• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should the US military prepare for climate change?

Should the US military prepare for climate change?

  • Total voters
    36
Tim the plumber said:
Yep, the US military should consider that they might need some extra tropical uniforms. Not many though the effects are expected to be very slight.
Click to expand...

Then you need to educate yourself further on the issue. I don't expect the effects to be as apocalyptic as some people make them out to be, but they're going to be a bit worse than "slightly warmer temperatures".
 
molten_dragon said:
Then you need to educate yourself further on the issue. I don't expect the effects to be as apocalyptic as some people make them out to be, but they're going to be a bit worse than "slightly warmer temperatures".
Click to expand...

Oh, yeah, a sea level rise less than you will notice by 2050... (6 inches?).

What do you think is going to happen?
 
Deuce said:
No he didn't, and no they aren't.

Now, before some right-wing whackos start crowing about worshiping at the church of Gore, let me be clear. Al Gore is not a scientist. He is not a person you should listen to on a scientific subject. He's a spokesman, and a politician. And he deceived you about ice melting. But let's at least be accurate about it.

Al Gore deceived you by specifically leaving out a timeframe. "If" the greenland ice caps melted, we'd see a sea level rise of ___. That's true. What he didn't mention is that at current rates, this would take centuries. Not exactly a lie, but it's certainly deceptive.

Finally, the "ice caps are growing!" rhetoric tends to stem from a single-year uptick in arctic ice extent. As far as climate science goes, that's about as stupid as saying "well, it rained more today than yesterday, so the world must be getting wetter." A one-year change is not indicative of a trend, particularly when that one-year change is just a slight recovery from the lowest point recorded in a 30 year downward trend.

gKlUuU1.png
Click to expand...

Nice graph.

It shows that the sea ice (who cares about that?) has reduced in the Arctic by about 30% since 1978. But it does it dramatically!!!! Start the graph at 3 why don't you?
 
Deuce said:
No he didn't, and no they aren't.

Now, before some right-wing whackos start crowing about worshiping at the church of Gore, let me be clear. Al Gore is not a scientist. He is not a person you should listen to on a scientific subject. He's a spokesman, and a politician. And he deceived you about ice melting. But let's at least be accurate about it.

Al Gore deceived you by specifically leaving out a timeframe. "If" the greenland ice caps melted, we'd see a sea level rise of ___. That's true. What he didn't mention is that at current rates, this would take centuries. Not exactly a lie, but it's certainly deceptive.

Finally, the "ice caps are growing!" rhetoric tends to stem from a single-year uptick in arctic ice extent. As far as climate science goes, that's about as stupid as saying "well, it rained more today than yesterday, so the world must be getting wetter." A one-year change is not indicative of a trend, particularly when that one-year change is just a slight recovery from the lowest point recorded in a 30 year downward trend.

gKlUuU1.png
Click to expand...

Here is gore saying by 2013 the ice caps will be gone heck its a video so you claiming he did not might be incorrect.

Al Gore: North Polar Ice Cap 'Completely Disappear' by 2013 | Conservative Angle
 
Tim the plumber said:
Oh, yeah, a sea level rise less than you will notice by 2050... (6 inches?).

What do you think is going to happen?
Click to expand...

Sea level rise (predictions are more like 12-20 inches by 2050), more extreme weather events (storms, floods, droughts, etc.), possible ocean acidification, Risk of large-scale extinctions. Secondary effects could be serious food and/or water shortages in parts of the world. All of these could exacerbate regional/national tensions, which is a good thing for the armed forces to pay attention to.

Why bury our heads in the sand now and ignore it, and run the risk that we could end up unprepared in the future and have to try to adapt in a hurry, when we can make slow, steady changes that will be much cheaper in the long run and help us be prepared for what the future brings us?
 
molten_dragon said:
Sea level rise (predictions are more like 12-20 inches by 2050), more extreme weather events (storms, floods, droughts, etc.), possible ocean acidification, Risk of large-scale extinctions. Secondary effects could be serious food and/or water shortages in parts of the world. All of these could exacerbate regional/national tensions, which is a good thing for the armed forces to pay attention to.

Why bury our heads in the sand now and ignore it, and run the risk that we could end up unprepared in the future and have to try to adapt in a hurry, when we can make slow, steady changes that will be much cheaper in the long run and help us be prepared for what the future brings us?
Click to expand...

1 You think that the sea level is going to rise by 20 inches in 35 years? Given it's going at 1.9mm per year it will have to accelerate a lot.

2 The weather has become less stormy and unpredictable recently.

3 Is the occasional bleaching of coral reefs something that the military should react to? Who would they shoot at?

4 Large scale extinctions of what???? What species do you think are at all at risk due to a 1 degree warming?

5 Food production is helped by increased CO2. A warmer world is generally wetter.

6 Regional tensions; Lots of poor people will attack the USA. Ummm... not really a military problem is it.

The adaption to a 1 degree warmer world is not required. Just keep calm and carry on. Nothing to worry about here.
 
Tim the plumber said:

1 You think that the sea level is going to rise by 20 inches in 35 years? Given it's going at 1.9mm per year it will have to accelerate a lot.

2 The weather has become less stormy and unpredictable recently.

3 Is the occasional bleaching of coral reefs something that the military should react to? Who would they shoot at?

4 Large scale extinctions of what???? What species do you think are at all at risk due to a 1 degree warming?

5 Food production is helped by increased CO2. A warmer world is generally wetter.

6 Regional tensions; Lots of poor people will attack the USA. Ummm... not really a military problem is it.

The adaption to a 1 degree warmer world is not required. Just keep calm and carry on. Nothing to worry about here.
Click to expand...

Okay, my original guess was right. You do need to educate yourself more. Until you do there's no point discussing anything.
 
Cyrylek said:
At some point, more than 97% of "scientists" did "believe" that the Ptolemaic geocentric system
Click to expand...

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

The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."[3]
Click to expand...
 
Prepare how, exactly? How would "preparation for climate change" differ from preparation for any other conflict?
 
votemout said:
Here is gore saying by 2013 the ice caps will be gone heck its a video so you claiming he did not might be incorrect.

Al Gore: North Polar Ice Cap 'Completely Disappear' by 2013 | Conservative Angle
Click to expand...

That was referring to arctic summer ice, not the entire ice cap. "Conservative Angle" has poor reading comprehension, you should read about stuff like this from real scientists, not crappy bloggers or those dumbasses on cable news channels. And at the time, it certainly looked like that was a possibility. But Al Gore was making the same mistake you were: looking at that plunge in 2007-2008 2006-2007 and deciding that was indicative of the overall trend. Meanwhile, your right-wing news sources looked at the line I circled in that red box and declared that arctic sea is was growing.

Both are pretty silly things to do, don't you agree? Just look at the year-to-year fluctuations. Clearly you can't just look at one year of data and come up with any meaningful conclusion. You agree?

edit: I looked up the study in question, it actually stated 2016, +/- 3 years, and "nearly free," not melted completely. It also seems to be a minority opinion. For example, from the National Snow and Ice Data Center:

"Seeing an essentially ice free Arctic Ocean in summer by 2016 is extremely unlikely. While we have certainly seen a rapid loss of summer ice in recent decades (compared to the late 1970s, we've lost about 40 per cent of the summer ice cover), losing the remainder over the next few years would be very hard to do."
Click to expand...

Even that terrible, alarmist IPCC predicts 94% ice free by 2100 based on the model averaging and a high emissions scenario.
 
Last edited:
APACHERAT said:
There sure was a climate change in Vietnam compared to the CONUS. We went commando.
Click to expand...

So...damp...

Well, guess I don't need to eat breakfast today. Thanks, APACHERAT.
 
Moot said:
House forces Pentagon to ignore science on climate change - UPI.com



A few days prior to Rep. McKinley's house bill several military leaders testified before congress that climate change was a national security risk....

Military Leaders Respond: Congressional Testimonies on Climate Change, Energy and National Security « The Center for Climate & Security


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/10/s...ort-outlines-perils-for-us-military.html?_r=0



U.S. Military Forges Ahead with Plans to Combat Climate Change - Scientific American


Yes, W. Virginia, the climate change debate is over.
Click to expand...

Easy to answer for me. Why prepare for something that is no more then a political movement. You want to further politicize the military, go ahead. But you will find, very quickly, that is the fastest way to make an effective military, ineffective. Just look at Vietnam for instance. We were crushing the Vietnamese, the only reason we lost that war is because politicians continually tied the militaries hands behind its back.

Now, I will say that we certainly need to be putting money into alternative energy. But not because of global warming. I think it would be very good for our own security if we could rely as little as possible on coal and oil because we have to import so much of it into the country. Which the money goes to supporting the very thing we are fighting around the world, muslim extremism. I think it is also important to not only become independent ourselves, but to help the rest of the world become independent so that we can isolate those who are our enemies that are funded by oil revenue.

Because of global warming, no.

Because of national security and the fight on terrorism, yes.
 
Perhaps the sense is that we cant really afford $160.00 per gallon for 'green' jet fuel and similar exorbitant purchases with limited returns.
 
Gathomas88 said:
Prepare how, exactly? How would "preparation for climate change" differ from preparation for any other conflict?
Click to expand...

What they want is to force the DOD to start actually producing research on "how to operate in a climate change world". THEN they are going to use those same documents as ipso facto proof that climate change is real, and is a threat, because the Pentagon is trying to figure out how to protect us from it!, oh I'm getting the vapors.......

:roll: I can only imagine what the actual senior staffers in the Pentagon think of that playbook.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Yep, the US military should consider that they might need some extra tropical uniforms. Not many though the effects are expected to be very slight.
Click to expand...

Probably ought to lay in a few pair of gloves too. Just in case the present trend keeps going.
 
Bob N said:
Like I told you before 97% believe that global change is real and that it is caused by man; I do not believe that report came from one of those 97 percenters. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Scientific breakthroughs come from the dissenters more often than not. Most people thought the world was flat until that Columbus guy didn't fall off the edge.

Most people thought that the flora and fauna hadn't changed since the beginning until Darwin actually went and took a look.
 
VanceMack said:
Perhaps the sense is that we cant really afford $160.00 per gallon for 'green' jet fuel and similar exorbitant purchases with limited returns.
Click to expand...

Are you under the impression that this is the cost it will always be?
 
Absolutely they should.
 
Deuce said:
Are you under the impression that this is the cost it will always be?
Click to expand...
Depends on who is selling the fuel to the government and what their campaign contribution history is.
 
cpwill said:
What they want is to force the DOD to start actually producing research on "how to operate in a climate change world". THEN they are going to use those same documents as ipso facto proof that climate change is real, and is a threat, because the Pentagon is trying to figure out how to protect us from it!, oh I'm getting the vapors.......

:roll: I can only imagine what the actual senior staffers in the Pentagon think of that playbook.
Click to expand...

You don't need to imagine because back in 2007 senior military advisors determined that climate change is a real and growing threat to national security.


Testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives' Select Committee On Energy Independence and Global Warming | CNA Corporation


http://www.c2es.org/science-impacts/national-security/military-advisory-board-summary


The purpose of the Military Advisory Board’s study was to examine the national security consequences of climate change. A dozen of the nation’s most respected retired admirals and generals served as a Military Advisory Board to study how climate change could affect our nation’s security over the next 30 to 40 years—the timeframe for developing new military capabilities.

The specific questions addressed were:

##What conditions are climate changes likely to produce around the world that would represent security risks to the United States?
##What are the ways in which these conditions may affect America’s national security interests?
##What actions should the nation take to address the national security consequences of climate change?

FINDINGS:
##Projected climate change poses a serious threat to America’s national security.
##Climate change acts as a threat multiplier for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world.
##Climate change, national security, and energy dependence are a related set of global challenges.

RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE MILITARY ADVISORY BOARD:

1.The national security consequences of climate change should be fully integrated into national security and national defense strategies. The intelligence community should incorporate climate consequences into its National Intelligence Estimate.
2.The U.S. should commit to a stronger national and international roleto help stabilize climate change at levels that will avoid significant disruption to global security and stability.
3.The U.S. should commit to global partnerships that help less developed nations build the capacity and resiliency to better manage climate impacts.
4.The Department of Defense should enhance its operational capability by accelerating the adoption of improved business processes and innovative technologies that result in improved U.S. combat power through energy efficiency.
5.The Department of Defense should conduct an assessment of the impact on U.S. military installations worldwide of rising sea levels, extreme weather events, and other projected climate change impacts over the next 30 to 40 years.
Click to expand...
National Security and the Threat of Climate Change: Military Advisory Board Findings | Center for Climate and Energy Solutions
 
Moot said:
You don't need to imagine because back in 2007 senior military advisors determined that climate change is a real and growing threat to national security.
Click to expand...

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.

Testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives' Select Committee On Energy Independence and Global Warming | CNA Corporation
Click to expand...

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.
 
votemout said:
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
Click to expand...

We have proof. We have literally 99.9% of all accredited geologists, meteorologists, chemists, physicists and biologists saying so.

In the 'against' column, we have moronic bigots who don't want to stop driving their SUVs.

There is ZERO evidence against climate change.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom