View Poll Results: Should the US military prepare for climate change?

Voters
42. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    24 57.14%
  • No

    18 42.86%
Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 51 to 60 of 60

Thread: Should the US military prepare for climate change?

  1. #51
    Guru
    Cyrylek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Boston
    Last Seen
    02-05-17 @ 01:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,467

    Re: Should the US military prepare for climate change?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Just so you know, a scientist isn't just anyone who studies the natural world. Copernicus for all his knowledge was not a scientist in the real sense of the word. Use of the scientific method is how we define scientists today. Anything before the scientific method is prescientific. So in short:

    1) If 97% of people who studied natural world believed in the Ptolemaic geocentric system, that is terrible. However, they weren't scientists.
    2) Copernicus' work wasn't criticized or even so much as studied by scientists. It was studied by natural philosophers like himself, at best.

    Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    With all due respect (just so you know), there was nothing un-scientific - form the point of view of the firmest adherents of the scientific method - in calculations made by Copernicus, his Ptolemaic opponents, Tycho Brahe (an author of a hybrid theory), and others of their era. They have made their observations of the heavenly bodies moving, then they have developed geometrical concepts that fit the data. What's wrong here, "scientifically"?

    Oh, I see, they did not create any speculative, politically (and financially) motivated models that would pretend to describe - based on meager, arbitrarily chosen data - how planets will move in some distant future? I guess, that's the static, medieval mindset for you. Suckers.

  2. #52
    Sage
    shrubnose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Europe
    Last Seen
    11-29-17 @ 03:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    18,851
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Should the US military prepare for climate change?

    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    Yes, absolutely, and we should start by authorizing shorts and short sleeve shirts.

    This guy on the left knows what I'm talking about.





    There's a guy who knows how to fight a war.

    Why get overheated When you can kill just as many people dressed in your skivvies and flip-flops?

  3. #53
    Sage
    shrubnose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Europe
    Last Seen
    11-29-17 @ 03:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    18,851
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Should the US military prepare for climate change?

    Quote Originally Posted by votemout View Post
    I think we need proof climate change is even real....

    I mean Al gore said that by now the ice caps would be gone, and lo and behold they are larger now then when he made that comment.

    Climate change is a hoax


    That's your opinion which you're entitled to and a lot of scientists disagree with.

    Let's wait and see what happens.

  4. #54
    Sage
    shrubnose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Europe
    Last Seen
    11-29-17 @ 03:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    18,851
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Should the US military prepare for climate change?

    Judging from history some places will always be hotter and colder, or wetter than other places.

  5. #55
    Sage
    shrubnose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Europe
    Last Seen
    11-29-17 @ 03:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    18,851
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Should the US military prepare for climate change?

    Quote Originally Posted by AliHajiSheik View Post
    From what I know of science, facts are not determine by polls. It is by establishing a hypothesis and then either proving it or disproving it.

    I think the military should include any possible effects of weather in their overall risk assessment. The same way they do when they decide which directions the runways should face. They should not be prohibited from doing so, but it should be fact based.
    Putting a base in New Orleans probably isn't the best idea since it is pretty much underwater already.



    Without levees and pumps it is underwater.

  6. #56
    cynical class clown
    Luftwaffe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    CONNECTICUT
    Last Seen
    11-18-17 @ 10:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    10,499

    Re: Should the US military prepare for climate change?

    How to prepare for a hotter earth with more water...

    Indirect fire support/targeting, that's the path we are going anyway.

    The only change like some people state is that they need to be more prepared for humanitarian aid (which should all be the U.N. but those bastards are good-for-nothing ****heads who pass resolutions that no one cares about).

    Naval bases will have to be more storm-ready too I guess.
    -----MOS 19D = cavalry scout = best damn MOS there is

  7. #57
    cynical class clown
    Luftwaffe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    CONNECTICUT
    Last Seen
    11-18-17 @ 10:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    10,499

    Re: Should the US military prepare for climate change?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Really? Gosh. Why don't you look up why they came out with that study?

    Hint: it has something to do with the changes in Congress after the 2006 election, and the post you just responded to.



    Wait, the CNA wants more money for boats?!? Say it ain't so!!!


    The U.S. military is the most adaptable on the planet, and also has the most powerful navy by a long shot. If anything, Global Warming would enhance our relative power, not degrade it. AGW (assuming it's nature) enhances US Hegemony, it doesn't detract from it.
    inb4 our navy spends more time doing humanitarian aid than fighting because of storms and catastrophes.
    -----MOS 19D = cavalry scout = best damn MOS there is

  8. #58
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,053

    Re: Should the US military prepare for climate change?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyrylek View Post
    With all due respect (just so you know), there was nothing un-scientific - form the point of view of the firmest adherents of the scientific method - in calculations made by Copernicus, his Ptolemaic opponents, Tycho Brahe (an author of a hybrid theory), and others of their era.
    And yet, use of the scientific method is how we defined whether a work is scientific or not. So yes, Copernicus wasn't a scientists anymore than Aristotle was.

    They have made their observations of the heavenly bodies moving, then they have developed geometrical concepts that fit the data. What's wrong here, "scientifically"?
    There's a lot more to the scientific method.

    Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Oh, I see, they did not create any speculative, politically (and financially) motivated models that would pretend to describe - based on meager, arbitrarily chosen data - how planets will move in some distant future? I guess, that's the static, medieval mindset for you. Suckers.
    Your argument essentially relies on the claim that geologists, anthropologists, chemists, physicists, agriculturalists, astronomists and biologists have all colluded through different and separate and interconnected fields of science to come up with global warming. That's just as silly as claiming that they've done so to conclusively state that evolution is a fact or that gravity is a fact. Hell, your argument is so weak it essentially relies on "if you study global warming, you get paid!" - no, global warming is studied because it's a real and imminent threat. It's funded for the same reasons we pour billions into cancer research, asteroid observation and sociological studies on terrorism.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  9. #59
    Guru
    Cyrylek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Boston
    Last Seen
    02-05-17 @ 01:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,467

    Re: Should the US military prepare for climate change?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Your argument essentially relies on the claim that geologists, anthropologists, chemists, physicists, agriculturalists, astronomists and biologists have all colluded through different and separate and interconnected fields of science to come up with global warming. That's just as silly .
    "My argument" has nothing to do with the accumulated knowledge of "anthropologists" and "agriculturalists" - and everything to do with the ongoing severe abuse of science - and distortion of the scientific method - by the politically - and, yes, financially - motivated zealots. I have absolutely nothing against people who believe in global warming, global freezing, global steady-state forever - or in the second coming of Anubis, for that matter - free country. What bothers me is that way too many of them fake their weird religion as science - and way too many in the scientific establishment are going along with it - for most short-sighted and narrowly-selfish reasons

  10. #60
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,053

    Re: Should the US military prepare for climate change?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyrylek View Post
    "My argument" has nothing to do with the accumulated knowledge of "anthropologists" and "agriculturalists" - and everything to do with the ongoing severe abuse of science - and distortion of the scientific method - by the politically - and, yes, financially - motivated zealots. I have absolutely nothing against people who believe in global warming, global freezing, global steady-state forever - or in the second coming of Anubis, for that matter - free country. What bothers me is that way too many of them fake their weird religion as science - and way too many in the scientific establishment are going along with it - for most short-sighted and narrowly-selfish reasons
    Actually, your post has everything to do with the knowledge accumulated over a dozen different disciplines including anthropology and agriculture. The days where sciences were kept in little boxes and separate from each other are long gone. Scientists from different fields have given validation to each others' work and global warming really is no exception.

    Now, claiming that modern science and global warming are somehow a type of religion cheapens religion far more than it does science. There is nothing to gain spiritually for anybody who understands scientific principles. There is no dogma associated with science. There is not even a set of beliefs that are guaranteed to remain constant in every scenario. So how is it a religion? In which religions can centuries old principles change within the span of a year? In which religion can you question tenets proverbially set in stone? In what religion can a new theory to explain life's development supplant ideas held for 1000 or even 100 years? None because science is not a religion.

    I'll give you this: We're making progress and I'm glad you stopped trying to claim that Copernicus' observations of the natural world are anywhere near the standards of proof required today. I'm even more glad that you've stopped trying to put natural philosophy in the same field as modern day science. I mean, if you actually knew what you were talking about, you'd know that not only is there no way Copernicus' work was attacked by scientists (as they didn't exist back then), it was actually attacked by the religious!

    Religious Objections to Copernicus

    Quote Originally Posted by Martin Luther
    "There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must needs invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth."
    That's only a quote but it's a very telling one because:

    Copernicus and the Church: What the history books don't say - CSMonitor.com

    Copernicus had a good relationship with the Catholic Church. It may come as a surprise, considering the Church banned Copernicus' "Des revolutionibus" for more than 200 years. Copernicus was actually respected as a canon and regarded as a renowned astronomer. Contrary to popular belief, the Church accepted Copernicus' heliocentric theory before a wave of Protestant opposition led the Church to ban Copernican views in the 17th century.
    Des Revolutionibus was the only book banned (by the HRCC) but because it held philosophical views which were contrary to the Church's teachings. Copernicus' maths? They weren't up for questioning by his peers. Hell, even members of the Catholic Church who followed the sciences acknowledged his mathematics as being solid:

    Copernicus and his Revolutions

    That this was a real issue is illustrated in the earliest critique of De revolutionibus by the Dominican Giovanni Maria Tolosani who praises the mathematical knowledge in the book while complaining that this is not sufficient. ‘The inferior science,’ he says, ‘receives principles proved by the superior’ [NOTE] meaning that astronomers should leave the loftier matter of natural philosophy to their betters. To bolster his position, it is necessary for Copernicus to talk up the status of astronomers without sounding too offensive. Copernicus used a number of rhetorical devices that were quite separate from his core arguments to try and lessen the force of these problems. The most obvious of these is the rather obsequious tone of much of De revolutionibus with Copernicus reminding his readers of his ‘mediocrity’ [NOTE]. But this was nothing unusual during the period and was a technique that could be used even when an author was putting down his rivals.
    Opponents of Copernicus' work didn't base their arguments on science or even natural philosophy but religion:

    Quote Originally Posted by The Theology of Haham David Nieto:An Eighteenth-Century Defense of the Jewish TraditionDavid Gans (1541-1613)
    Nehmad veNaim is full of praise for Copernicus, whom he considers to be the greatest scholar of the age. But he does not accept his world view which, he says, was already known by the ancients and rejected by them. This attitude is explained by Waxman as being due partly to the influence of Tycho Brahe who was a great opponent of the Copernican revolution, and partly to the piety of the author who could not accept the view of Copernicus since it contradicts Biblical passages.
    http://books.google.com.mx/books?id=...rnicus&f=false

    Attachment 67167748
    Attachment 67167749
    Attachment 67167750

    The writing is all over the wall, the objections to Copernicus' work came not from fellow natural philosophers (what you call scientists) they came from the religious:

    However, what sets one of his books apart from the others? This:

    Arguments that a modern thinker would describe as ‘scientific’ are rarer in De revolutionibus than might be expected. Certainly, there is no hint of Popper’s falsification or much else that qualifies as ‘scientific method’. Of the six books, more than five are taken up by a detailed geometrical and chronological analysis that successfully shows that a heliocentric model does indeed provide an alternative to the Ptolemaic model.
    In short:

    1) Copernicus' work was never attacked by scientists as the scientific method had not been established.
    1b)Scientific observers at the time actually praised his work; even those within the church.
    2) The people in his field who criticized his work did so on the basis that it did not go far enough.
    2b) It was not attacked by natural world observers on the basis that it was contrary to Ptolemaic tenets.
    3) The attacks and bans of 1 of his books actually came from the religious.
    4) The mathematics his other works contained weren't in question (of the 6 books, De Revolutionibus was the one with the least amount of mathematics), it was his philosophical analysis of the information he'd encountered.
    Last edited by Hatuey; 06-08-14 at 05:07 AM.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •