Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 34 of 34

Thread: Climate Change

  1. #21
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    Of course, Mr Gore's only a Nazi when the rules don't apply to him. Shame he can't cut his own conspicuous consumption to help out. And no, I don't consider carbon offsets to be the same thing. He's only paying the Yuppie "feel good" fee and not actually reducing HIS part in the whole thing.
    "On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
    T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War

  2. #22
    Council Member Van's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Posts
    414

    Default Historically, climate change does impact the military

    Before we get too distracted, let's remember the chain of events that eventually led to the fall of the Roman Empire. A lot of things were involved, of course, but the various hordes moving west out of Central Asia into Roman territory was a significant factor by any assessment or interpretation.

    The tribes were migrating west because of a change in the ability of the land in Central Asia to support crops, which in turn supported the horses and nomads.

    This change in the carrying capacity of the land was due to a 2-3 degree change in year-round average temps.

    If climate change was a significant factor in the fall of the Roman empire, shouldn't the guardians of the U.S. pay attention to climate change?

    Climate change around the Aral sea in the past 20-30 years provide a great case study in impact of humans on the environment. The secondary and tertiary effects are of special interest, particularly the issues surrounding potable water.

  3. #23
    Council Member Culpeper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Roswell, USA
    Posts
    540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Van View Post
    Before we get too distracted, let's remember the chain of events that eventually led to the fall of the Roman Empire. A lot of things were involved, of course, but the various hordes moving west out of Central Asia into Roman territory was a significant factor by any assessment or interpretation.

    The tribes were migrating west because of a change in the ability of the land in Central Asia to support crops, which in turn supported the horses and nomads.

    This change in the carrying capacity of the land was due to a 2-3 degree change in year-round average temps.

    If climate change was a significant factor in the fall of the Roman empire, shouldn't the guardians of the U.S. pay attention to climate change?

    Climate change around the Aral sea in the past 20-30 years provide a great case study in impact of humans on the environment. The secondary and tertiary effects are of special interest, particularly the issues surrounding potable water.
    The Little Ice Age was an average drop in temperature of less than 1 degree Celsius over an extended period of time and came and went over several centuries. This period was preceded by the Medieval Warm Period, which occurred during the same time as the increased solar bustle called, The Medieval Maximum; a period of global warming. Most of what we are measuring today is normal Earth doing what Earth does. Change. Of course, Man isn't helping matters much. But Man isn't going to stop it either. Lets put it into perspective. A single huge volcanic eruption can and has caused more damage to the atmosphere to enhance global warming than man made pollution combined. Global warming may in fact be occurring. But we are powerless to change it. What I find ironic on a personal level is Gore accusing the President of playing on our fears. What is Gore doing again? All I know is what Krakatoa must have done to the atmosphere. You really can't blame the scientists. It is sort of over their heads no different than so-called medieval scientists were over their heads with such practices as "bleeding" as a procedure to cure plague. Sensationalism makes a headline and it is the alarmists that lead the pack. Most alarmists are not true scientists. They are shameful opportunists like Al Gore.

    The graph below is the data from several different studies shows the mean temperature changes over the last 2,000 years. The Little Ice Age squarely beats both the Medieval Warming Period and the current warming period combined.



  4. #24
    Council Member 120mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Wonderland
    Posts
    1,284

    Default

    About trusting "scientists".

    I'm 43, and every 5 years or so, there is a new "the sky is falling!" scenario that is trotted out by a large group of peer-reviewed literature supported scientific group or another.

    And before my lifetime, Eugenics was widely accepted by scientists the world over. Does that make Hitler and Margaret Sanger right?

    Scientists are complete incompetents when faced with the "Revenge Effect". They appear to be unable to gauge the real effects of their suggested solutions to even the problems they correctly identify.

    Even if mankind has caused completely this latest warming trend, I can state with 100% certainty that there is no politically practical solution that can be effected by man. And it's time for the pin-headed scientific types to both understand or realize this... except there is Big Money in shouting that "The Sky is Falling!"

  5. #25
    Council Member Culpeper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Roswell, USA
    Posts
    540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 120mm View Post
    About trusting "scientists".

    I'm 43, and every 5 years or so, there is a new "the sky is falling!" scenario that is trotted out by a large group of peer-reviewed literature supported scientific group or another.

    And before my lifetime, Eugenics was widely accepted by scientists the world over. Does that make Hitler and Margaret Sanger right?

    Scientists are complete incompetents when faced with the "Revenge Effect". They appear to be unable to gauge the real effects of their suggested solutions to even the problems they correctly identify.

    Even if mankind has caused completely this latest warming trend, I can state with 100% certainty that there is no politically practical solution that can be effected by man. And it's time for the pin-headed scientific types to both understand or realize this... except there is Big Money in shouting that "The Sky is Falling!"
    Agreed. But are these true scientists devoted to the scientific method? I notice that lone wolf scientists usually step forward and debunk these groups of alarmists.

  6. #26
    i pwnd ur ooda loop selil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Belly of the beast
    Posts
    2,112

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 120mm View Post
    ...
    And before my lifetime, Eugenics was widely accepted by scientists the world over. Does that make Hitler and Margaret Sanger right?
    .....
    Even if mankind has caused completely this latest warming trend, I can state with 100% certainty that there is no politically practical solution that can be effected by man. And it's time for the pin-headed scientific types to both understand or realize this... except there is Big Money in shouting that "The Sky is Falling!"

    Equating climate change science to eugenics?
    Sam Liles
    Selil Blog
    Don't forget to duck Secret Squirrel
    The scholarship of teaching and learning results in equal hatred from latte leftists and cappuccino conservatives.
    All opinions are mine and may or may not reflect those of my employer depending on the chance it might affect funding, politics, or the setting of the sun. As such these are my opinions you can get your own.

  7. #27
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    The Land of The Morning Calm
    Posts
    177

    Default

    I think he is implying flawed conclusions presented as scientific fact.

    I think it is a plot by the Navy to get funding for "sea-basing" concepts!

  8. #28
    Council Member Van's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Posts
    414

    Default

    Does it matter what caused climate change or how big the bozos are on either side of the science? How is climate change going to impact small wars?

    The phrase of the day is "potable water"... Again, look at the Aral sea, Turkish control of a couple of key rivers, or who controls Bangladesh's water supply. Climate change is only going to aggravate competition for this critical resource.

    From another angle; could you picture the U.S. going to war in South America to prevent destruction of the rainforests (a key but under-reported piece of the climate change picture)? CNN got the U.S. into Bosnia and Somalia; this scenario isn't too far fetched, especially if it looks like it will sell media time.

    In all cases, small wars could- are even likely to- result from climate change. I've named four, but I've only got a small brain. Are their any others that pop out at folks smarter than me (most of y'all)?

  9. #29
    Council Member 120mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Wonderland
    Posts
    1,284

    Default

    Selil - It was a comment about trusting Scientists' conclusions. And as Human Caused Climate Change "Science" is operating within such a complex system, I think there is a Very Large Chance that "science" (whateverthehellthatis) could be wrong.

    And if they are right, the cure appears to be worse than the disease. Guaranteed total planetary economic collapse and social destruction through "scientific intervention", designed to prevent "possible" planetary economic collapse and social destruction through climate change doesn't sound like a sane bet to me.

    I think it makes better sense to prepare for the aftershocks of whatever warming or cooling "effects", and that brings us back to Small Wars. It is "possible" that as climate change occurs, that entire nations will leave their foxholes and motorpools and invade others, but I believe it is more probable that Small Wars will be the wave of the future, as both state and non-state actors attempt to migrate and/or control limited resources.

  10. #30
    i pwnd ur ooda loop selil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Belly of the beast
    Posts
    2,112

    Default

    I might be a little unsettled by the egalitarian use of "pin heads" to describe scientists. Would you like the professional courtesy of being referred to as a soldier and warrior? Or would you prefer thick crainally ridged neolithic skin encased protein rejecting protoplasm?

    Science isn't really about the answers. I know you think you've got a tiger by the tail, but science is about the questions. The hypothesis of a question and knowing the right question to ask. Delving into the question and finding answers in the real world for problems or defining intriguing issues is what science is about.

    Tilting at scientists like windmills doesn't serve the dissemination of ideas and the discussion of issues any more than saying the current members of the United States members of the military are as effective as Sadam Hussein at killing kurds without the WMD's. Gross generalities suck.

    That which you don't understand "I think there is a Very Large Chance that "science" (whateverthehellthatis) could be wrong" is an unsupported argument and that which you criticize science about. The rampant politicization of science has created fallow ground of ideas, a hostile terrain for science, and a barrier to dissemination. "Why won't Dr. Johnny go to war" because "pinheaded" Army types are to busy burying their collective heads in the sand to have a golly gee moment.

    If you don't understand the science learn. If you don't agree structure the argument in such a way we can have a dialog. I could point out all of the logical fallacies in your argument, and I could drag you kicking and screaming across the burning embers of sarcasm. Likely you'd still disagree in the face of evidence. And, at some point you'd be walking into an ambush of your own ignorance.

