• 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!

CIA closes its climate change offices

Out of curiosity, do you think that this balanced just happened?

It seems reasonable that the balance occurred in this very dynamic system because the variety of things that eat CO2 caught up with the variety of things that emit CO2.

The level of CO2 rose precipitously after the latest Ice Age ended. This occurred because areas that were under glaciers warmed, thawed and released the sequestered CO2 that the Frozen Tundra, even that outside of Lambeau Field, was holding.

Right now, today, the thawing bogs of Siberia are releasing more CO2 sequestered there than the combined industry of the USA.

This tells us two things: 1) The Frozen tundra of the Siberian bogs locked through recorded history in perm frost once grew various Carbon based life forms, but that was before they froze. We are warming to the point at which they were before they froze and: 2) The contribution made by Man to the atmosphere is really pretty small as a apart of the whole.

Several quick things:

1. The difference between emissions and absorption has not, at least as far as paleoclimate records go, been stable. Imbalances have occurred.
2. In the past, a warming (very likely tied to rising solar insolation) triggered the release of greenhouse gases e.g., from melting permafrost. Emissions exceeded absorption.
3. Those greenhouse gases amplified the warming.
4. Once the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases peaked (usually after solar insolation had been decreasing), absorption exceeded increases.
5. Cooling commenced.

Today, human activities have boosted emissions of greenhouse gases (natural + human). Although the human contribution is small relative to nature's contribution, it tipped the balance where emissions now regularly exceed absorption. The result is rising atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases.

Prior to this development, there had been a general cooling trend in the Arctic, related to slowly declining solar insolation. Solar insolation continues to decline. Nevertheless, the literature suggests that the cooling in the Arctic abruptly stopped sometime after 1900 and then reversed. Today, the Arctic might be as warm as it has been in nearly 5,000 years (some uncertainty exists). This warming, even as the trigger might be the marginal contribution from human activities, has led to growing releases of greenhouse gases from the permafrost. That process is a response to Arctic warming regardless of the causation of such warming.

In terms of policy, difficult trade-offs exist. If nations immediately and dramatically scale back use of fossil fuels, the energy supply will be less reliable and energy will be substantially more costly. The economic costs would be high and some nations would lock themselves in a suboptimal state of development (materially lower living standards than would otherwise be the case). No country is giving consideration to such an approach. If nations take a "business as usual" approach, atmospheric greenhouse concentrations might double from pre-industrial levels. Costs associated with that outcome would likely be significant. They are difficult to quantify. A middle course would involve robust R&D and increased efficiency/conservation. Atmospheric concentrations would still rise for the time being, but could level off earlier. Ultimately, humanity will need to have alternatives given the finite supply of fossil fuels, and when one considers geopolitical risks associated with the location of energy resources (excepting those in Canada, the U.S., and some more stable areas), such a middle course might be the least costly and far less disruptive than the first policy path and less costly than the second.

Ultimately, nations will have to make decisions that are in their best interest. Their choices will impact one another. Given the differences in national interests, different nations are likely to adopt different policy courses.
 
Out of curiosity, do you think that this balanced just happened?

It seems reasonable that the balance occurred in this very dynamic system because the variety of things that eat CO2 caught up with the variety of things that emit CO2.

The level of CO2 rose precipitously after the latest Ice Age ended. This occurred because areas that were under glaciers warmed, thawed and released the sequestered CO2 that the Frozen Tundra, even that outside of Lambeau Field, was holding.

Right now, today, the thawing bogs of Siberia are releasing more CO2 sequestered there than the combined industry of the USA.

This tells us two things: 1) The Frozen tundra of the Siberian bogs locked through recorded history in perm frost once grew various Carbon based life forms, but that was before they froze. We are warming to the point at which they were before they froze and: 2) The contribution made by Man to the atmosphere is really pretty small as a apart of the whole.

No, it doesn't tell us that.

Because you're leaving out all the CO2 that nature absorbs.
 
Several quick things:

1. The difference between emissions and absorption has not, at least as far as paleoclimate records go, been stable. Imbalances have occurred.
2. In the past, a warming (very likely tied to rising solar insolation) triggered the release of greenhouse gases e.g., from melting permafrost. Emissions exceeded absorption.
3. Those greenhouse gases amplified the warming.
4. Once the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases peaked (usually after solar insolation had been decreasing), absorption exceeded increases.
5. Cooling commenced.

Today, human activities have boosted emissions of greenhouse gases (natural + human). Although the human contribution is small relative to nature's contribution, it tipped the balance where emissions now regularly exceed absorption. The result is rising atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases.

Prior to this development, there had been a general cooling trend in the Arctic, related to slowly declining solar insolation. Solar insolation continues to decline. Nevertheless, the literature suggests that the cooling in the Arctic abruptly stopped sometime after 1900 and then reversed. Today, the Arctic might be as warm as it has been in nearly 5,000 years (some uncertainty exists). This warming, even as the trigger might be the marginal contribution from human activities, has led to growing releases of greenhouse gases from the permafrost. That process is a response to Arctic warming regardless of the causation of such warming.

In terms of policy, difficult trade-offs exist. If nations immediately and dramatically scale back use of fossil fuels, the energy supply will be less reliable and energy will be substantially more costly. The economic costs would be high and some nations would lock themselves in a suboptimal state of development (materially lower living standards than would otherwise be the case). No country is giving consideration to such an approach. If nations take a "business as usual" approach, atmospheric greenhouse concentrations might double from pre-industrial levels. Costs associated with that outcome would likely be significant. They are difficult to quantify. A middle course would involve robust R&D and increased efficiency/conservation. Atmospheric concentrations would still rise for the time being, but could level off earlier. Ultimately, humanity will need to have alternatives given the finite supply of fossil fuels, and when one considers geopolitical risks associated with the location of energy resources (excepting those in Canada, the U.S., and some more stable areas), such a middle course might be the least costly and far less disruptive than the first policy path and less costly than the second.

Ultimately, nations will have to make decisions that are in their best interest. Their choices will impact one another. Given the differences in national interests, different nations are likely to adopt different policy courses.



A rational and logical statement. Thank you.
 
No, it doesn't tell us that.

Because you're leaving out all the CO2 that nature absorbs.


It doesn't tell us one or the other or both?
 
Again, I'm unable to see any connection to what I wrote and your response.

Precisely because it was what is referred to in the Forensice Sciences as a "total quasi fabricated trigger"

And the snare has revealled something very important about WHY you pretend to Deny the science of AGW

Congratulations code1211
 
We're the second most hated country in the world, only Israel beats us out for intervention and lethality.

Israel has daily terrorist problems, both external across the border and internal. They catch most of these guys. And so does our CIA. Do they **** up? You bet. Do they protect us from bad guys? Yes, they do.

A climate change office is also a cover when we spy on our allies. They used to use Trade Representatives as their curtain but hey, we're in the 21st century now.
 
You think that overstatement is the thing that makes a Liberal ignore something? That's interesting. Do ever listen to Liberals?

I don't speak for liberals, or conservatives for that matter. The point is the situation isn't the way you and others are painting it. It is being overhyped. And for some reason, some don't get that such hyperbole doesn't make reality what you want it to be. Until something real and tangible presents itself, it's mostly just a tantrum.
 
According to your article, they had one to study security implications. I believe they do this with nearly anything they can envision possible threats growing from.

Frosty the snowman?
 
Precisely because it was what is referred to in the Forensice Sciences as a "total quasi fabricated trigger"

And the snare has revealled something very important about WHY you pretend to Deny the science of AGW

Congratulations code1211



Your Latin is Greek to me.
 
I don't speak for liberals, or conservatives for that matter. The point is the situation isn't the way you and others are painting it. It is being overhyped. And for some reason, some don't get that such hyperbole doesn't make reality what you want it to be. Until something real and tangible presents itself, it's mostly just a tantrum.



I'm not so sure that Chris Stevens held that view as he was being killed by the attacking mob or the RPG's or the Mortar fire hoping for 7 hours that the thousands of military personnel within about a 1 hour flight might be dispatched to protect civilians in a was zone. I'm not so sure that when he asked for additional security, he felt completely safe or when he witnesses the several incidents that led up to this one.
 
Maybe this is why they couldn't envision a threat coming that turned out to be lethal for our Ambassador in Libya.

Our intelligence is pretty unintelligent.

:) That's the one unassailable counter to all the 9/11 conspiracy theories. Simply put, our government isn't efficient or capable enough to pull such a stunt off. :D
 
C.I.A. Closes Its Climate Change Office - NYTimes.com


Question: Why the hell did the CIA have a climate change office to begin with? No wonder we are broke!

From your link, if you had bothered....

The C.I.A. for several years has studied the national security implications of climate change,” Mr. Ebitz said in an e-mailed statement. “As part of a broader realignment of analytic resources, this work continues to be performed by a dedicated team in a new office that looks at economic and energy matters affecting America’s national security. The mission and the resources devoted to it remain essentially unchanged.”
 
I'm not so sure that Chris Stevens held that view as he was being killed by the attacking mob or the RPG's or the Mortar fire hoping for 7 hours that the thousands of military personnel within about a 1 hour flight might be dispatched to protect civilians in a was zone. I'm not so sure that when he asked for additional security, he felt completely safe or when he witnesses the several incidents that led up to this one.

As emotional as that is for many, including myself, I would not presume to speak for him or anyone else. However, that doesn't change reality either, nor make the hyperbole less exaggerated.
 
As emotional as that is for many, including myself, I would not presume to speak for him or anyone else. However, that doesn't change reality either, nor make the hyperbole less exaggerated.



Which of those points is not true and accurate?
 
Which of those points is not true and accurate?

Your conclusions you reach, and the accompanying histeria is when the falsehood and inaccuracies reside.
 
Your conclusions you reach, and the accompanying histeria is when the falsehood and inaccuracies reside.



I really didn't think you would point to anything that is not true since it's all true.
 
Several quick things:

1. The difference between emissions and absorption has not, at least as far as paleoclimate records go, been stable. Imbalances have occurred.
2. In the past, a warming (very likely tied to rising solar insolation) triggered the release of greenhouse gases e.g., from melting permafrost. Emissions exceeded absorption.
3. Those greenhouse gases amplified the warming.
4. Once the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases peaked (usually after solar insolation had been decreasing), absorption exceeded increases.
5. Cooling commenced.

Today, human activities have boosted emissions of greenhouse gases (natural + human). Although the human contribution is small relative to nature's contribution, it tipped the balance where emissions now regularly exceed absorption. The result is rising atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases.

Prior to this development, there had been a general cooling trend in the Arctic, related to slowly declining solar insolation. Solar insolation continues to decline. Nevertheless, the literature suggests that the cooling in the Arctic abruptly stopped sometime after 1900 and then reversed. Today, the Arctic might be as warm as it has been in nearly 5,000 years (some uncertainty exists). This warming, even as the trigger might be the marginal contribution from human activities, has led to growing releases of greenhouse gases from the permafrost. That process is a response to Arctic warming regardless of the causation of such warming.

In terms of policy, difficult trade-offs exist. If nations immediately and dramatically scale back use of fossil fuels, the energy supply will be less reliable and energy will be substantially more costly. The economic costs would be high and some nations would lock themselves in a suboptimal state of development (materially lower living standards than would otherwise be the case). No country is giving consideration to such an approach. If nations take a "business as usual" approach, atmospheric greenhouse concentrations might double from pre-industrial levels. Costs associated with that outcome would likely be significant. They are difficult to quantify. A middle course would involve robust R&D and increased efficiency/conservation. Atmospheric concentrations would still rise for the time being, but could level off earlier. Ultimately, humanity will need to have alternatives given the finite supply of fossil fuels, and when one considers geopolitical risks associated with the location of energy resources (excepting those in Canada, the U.S., and some more stable areas), such a middle course might be the least costly and far less disruptive than the first policy path and less costly than the second.

Ultimately, nations will have to make decisions that are in their best interest. Their choices will impact one another. Given the differences in national interests, different nations are likely to adopt different policy courses.

Don came by!
 
I really didn't think you would point to anything that is not true since it's all true.

As it's not really the point, I didn't even check to see if was. If everything you wrote was 100% true, the comments we're discussing would still be wildly hyperbolic and unsupported, if not entirely inaccurate.
 
If anyone would bother to use Google, they would understand what the office was tasked to do.

Knowledge is power.....
 
As it's not really the point, I didn't even check to see if was. If everything you wrote was 100% true, the comments we're discussing would still be wildly hyperbolic and unsupported, if not entirely inaccurate.



Eyes that are closed are still eyes.
 
Back
Top Bottom