Obama Orders Climate Change Be Considered in Military Planning

[my2¢]

It's been that way and I've read was reason why oil fields ISIS controlled weren't attack. His priorities never made sense to me.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Welcome to the fucking Dark Ages.

The American Rightwing has devolved to the point where they are forbidding our Military Services from integrating climate science into their models.

Droughts, melting ice caps and mega-storms have a huge impact on planetary life and resource competition, but the OP heard on Fox News that we should only consider the Bible when building scientific models.

How the fuck did we get here?

Tell us how your mythical scenario will impact battle plans with Iran.

Climate induced migration can magnify tension in the world - especially if it involves the collision of different ethnicities and religions. Also... climate changes can cause access problems to water/food, which again can absolutely cause global tension.

The role of our defense agencies is not simply to assess the Iran threat but to assess any/all potential global problems that can result in human conflict/national security threats (short and long range).

This means our defense agencies also look at things like population growth in 3rd world countries, which itself increases migration pressure to the west (which amplifies ethnic tensions as say whites and Muslims are forced into compressed spaces. Adding a climate variable to this is reasonable when such a variable influences migration and resource competition).

The reason to build long range models of climate based migration & resource competition is that more information about global migration and resource access/competition is generally considered to be better than less information.

Consider what happened in the 70s when it was predicted that US Oil supplies were at their peak. Reagan's defense team, by the 80s, was well aware that the Middle East - based on scientific models of remaining LARGE oil fields - was going to become ground zero for resource competition. This finding was not only vital to our economic survival, but it set the context for the coming global conflict (between the west and Islam). So of course, the Pentagon has scientific models for assessing all the variable that affect access to energy.

FYI: your views & mine are closer than you think when it comes to the idea of "fighting climate change." Even if human activity was amplifying these changes (which I know you don't concede), I believe any government-lead intervention would make things worse. Any attempt to limit carbon emissions must be market based. It must be affordable for Byers and profitable for suppliers, otherwise we will lack the incentive structure for doing it.

However, when it comes to merely creating scientific models for evaluating global migration & conflict patterns, I'm for more rather than less information. Respectfully.

I'll ask again. Where are nations rattling Sabres because of climate change?

WhoTF said anything about that? We're talking about "considering" contingency plans,,,

OP is about military planning and climate change, dufus. Military only plans where war is a possibility. I can guarantee you there is no war plan with Canada.

So what nations show signs of going to war due to climate change?

 

[Weatherman2020]

It's been that way and I've read was reason why oil fields ISIS controlled weren't attack. His priorities never made sense to me.

Yeah, ISIS has high speed internet, electricity, telephones, factories making chemical weapons, gasoline.

Can't talk about eliminating their infrastructure, that might be a negative impact on them.

 

[Redfish]

Welcome to the fucking Dark Ages.

The American Rightwing has devolved to the point where they are forbidding our Military Services from integrating climate science into their models.

Droughts, melting ice caps and mega-storms have a huge impact on planetary life and resource competition, but the OP heard on Fox News that we should only consider the Bible when building scientific models.

How the fuck did we get here?

Tell us how your mythical scenario will impact battle plans with Iran.

Climate induced migration can magnify tension in the world - especially if it involves the collision of different ethnicities and religions. Also... climate changes can cause access problems to water/food, which again can absolutely cause global tension.

The role of our defense agencies is not simply to assess the Iran threat but to assess any/all potential global problems that can result in human conflict/national security threats (short and long range).

This means our defense agencies also look at things like population growth in 3rd world countries, which itself increases migration pressure to the west (which amplifies ethnic tensions as say whites and Muslims are forced into compressed spaces. Adding a climate variable to this is reasonable when such a variable influences migration and resource competition).

The reason to build long range models of climate based migration & resource competition is that more information about global migration and resource access/competition is generally considered to be better than less information.

Consider what happened in the 70s when it was predicted that US Oil supplies were at their peak. Reagan's defense team, by the 80s, was well aware that the Middle East - based on scientific models of remaining LARGE oil fields - was going to become ground zero for resource competition. This finding was not only vital to our economic survival, but it set the context for the coming global conflict (between the west and Islam). So of course, the Pentagon has scientific models for assessing all the variable that affect access to energy.

FYI: your views & mine are closer than you think when it comes to the idea of "fighting climate change." Even if human activity was amplifying these changes (which I know you don't concede), I believe any government-lead intervention would make things worse. Any attempt to limit carbon emissions must be market based. It must be affordable for Byers and profitable for suppliers, otherwise we will lack the incentive structure for doing it.

However, when it comes to merely creating scientific models for evaluating global migration & conflict patterns, I'm for more rather than less information. Respectfully.

I'll ask again. Where are nations rattling Sabres because of climate change?

WhoTF said anything about that? We're talking about "considering" contingency plans,,,

OP is about military planning and climate change, dufus. Military only plans where war is a possibility. I can guarantee you there is no war plan with Canada.

So what nations show signs of going to war due to climate change?

obozo does not want us dropping bombs that might send evil clouds of debris into the air and destroy the earth for the future of mankind. But its OK for radical muslims to blow up whatever they want including oil wells and nuclear facilities.

said another way, Obama is a dipshit of the highest order.

 

[francoHFW]

Welcome to the fucking Dark Ages.

The American Rightwing has devolved to the point where they are forbidding our Military Services from integrating climate science into their models.

Droughts, melting ice caps and mega-storms have a huge impact on planetary life and resource competition, but the OP heard on Fox News that we should only consider the Bible when building scientific models.

How the fuck did we get here?

Tell us how your mythical scenario will impact battle plans with Iran.

Climate induced migration can magnify tension in the world - especially if it involves the collision of different ethnicities and religions. Also... climate changes can cause access problems to water/food, which again can absolutely cause global tension.

The role of our defense agencies is not simply to assess the Iran threat but to assess any/all potential global problems that can result in human conflict/national security threats (short and long range).

This means our defense agencies also look at things like population growth in 3rd world countries, which itself increases migration pressure to the west (which amplifies ethnic tensions as say whites and Muslims are forced into compressed spaces. Adding a climate variable to this is reasonable when such a variable influences migration and resource competition).

The reason to build long range models of climate based migration & resource competition is that more information about global migration and resource access/competition is generally considered to be better than less information.

Consider what happened in the 70s when it was predicted that US Oil supplies were at their peak. Reagan's defense team, by the 80s, was well aware that the Middle East - based on scientific models of remaining LARGE oil fields - was going to become ground zero for resource competition. This finding was not only vital to our economic survival, but it set the context for the coming global conflict (between the west and Islam). So of course, the Pentagon has scientific models for assessing all the variable that affect access to energy.

FYI: your views & mine are closer than you think when it comes to the idea of "fighting climate change." Even if human activity was amplifying these changes (which I know you don't concede), I believe any government-lead intervention would make things worse. Any attempt to limit carbon emissions must be market based. It must be affordable for Byers and profitable for suppliers, otherwise we will lack the incentive structure for doing it.

However, when it comes to merely creating scientific models for evaluating global migration & conflict patterns, I'm for more rather than less information. Respectfully.

I'll ask again. Where are nations rattling Sabres because of climate change?

WhoTF said anything about that? We're talking about "considering" contingency plans,,,

OP is about military planning and climate change, dufus. Military only plans where war is a possibility. I can guarantee you there is no war plan with Canada.

So what nations show signs of going to war due to climate change?

You know what contingency plans are? Do we know everything intelligence suspects could happen? Obviously not. China is one obvious suspect. Calling me a doofus is a stupid irrelevant personal insult, ignorant dupe. LOL. Ignorant dupe is a political insult. The most important one of the last 30 years. The bought off lying New BS GOP couldn't do it without you...

 

[Londoner]

Welcome to the fucking Dark Ages.

The American Rightwing has devolved to the point where they are forbidding our Military Services from integrating climate science into their models.

Droughts, melting ice caps and mega-storms have a huge impact on planetary life and resource competition, but the OP heard on Fox News that we should only consider the Bible when building scientific models.

How the fuck did we get here?

Tell us how your mythical scenario will impact battle plans with Iran.

Climate induced migration can magnify tension in the world - especially if it involves the collision of different ethnicities and religions. Also... climate changes can cause access problems to water/food, which again can absolutely cause global tension.

The role of our defense agencies is not simply to assess the Iran threat but to assess any/all potential global problems that can result in human conflict/national security threats (short and long range).

This means our defense agencies also look at things like population growth in 3rd world countries, which itself increases migration pressure to the west (which amplifies ethnic tensions as say whites and Muslims are forced into compressed spaces. Adding a climate variable to this is reasonable when such a variable influences migration and resource competition).

The reason to build long range models of climate based migration & resource competition is that more information about global migration and resource access/competition is generally considered to be better than less information.

Consider what happened in the 70s when it was predicted that US Oil supplies were at their peak. Reagan's defense team, by the 80s, was well aware that the Middle East - based on scientific models of remaining LARGE oil fields - was going to become ground zero for resource competition. This finding was not only vital to our economic survival, but it set the context for the coming global conflict (between the west and Islam). So of course, the Pentagon has scientific models for assessing all the variable that affect access to energy.

FYI: your views & mine are closer than you think when it comes to the idea of "fighting climate change." Even if human activity was amplifying these changes (which I know you don't concede), I believe any government-lead intervention would make things worse. Any attempt to limit carbon emissions must be market based. It must be affordable for Byers and profitable for suppliers, otherwise we will lack the incentive structure for doing it.

However, when it comes to merely creating scientific models for evaluating global migration & conflict patterns, I'm for more rather than less information. Respectfully.

I'll ask again. Where are nations rattling Sabres because of climate change?

WhoTF said anything about that? We're talking about "considering" contingency plans,,,

OP is about military planning and climate change, dufus. Military only plans where war is a possibility. I can guarantee you there is no war plan with Canada.

So what nations show signs of going to war due to climate change?

How could you possibly predict global tensions (from climate based migration & resource competition) without doing the actual research and having the data?

Part of what the Pentagon does is analyze variables that lead to global tension/conflict. This was my point about the relationship between national security and energy resources. If your economic survival depends on access to oil, then you need to know where those resources exist globally. In the 70s when it became apparent that US oil fields were dwindling, it was important to plan for military conflict in the Middle East, the place with the largest remaining "low hanging fruit".

Are you saying that resource access has not been a source of conflict/tension/war throughout history? Are you saying that climate change (no matter the cause) doesn't impact access to resources (water/food/land)? Are you saying there has never been human migration based on things like droughts or resource shortages? And that migration doesn't result in conflict, like when you compress different cultures (Anglo & Muslim)? The Pentagon absolutely has an interest in understanding the variables that create social fissures and civil unrest, and some of those variables involve access to arable land, drinking water and oil.

The right's primary weapon against the post-Vietnam Left is that they are weak on national defense. This is why talk radio says Obama is more worried about climate change than Iran. I think this attack is dangerously simplistic when it becomes hard for consumers of rightwing media to imagine why the Pentagon would want to analyze all the different variables that could lead to global conflict. Again, this is coming from someone who thinks that Washington has no activist role to play in limiting carbon emissions because I think it needs to be market driven. I'm just trying to give you the context for why the Pentagon might want to include climate in their models for predicting global conflict.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'm so old I remember when the goal of the military was to destroy the enemy.

Obama orders climate change be considered in military planning

Barack Obama is the punchline to the biggest joke in America history

 

[tyroneweaver]

Water is expected to be the thing people fight over rather than oil in the coming years. If republicans were not so strategically stupid they would know this already. As water sources dry up refugees and soldiers will go get some more from their neighbors who will not be inclined to share. The potential for warfare is not insignificant.

Please name one location of possible war due to water.

One. Uno. Just one.

Rather interesting.
My great grand dad was murdered over water rights.

 

[owebo]

Water is expected to be the thing people fight over rather than oil in the coming years. If republicans were not so strategically stupid they would know this already. As water sources dry up refugees and soldiers will go get some more from their neighbors who will not be inclined to share. The potential for warfare is not insignificant.

Please name one location of possible war due to water.

One. Uno. Just one.

Rather interesting.
My great grand dad was murdered over water rights.

No disrespect, but liberals knew that era to be definately MMGC.....

 

[francoHFW]

Water is expected to be the thing people fight over rather than oil in the coming years. If republicans were not so strategically stupid they would know this already. As water sources dry up refugees and soldiers will go get some more from their neighbors who will not be inclined to share. The potential for warfare is not insignificant.

Please name one location of possible war due to water.

One. Uno. Just one.

Rather interesting.
My great grand dad was murdered over water rights.

No disrespect, but liberals knew that era to be definately MMGC.....

No disrespect, but you're a one note brainwashed functional moron...

95% chance then, now higher after 10 straight months of record temperatures...

The Economist explains: Why scientists are (almost) certain that ...
www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/.../economist-explains
The Economist
Nov 2, 2014 - ON NOVEMBER 2ND the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which represents mainstream scientific opinion, said that it was ...MMGW

ON NOVEMBER 2ND the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which represents mainstream scientific opinion, said that it was extremely likely that climate change is the product of human activity. Extremely likely in IPCC speak means having a probability of over 95%. The claim forms part of its fifth assessment on the state of the global climate. In its first assessment, in 1990, the IPCC had said that "the observed increase [in air temperatures] could be largely due to natural variability." Why have climate scientists become so much more certain that climate change is man-made, not natural?

Many factors influence the climate but perhaps the single most important is carbon dioxide (CO₂). CO₂ absorbs infra-red heat at a constant rate and at a higher rate than nitrogen and oxygen—the main constituent parts of the atmosphere—so the more CO₂ in the air, the more the atmosphere will tend to warm up. Scientists attribute climate change to human activity mainly because people have been responsible for large increases in CO₂. At the start of the industrial revolution, in about 1800, there were 280 parts per million (ppm) of CO₂ in the atmosphere. That had been the level for most of human history. This year, however, concentrations exceeded 400 ppm, the first time it had reached that level for a million years.

Most of the increase has been caused by people burning fossil fuels. In the United States, for example, 38% of the CO₂ produced in 2012 came from generating electricity and 32% came from vehicle emissions (the rest came from industrial processes, buildings and other smaller CO₂ production). People also produce CO₂ when they cut down forests for farmland and pasture. But the rate at which CO₂ absorbs heat—which has been established accurately in laboratories—does not explain all the increase in global temperatures. If CO₂ concentrations were to double from 1800 levels, global temperatures would rise by roughly 1°C.

 

[occupied]

Tell us how your mythical scenario will impact battle plans with Iran.

Climate induced migration can magnify tension in the world - especially if it involves the collision of different ethnicities and religions. Also... climate changes can cause access problems to water/food, which again can absolutely cause global tension.

The role of our defense agencies is not simply to assess the Iran threat but to assess any/all potential global problems that can result in human conflict/national security threats (short and long range).

This means our defense agencies also look at things like population growth in 3rd world countries, which itself increases migration pressure to the west (which amplifies ethnic tensions as say whites and Muslims are forced into compressed spaces. Adding a climate variable to this is reasonable when such a variable influences migration and resource competition).

The reason to build long range models of climate based migration & resource competition is that more information about global migration and resource access/competition is generally considered to be better than less information.

Consider what happened in the 70s when it was predicted that US Oil supplies were at their peak. Reagan's defense team, by the 80s, was well aware that the Middle East - based on scientific models of remaining LARGE oil fields - was going to become ground zero for resource competition. This finding was not only vital to our economic survival, but it set the context for the coming global conflict (between the west and Islam). So of course, the Pentagon has scientific models for assessing all the variable that affect access to energy.

FYI: your views & mine are closer than you think when it comes to the idea of "fighting climate change." Even if human activity was amplifying these changes (which I know you don't concede), I believe any government-lead intervention would make things worse. Any attempt to limit carbon emissions must be market based. It must be affordable for Byers and profitable for suppliers, otherwise we will lack the incentive structure for doing it.

However, when it comes to merely creating scientific models for evaluating global migration & conflict patterns, I'm for more rather than less information. Respectfully.

I'll ask again. Where are nations rattling Sabres because of climate change?

WhoTF said anything about that? We're talking about "considering" contingency plans,,,

OP is about military planning and climate change, dufus. Military only plans where war is a possibility. I can guarantee you there is no war plan with Canada.

So what nations show signs of going to war due to climate change?

obozo does not want us dropping bombs that might send evil clouds of debris into the air and destroy the earth for the future of mankind. But its OK for radical muslims to blow up whatever they want including oil wells and nuclear facilities.

said another way, Obama is a dipshit of the highest order.

You waste the pixels posting that shit and you call Obama a dipshit?
American conservatives are the only group of people in the world who does not think climate change is real. Every other country in the world is making worst case contingency plans for the expected impacts climate change will have, in the meantime conservatives would ignore this potential danger no matter the cost just to spite the liberals. It is also a sure thing that on the day it is finally obvious to even the densest denier that the climate is in flux that asshole will open his retarded mouth and blame liberals for the whole thing.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

A meter of sea level rise, and most of our sea ports, and everyone else's seaports are in big trouble. And we may have that before this century is out. Again, you are really a stupid ass

According to the scientists in 1973' we should be well into a global ice age. Anybody believing AGW is a dumbshit.

And that is settled science!

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Every other country in the world is making worst case contingency plans for the expected impacts climate change will have, in the meantime conservatives would ignore this

Every country in the world is expecting the US taxpayer to foot the bill to stop the warming. Pissing away our resources on a fools errand.

 

[francoHFW]

A meter of sea level rise, and most of our sea ports, and everyone else's seaports are in big trouble. And we may have that before this century is out. Again, you are really a stupid ass

According to the scientists in 1973' we should be well into a global ice age. Anybody believing AGW is a dumbshit.

And that is settled science!

That was a short fad, mainly a cover of TIME. Never made any sense.

 

[francoHFW]

Every other country in the world is making worst case contingency plans for the expected impacts climate change will have, in the meantime conservatives would ignore this

Every country in the world is expecting the US taxpayer to foot the bill to stop the warming. Pissing away our resources on a fools errand.

Plenty of money to be made in alt energy. What's so great about pollution?

 

[occupied]

Every other country in the world is making worst case contingency plans for the expected impacts climate change will have, in the meantime conservatives would ignore this

Every country in the world is expecting the US taxpayer to foot the bill to stop the warming. Pissing away our resources on a fools errand.

The people who bet on renewables are doing pretty good right now, how's that coal stock doing?

 

[occupied]

Every other country in the world is making worst case contingency plans for the expected impacts climate change will have, in the meantime conservatives would ignore this

Every country in the world is expecting the US taxpayer to foot the bill to stop the warming. Pissing away our resources on a fools errand.

Plenty of money to be made in alt energy. What's so great about pollution?

Fossil fuel bigots, not burning stuff for energy just seems wrong to them.

 

[Rustic]

Every other country in the world is making worst case contingency plans for the expected impacts climate change will have, in the meantime conservatives would ignore this

Every country in the world is expecting the US taxpayer to foot the bill to stop the warming. Pissing away our resources on a fools errand.

The people who bet on renewables are doing pretty good right now, how's that coal stock doing?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/b...e-energy-stumbles-toward-the-future.html?_r=0

 

[Rustic]

Every other country in the world is making worst case contingency plans for the expected impacts climate change will have, in the meantime conservatives would ignore this

Every country in the world is expecting the US taxpayer to foot the bill to stop the warming. Pissing away our resources on a fools errand.

Plenty of money to be made in alt energy. What's so great about pollution?

Fossil fuel bigots, not burning stuff for energy just seems wrong to them.

Fossil fuels were put on this earth to burn, quit your whining

 

[occupied]

Every other country in the world is making worst case contingency plans for the expected impacts climate change will have, in the meantime conservatives would ignore this

Every country in the world is expecting the US taxpayer to foot the bill to stop the warming. Pissing away our resources on a fools errand.

The people who bet on renewables are doing pretty good right now, how's that coal stock doing?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/b...e-energy-stumbles-toward-the-future.html?_r=0

If you had read that correctly you would have noticed that it was more about Wall Street building a bubble around an emerging industry and doing it wrong. It brought up similarities to the dotcom bust that are valid, but here's the question: did the dotcom bust prove the internet was an awful idea that should be abandoned? Did people go running back to telephones, faxes and snail mail to communicate? No, renewable energy will eventually become a mature industry and we will all be better off.