• 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

Moot

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
40,549
Reaction score
15,452
Location
Utah
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
House forces Pentagon to ignore science on climate change - UPI.com

"...WASHINGTON, May 23 (UPI) --The Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted mostly along party lines Thursday to approve an amendment to the $600 billion National Defense Authorization Act which prohibits the Pentagon from using any of its budget to address climate change and specifically instructs the Department of Defense to ignore the latest scientific reports on the threats posed by global warming.

The amendment, sponsored by Rep. David McKinley, a Republican whose home state of West Virginia's economy is heavily leveraged in coal mining...."

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

"....In a joint statement, CCS Co-Directors Francesco “Frank” Femia and Caitlin Werrell concluded: “Today’s testimonies add to the chorus of voices within the military and national security establishment about the importance of addressing climate change. This has long ago ceased to be an environmental issue, and it never should have been a political issue. It’s simply a matter of national security.”

CCS applauds the Department of Defense for taking a leadership role on addressing climate change threats to national and international security, and encourages policy-makers to follow their lead...."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/10/s...ort-outlines-perils-for-us-military.html?_r=0


"...A 2010 Defense Department review identified climate change and energy security as "prominent military vulnerabilities," noting that climate change in particular is an "accelerant of instability and conflict." It was the first time the Pentagon addressed climate in a comprehensive planning document.

A subsequent assessment by the National Research Council found that even moderate climate shifts will impact Navy operations. Sea-level rise and more severe storm surges will hit coastal military bases, and marine forces could also face more work in responding to an increase in humanitarian crises following disasters....."
U.S. Military Forges Ahead with Plans to Combat Climate Change - Scientific American


Yes, W. Virginia, the climate change debate is over.
 
Yes, the military, and the country in general should be preparing for the effects of climate change. Even if you believe that it's occurring naturally, rather than caused by us, the effects will be the same, and we need to be prepared to cope with them.
 
As much as possible without sacrificing too greatly in important and more traditional areas. I certainly wouldn't support a bill that would explicitly prohibit them from doing so.
 

I think that the question is more how to prepare than whether to do so. Is hardware necessary or is research better and sufficient? How much do we want to allocate away from other activities? How will we bind in our allies and hopefully other partners in the endeavor for global security?
 

I think that the question is more how to prepare than whether to do so. Is hardware necessary or is research better and sufficient? How much do we want to allocate away from other activities? How will we bind in our allies and hopefully other partners in the endeavor for global security?
 
Yes, absolutely, and we should start by authorizing shorts and short sleeve shirts.

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

article-1181998-04F2CA94000005DC-719_634x348_popup.jpg
 
As much as possible without sacrificing too greatly in important and more traditional areas. I certainly wouldn't support a bill that would explicitly prohibit them from doing so.

Yes. The military's focus should be on effectiveness but recognizing the reality of climate change must be part of the analysis. The military of the future has to operate in a real world and that world certainly will be different. To be an effective defense of America, the military must understand how the physical world will affect them.
 
I blame the failure to adjust for an extra degree per average has cost us a victory in the war on terror.
 
Prepare for action in the US or abroad?

Certainly not here in the US. Unless they are involved in distributing food and supplies during some catastrophe.
 
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
 
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
97% of Global scientists believe that global warming is real. And that it is caused by man. Nonetheless, climate change does exist--whether or not you believe that it is caused by man or not--it's just that all scientist do not agree as to what's causing it.
 
97% of Global scientists believe that global warming is real. And that it is caused by man. Nonetheless, climate change does exist--whether or not you believe that it is caused by man or not--it's just that all scientist do not agree as to what's causing it.

Has the AGW argument imploded? « Hot Air

Has new research disproven the theoretical models of anthropogenic global warming? A new study by a European nuclear research group appears to show that the actual prime cause of temperature shifts in the Earth’s climate isn’t carbon dioxide at all, or even the broader range of “greenhouse gases,” but the large ball of fire in the center of the solar system. Not that this study from CERN has attracted much attention in the media, at least not in the US — but at least Nature reported the results and the implications:

British newspapers like the Register and the Telegraph have reported on the results from CERN, but it’s not received much attention from the American media. Investors Business Daily wonders why all of those who proclaimed the supposedly “settled science” are now so quiet:




Lawrence Solomon: Science getting settled | Financial Post

New, convincing evidence indicates global warming is caused by cosmic rays and the sun — not humans

WHy do think the american media is quiet about this new research?
 
Yes, W. Virginia, the climate change debate is over.

In the minds of those that do not care about science, but do care about a political agenda.
 
Has the AGW argument imploded? « Hot Air

Has new research disproven the theoretical models of anthropogenic global warming? A new study by a European nuclear research group appears to show that the actual prime cause of temperature shifts in the Earth’s climate isn’t carbon dioxide at all, or even the broader range of “greenhouse gases,” but the large ball of fire in the center of the solar system. Not that this study from CERN has attracted much attention in the media, at least not in the US — but at least Nature reported the results and the implications:

British newspapers like the Register and the Telegraph have reported on the results from CERN, but it’s not received much attention from the American media. Investors Business Daily wonders why all of those who proclaimed the supposedly “settled science” are now so quiet:




Lawrence Solomon: Science getting settled | Financial Post

New, convincing evidence indicates global warming is caused by cosmic rays and the sun — not humans

WHy do think the american media is quiet about this new research?
Like I said votemout: 97% of climate scientists believe that it is real.

but it’s not received much attention from the American media
It might be because the findings didn't come from one of those 97 percent of scientists that believe global warming is real. ;)
 
Like I said votemout: 97% of climate scientists believe that it is real.

It might be because the findings didn't come from one of those 97 percent of scientists that believe global warming is real. ;)

SO these new findings are debunking there BS agenda, So you think we should still listen to scientists that has had their beliefs debunked?
 
SO these new findings are debunking there BS agenda, So you think we should still listen to scientists that has had their beliefs debunked?
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:
 
At some point, more than 97% of "scientists" did "believe" that the Ptolemaic geocentric system (epicycles and all) fits available data better than the brilliant but wild speculations of that Polish dude. And actually, they were quite right: it took another couple of centuries to amass the evidence that made Copernicus and his Greek predecessors "indisputably and obviously" correct.

As for the US military - and the US government in general...No. Absolutely not. "Climate change" - or any other vague ideologeme - should be given no more than zero consideration, when it comes to making sure that our soldiers (for example) have adequate clothing or medical supplies. Whatever may be happening or not happening "globally" over long stretches of time, an American soldier should have what he needs now, within 24 hours, from anywhere in the world to anywhere else in the world. We can do it. Whether it is 1 degree centigrade warmer or colder ten years from now is totally irrelevant.
 
At some point, more than 97% of "scientists" did "believe" that the Ptolemaic geocentric system (epicycles and all) fits available data better than the brilliant but wild speculations of that Polish dude. And actually, they were quite right: it took another couple of centuries to amass the evidence that made Copernicus and his Greek predecessors "indisputably and obviously" correct.

The scientific method didn't exist until well after Copernicus. He was part of throwing the old system of evidence gathering and interpretation down.
 
At some point, more than 97% of "scientists" did "believe" that the Ptolemaic geocentric system (epicycles and all) fits available data better than the brilliant but wild speculations of that Polish dude. And actually, they were quite right: it took another couple of centuries to amass the evidence that made Copernicus and his Greek predecessors "indisputably and obviously" correct.

As for the US military - and the US government in general...No. Absolutely not. "Climate change" - or any other vague ideologeme - should be given no more than zero consideration, when it comes to making sure that our soldiers (for example) have adequate clothing or medical supplies. Whatever may be happening or not happening "globally" over long stretches of time, an American soldier should have what he needs now, within 24 hours, from anywhere in the world to anywhere else in the world. We can do it. Whether it is 1 degree centigrade warmer or colder ten years from now is totally irrelevant.

The Catholic Church meddled in that whole affair too. Seems to similar to oil companies and climate change.
 
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.
 
Yes, and they have been doing so for a while now. Also, regardless of what the religiously obsessed/business co-opted Republicans in the House say or "order", the U.S. military will follow the orders given to them by the President & Secretary of Defense.
 
NO, of course not.
But our military must prepare for the 21st century....a peace force in its place....
And global climate change has nothing to do with our antiquated military.
 
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

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
 
Last edited:
Yes, the military, and the country in general should be preparing for the effects of climate change. Even if you believe that it's occurring naturally, rather than caused by us, the effects will be the same, and we need to be prepared to cope with them.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom