thousands of engineers and scientists (who are a lot smarter) cannot find a job. Or maybe we can shut down all the social pseudoscience departments so the amount of hot air coming out of their lackluster graduates drops, which in turn cools down the planet and helps with global warming? :-)

Re:Confusing Article

[phantomfive]

You don't get it: the authors are from Political Science!

The authors are from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. They claim they've been "speaking truth to power for 70 years."
The problem with "speaking truth to power" is once they've heard you, your job is done, and you have to find something else to do.

Re: Confusing Article

[Anonymous Coward]

this world is one big game and we are all actors. the social engineers have grokked this while the real engineers hide behind gizmos.

look at how marvellous linux is. look who makes money. apple.

folks, grow up and play the game. stop hiding.

Re:Confusing Article

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't get it: the authors are from Political Science!

The authors are from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists.
They claim they've been "speaking truth to power for 70 years."

The problem with "speaking truth to power" is once they've heard you, your job is done, and you have to find something else to do.

70 years, eh?...they are probably quite senile by now...wait that might explain some things :O

Re:Confusing Article

[riverat1]

TFA is unclear.

Are the 3D-printing fanbois trying to ride on the Warmist's :"perceived-legitimacy" coattails, or is it the Wamists who are attempting to ride 3D-printing's "perceived-legitimacy" coattails?

Seems to be a lose-lose either way.

Strat

You know, the nice thing about being a "Warmist" is that we can just sit back and point out the things that are happening while people on the other side have to work hard to find the slightest little thing that might appear to support their position. I am very concerned about the future for human civilization but I have no concern at all that "Warmist" position will be found to have been wrong in the big picture.

Re: Confusing Article

[Anonymous Coward]

folks, grow up and play the game. stop hiding.

I'd rather force changes to the rules such that 'social engineers' as you describe them are exposed, de-legitimized, and widely discredited.

Re:Confusing Article

[Anonymous Coward]

I have no concern at all that "Warmist" position will be found to have been wrong in the big picture.

And if it that ever happens again then NOAA et al. will simply "correct" the numbers again, so yeah, that's a pretty good bet.

Now all you have to do is make China stop filling the atmosphere with carbon.

Re:Confusing Article

[riverat1]

The numbers are just about quantifying the effects. Do you think if we didn't collect those observations the problem wouldn't exist? Meanwhile temperatures continue to rise, sea level continues to rise, ice continues to melt and the oceans continue to acidify.

Carbon emissions are everybody's problem, China is only one part of that and right now they're spending more on it than the US. In order to stop AGW everyone the world over has to reduce carbon emissions to a net zero. There really is no other answer.

Re:Confusing Article

[khallow]

Do you think if we didn't collect those observations the problem wouldn't exist?

Yes. AGW would still exist, but the current high level of hysteria? Probably not. I don't think AGW is the biggest climate problem today, but rather the hysteria about it which is spurring us to make poor short term choices. In a century or two, we may have a real AGW problem. In which case, I'll be quite happy to change my opinion.

Carbon emissions are everybody's problem, China is only one part of that

A part which is growing at about 50% of all increase in CO2 levels. They can single-handedly neuter any attempt at AGW mitigation.

Re: Confusing Article

[Anonymous Coward]

The social engineers now control the game. Trying to "force changes" will only cause you to be ridiculed, demonized and shunned.

Re:Confusing Article

[riverat1]

I see, a lukewarmer. You must be extremely confident in your prediction of a century or two before AGW becomes a problem. If you're wrong we're in for a hell of a ride. By the time it's blindingly obvious to everybody it's way to late to stop some serious effects like multiple feet of sea level rise and the breakdown of permafrost in the Arctic.

Did you know that China actually used less coal last year than the year before? China is taking the problem seriously.

Re:Confusing Article

[BlueStrat]

I see, a lukewarmer. You must be extremely confident in your prediction of a century or two before AGW becomes a problem. If you're wrong we're in for a hell of a ride. By the time it's blindingly obvious to everybody it's way to late to stop some serious effects like multiple feet of sea level rise and the breakdown of permafrost in the Arctic.

Did you know that China actually used less coal last year than the year before? China is taking the problem seriously.

The problem is uncertainty. There is nowhere near enough certainty about if there actually is a problem, how bad it really is, and just what can effectively be done about it without risking destroying the only environment we have.

Politicians/political groups, environmental activist groups, and others have thoroughly muddied and politicized the issue, destroyed/faked data, on and on, and have all but completely destroyed scientific credibility related to the climate in the eyes of the public.

The solutions put forth thus far are mainly different methodologies to effectively increase energy costs to force conservation. The problem with this is it affects the poorest people, those least able to absorb the increases, the most and the worst. It means people suffer and die.

How many lives are you willing to sacrifice? How much proof would you require to sacrifice *your* life, or someone you love's life? It's easy to be OK with such things when you believe that *you* & yours will not have to sacrifice or suffer.

Strat

Re:Confusing Article

[radl33t]

What hysteria? Assuming the US-centric position, no one here is doing anything about it, unless you count all the hot air. What poor short term choices have we made?

As for China, they could single handily neuter any attempt at AGW mitigation, but instead they are doing the opposite. Their emissions growth has shrunk dramatically, they are reducing coal use faster than anyone expected (from a peak 2 years ago), they are installing more wind and solar than anyone one earth while supplying 80% of wind and solar to everyone on earth. Also its kind of a dick move to outsource all your heavy industry to a county and then give them shit about their emissions.

Re:Confusing Article

[khallow]

You must be extremely confident in your prediction of a century or two before AGW becomes a problem.

That's what the scientists are predicting. Also, why should we treat AGW as more special a risk than all the other global risks? Some of those risks are a much bigger problem than AGW and can be worsened by poor AGW mitigation strategy.

Did you know that China actually used less coal last year than the year before?

Even if true, a one year blip doesn't make a trend.

By the time it's blindingly obvious to everybody it's way to late to stop some serious effects like multiple feet of sea level rise and the breakdown of permafrost in the Arctic.

I'm ok with that. Blindingly obvious is better than acting without evidence of harm and danger.

Re:Confusing Article

[riverat1]

The problem is uncertainty. There is nowhere near enough certainty about if there actually is a problem, how bad it really is, and just what can effectively be done about it without risking destroying the only environment we have.

Uncertainty is not your friend. There may not be a lot of certainty about how bad the problem will be but there is no more certainty that it will not be that bad. Risk management principles tell you when the uncertainty is high the prudent course is to take steps to avoid the uncertainty.

Politicians/political groups, environmental activist groups, and others have thoroughly muddied and politicized the issue, destroyed/faked data, on and on, and have all but completely destroyed scientific credibility related to the climate in the eyes of the public.

The politicization of the the issue has mainly been from the contrarian side. They are using the same techniques that tobacco companies used to delay action against their products and some of them are the same people, Fred Singer for example. I've never seen any credible information about destroyed and/or faked data.

How many lives are you willing to sacrifice? How much proof would you require to sacrifice *your* life, or someone you love's life? It's easy to be OK with such things when you believe that *you* & yours will not have to sacrifice or suffer.

I could ask the same question of you. If some of the worst possible effects of global warming come to pass there will be a lot of death and disruption around the world. It could even cause the partial or complete collapse of our modern civilization. How many people should we sacrifice so fossil fuel companies can eek out the last bits of profit from their products?

Re:Confusing Article

[BlueStrat]

The politicization of the the issue has mainly been from the contrarian side.

OK, I can see I'm dealing with a True Believer.

We're done here.

Good day, Sir.

Strat

Re:Confusing Article

[riverat1]

OK, I can see I'm dealing with a True Believer.

Back at ya.

Re:Confusing Article

[khallow]

Uncertainty is not your friend. There may not be a lot of certainty about how bad the problem will be but there is no more certainty that it will not be that bad. Risk management principles tell you when the uncertainty is high the prudent course is to take steps to avoid the uncertainty.

The prudent step here is to not have seven plus billion people. That didn't happen. As a result we face considerable uncertainty no matter what happens.

In reality you simply are stating a preference for certain courses of action without a rational basis.

The politicization of the the issue has mainly been from the contrarian side. They are using the same techniques that tobacco companies used to delay action against their products and some of them are the same people, Fred Singer for example. I've never seen any credible information about destroyed and/or faked data.

Greenpeace is an obvious counterexample. My first exposure to the politicization of the issue was Greenpeace accusing Du Pont of (IIRC) "Cooking the Earth" some point around the summer of 1989. This was just in the wake of the Montreal Protocol which was to global reduce comsumption of chlorofluorocarbons (CHCs) over the following decades in order to protect the ozone layer.

Rather than lauding Du Pont for making a big step (by producing supposedly less dangerous compounds for the ozone layer like HCFCs) to help the above problem which was a key Greenpeace victory of the decade, they choose to completely ignore the victories Greenpeace had made and harp on another negative consequence of the new compounds, namely, that they were relatively strong greenhouse gases. This introduced me to a common theme I've since seen in environmentalist propaganda since the 70s, the villainization of industry in order to scare up donations.

Politicization of the greenhouse effect was a matter of course.

Second, it remains that contrarian propaganda is greatly outspent by the AGW theory advocacy side (such as the World Wildlife Fund).

I've never seen any credible information about destroyed and/or faked data.

What would that look like? It's not like we have direct observations of climate from ten thousand years ago. I would say instead that the undue certainty in climate data from before the age of direct human observation is credible example of faked data.

Another example is how climate models fit past data well and future data poorly. In particular, I've seen it asserted that certain sorts of short term randomness or variation are throwing off predictions as a justification for why the models don't handle unknown data well. Well, they should have thrown off predictions for the known past as well!

I could ask the same question of you. If some of the worst possible effects of global warming come to pass there will be a lot of death and disruption around the world. It could even cause the partial or complete collapse of our modern civilization. How many people should we sacrifice so fossil fuel companies can eek out the last bits of profit from their products?

We aren't. It's worth noting that AGW mitigation has been very profitable for oil companies. Coal mining and coal power generation have been universally against AGW propaganda, but the big oil company players have long been suspiciously quiet with only the Koch brothers making any significant amount of noise.

Re:Confusing Article

[riverat1]

I agree with you about 7 billion people. There were under 3 billion when I was born. But the only moral way I see that we could have avoided that would have been to put a bunch of money into education and raising the standard of living in those areas where the population is growing so fast. It's a certain thing that if 7 billion is too many nature will take care of the problem sooner or later.

Regarding Greenpeace. I don't deny there are hyerbolic statements from my side of the issue. I don't pay any more attention to them than I do to contrarians. I try to focus my attention on what the actual scientists who are active in the field say. They do practically nothing to politicize the issue.

Regarding the WWF. Most of what they do has little or nothing to do with AGW. To ascribe all of that money they received to AGW advocacy is probably wrong. There are probably details of what the various government grants they received were for. It would be interesting to dig into that.

I would say instead that the undue certainty in climate data from before the age of direct human observation is credible example of faked data.

Huh? There may be more uncertainty in proxy data but it's certainly not being faked.

The reason models fit the past better is that much of the unknown data from that future is known data in the past and factored in to the model runs. How do you expect scientist to predict things like the cycles of ENSO or volcanic eruptions ahead of time?

Re:Confusing Article

[khallow]

The reason models fit the past better is that much of the unknown data from that future is known data in the past and factored in to the model runs.

Of course. But I've run into several cases where the future performance of the model was excused on the basis of natural variation in climate despite past performance fitting very well. The variation didn't suddenly change the moment the model went from past to future.

How do you expect scientist to predict things like the cycles of ENSO or volcanic eruptions ahead of time?

How much are those models modeling that which they shouldn't be modeling?

using our resources against us...

[Anonymous Coward]

flattened badlandshere we come? https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=wmd+weather ... instead of using free clean energy.. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=free+world+energy ... we could 3d print a conscious conscience for our genocidal wmd on credit cabal rulers? hang on to our hemispheres,,, in the moms we trust.. rock on /. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-kA3UtBj4M

Somebody writes grants

[Rich0]

Clearly somebody owns a 3D printing company and is looking to get grants from the EPA and DARPA, etc.

Re:Somebody writes grants

[phantomfive]

Yeah, that's what I was thinking too. I was reading through the article, and couldn't figure out who it was, though.

Re:Somebody writes grants

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, they also misunderstand the DoD's interest in climate change. The EPA would want to fix climate change. The DoD just recognizes that it exists, that it's a destabilizing force, and they want to come out on top. If the rest of the world falls to pieces... so be it. It's the DoD, not the UN.

Re:Somebody writes grants

[ScentCone]

The EPA would want to fix climate change

No, the political appointees who run that agency and the career employees who are working towards their federal pension while doing time in that agency see a scary but ill-defined and vaguely-causality-challenged "climate change" monster as a full-on political power, permanent employment, and budget expansion opportunity. They want problems, because that's what they're supposed to study and make policies about. If they don't see a problem, they have to lower the bar until something that's not a real problem can be described as one - and presto, they have authority over something new, and a reason to appropriate money, hire more people, and become more indispensable. As some farmer about what's involved in spending an hour with his backhoe to dig out a 30-foot-wide stock pond to catch a little rain water for his animals - QUICK! CALL THE FEDS! THE EPA MUST GET INVOLVED!

Re:Somebody writes grants

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, that's what I was thinking too. I was reading through the article, and couldn't figure out who it was, though.

From what I could tell, they're selling Buzzwords and Management Mission Statements. Because that's all there was.

Re:Somebody writes grants

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the political appointees who run that agency and the career employees who are working towards their federal pension while doing time in that agency see a scary but ill-defined and vaguely-causality-challenged "climate change" monster as a full-on political power, permanent employment, and budget expansion opportunity.

I think someone needs to have their blood pressure checked....

Re:Somebody writes grants

[ScentCone]

I think someone needs to have their blood pressure checked....

You don't personally know people who work for the EPA, do you? I can tell.

What happened here?

[Tailhook]

k.... I tried to follow the thinking here and failed.

It's as though someone took the terrified mind of a Sierra Club propagandized millennial and blended it with the mind of a slashdot basement dweller; out pops a strange being that blathers endlessly about 3D printing, climate change and saving the world.

Re:What happened here?

[ScentCone]

Nah, the OP is just shy. What he's trying to say, but is too muzzled by Political Correctness to get out coherently, is:

"If we suffer a bad enough catastrophe, you're going to be really glad that we can 3D-print disposable gun parts. Other than that whole 'needing electricity and industrially manufactured raw materials for your 3D printer' part.

Re:What happened here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you think you failed? Oh, I see, you forgot to mention the veiled reference to bruce jenner.
WHAT!?? You say? There. See? Got you covered, mate.

Re:What happened here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Caitlyn, you racist homophobe misogynist.

Automated creation

[Anonymous Coward]

3d printing is a facet of automated creation. The Japanese have successfully used this technology to even 3d print buildings.

I believe your idea has terrific merit, but it is against old people who do not understand technology, and their eyes glaze when they hear 3d printing.

Our leaders are bloated pigs with little in the way of interest in we the people. I'd suggest a more community driven approach and less of a governmental one, they are no longer trust worthy, and generally are incompetent.

Re: Automated creation

[Anonymous Coward]

too bad we all use the one fiat currency, through which they pwn us.

fix that and you have freedom. best of luck, though. bitcoin and switzerland are under serious duress these days.

Re:Automated creation

[Anonymous Coward]

" The Japanese have successfully used this technology to even 3d print buildings."

Please provide a link for this. Please define what you call a "building".

This uncritical gee-whiz hype of 3D printing is mindless. The young people whose eyes glaze over when they hear "limits" and "software isn't reality".

Old 3D tech is sufficient

[Anonymous Coward]

Just glue two rows of Legos along the beach, and you'll be protected from sea level rise for years.

Re:Old 3D tech is sufficient

[gfxguy]

Why do that when you can spend 100x more 3D Printing two rows of LEGO bricks to make a wall along the beach?

The first thing to fo ...

[CaptainDork]

... is to download the software template for a power station right off the Internet.

Oh, wait ...

Re:FFS

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no "scam", and you don't really believe that there is even though you desperately want to.

what ya'll need is

[Anonymous Coward]

a 3d printer that pulls carbon dioxide from the air to make graphene water filters. You can then use the water filters to collect plastic microbeads which will be an excellent material for building emergency shelters.

Re:FFS

[gfxguy]

OK, at the risk of being down-modded, I agree with you - the people modding you down don't understand what the scam is, and it's not that global warming doesn't exist.

money

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no profit in doing that for the military, so it no use for the democrats to do it. Climate change is about making money, and nothing else.

If?

[Anonymous Coward]

"If the United States, including the Department of Defense, truly believes that climate change presents 'immediate risks to national security,'"

Big "if" there. Of course climate will change. We are in a chaotic system with 2 attractors. The dominant one is cold with lasts for ~90,000 years and the second is warm which lasts about 10,000 years. The DOD will say anything to increase their budget.

So what is the plan for preventing the resumption of the cold? The only good news is that going back into a glaciation is much more gradual than when earth comes out of it. Very steep and quick climb out of the cold but more gradual going back into it.

I highly recommend opening up Panama so the Pacific can circulate into the Atlantic like it did 3 million years ago.

By the way I have a question for everyone who thinks that CO2 controls the climate. How long with rising CO2 and flat or falling temperatures before you admit
your theory is wrong? 20 years? 30? Never?

All 5 of the major datasets (RSS, UAH, HadCRUT4, GISS, NCDC) show no warming for between 14 and over 18 years. In that time CO2 has risen 8-10%.

If you want to read a great explanation of why the IPCC models are broken beyond belief there was a great article describing that and all the other problems with climate science by Dr Brown of Duke university. This current study is just more of what he describes.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/06/real-science-debates-are-not-rare/

Ah,... yeah. Carbon Footprint?

[Anonymous Coward]

3D printing uses plastic. Plastic requires oil and lots more oil burned for energy to process it to plastic. 3D printing fixes/helps at all climate change and global warming. What the fuck have you been smoking?! Not even on a good day!