    Which is why scientists who'd rather be arguing about misspellings, and the treatments of the word "is", run around yelling their fool heads off. Since science is actually a dialog and few people understand the scientific process is a discussion, people expect answers. Science attempts to define the world around us but that interpretation is up for debate. Pluto planet or not? That which we can observe and define can be created by many things. The car doesn't work right but is it spark, air, compression, or fuel?

    Climate change is real, end of story. We can measure it's effect, we can tie it to human beings, and we can offer options. People not scientists often jump to conclusions like "Hybrid" vehicles, but a scientists looks at the entire energy costs and says "WHOA!", because if you flex fuel an old chevy suburban it is still cheaper in total energy during it's likely life time than the partial creation costs of ONE hybrid vehicle replacement. Never mind running the Hybrid for any amount of time.

    Climate change occurs naturally as the creeping sands of several deserts attest to (measurable and substantiated real world evidence). Las Vegas is a travesty of modern engineering without water. Lake Meade is drying up. Will it fill to it's former level anytime in the future? Science can postulate and theorize but NO good scientists will says categorically yes or no. Politicians do that.

    It's bad science to take a specific and postulate a genearality. Much like you're argument about trusting scientists take "alleged" specific incidents and applies them to science in general. Should we take Abu Gharib prisoner abuse and apply that to the military in general as an expectation of behavior?

    The military should very much care about climate change. The one commodity people will kill for fairly quickly is water. Climate change has dramatic effects on the location and dispersement of water. "Polarization" factors are "theorized" to account for dramatic flooding events, and devastating typhoon and hurricanes. The erosion of Coriolis factors in the atmosphere by changing wind patterns seem to account for the colder winters and hotter summers.

    Finally don't forget the DOD thinks it's important too. The one branch of the military peopled almost exclusively by officers is NOAA. Weather has been an essential element of the military since the first guy whacked his neighbor with a stick. Forget the smarmy "Water World" pronouncements of Hollywood. When a real scientist talks about climate change, warming, green house gasses, and the heat capture effects of diminishing polar ice they're not thinking military necessity. That's what we (Like the politicians) need to do. How would the world change with an open sea route North of Canada to anywhere in the world? What effect would new warm water ports have on the Russian states commerce? Mosquito larvae normally killed in the winter suddenly surviving start spreading new diseases? Central South Dakota and North Dakota in the Red River Region (Watertown, etc..) suddenly sprout an ancient inland sea decreasing crop land by 20 percent for the nation?

    See science is about the questions.
    Last edited by selil; 05-23-2007 at 05:17 AM.
    Sam Liles
    Selil Blog
    Don't forget to duck Secret Squirrel
    The scholarship of teaching and learning results in equal hatred from latte leftists and cappuccino conservatives.
    All opinions are mine and may or may not reflect those of my employer depending on the chance it might affect funding, politics, or the setting of the sun. As such these are my opinions you can get your own.

  11. #31
    Council Member Rob Thornton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Fort Leavenworth, KS
    Posts
    1,512

    Default

    Posted by Van:

    Does it matter what caused climate change or how big the bozos are on either side of the science? How is climate change going to impact small wars?
    I think it does matter, and where it matters is the effect. Its a question of resources & effort and where do you apply them. US resources applied to counter climate change are different from applying US resources to countering the effects of climate change. I think this is why the argument for continuing to focus on GWOT.

    I beleive all will agree that climate change (regardless of its origin) is going to effect people - and we have to work towards understanding those effects, and preparing for them. Reducing human acceleration of climate change can buy us more time in dealing with the problem, but how much?

    Regards, Rob

  12. #32
    Council Member Van's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Posts
    414

    Default

    Posted by Rob Thorton:

    US resources applied to counter climate change are different from applying US resources to countering the effects of climate change.
    Fair enough, but applying resources to counter climate change is generally for diplomatic, informational, and economic instruments of power. The relevance of climate change to the military instrument of national power is in the conflicts that will be triggered or aggravated by the effects of climate change.

    What conflicts will be initiated or shaped by climate change?

    Aside from the
    would you prefer thick crainally ridged neolithic skin encased protein rejecting protoplasm?
    remark (we prefer the term "knuckle-dragger"), Selil pretty much nailed the concepts of the relevance of climate change.

    The military can't afford to go around crying "Make it didn't happen!" like a 3 year old or the main stream news, the military has a duty to deal with the effects and anticipate future impact.

  13. #33
    Council Member 120mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Wonderland
    Posts
    1,284

    Default

    Other than his artificial division of "science" and "politics", I happen to agree with the substantive part of what Selil says. Science has never existed in a vacuum and is not an end unto itself.

    The earth appears to be warming, and dealing with that warming is "job security" for the COIN types.

    BTW - Selil, that was some post. Some day when I have time I would love to discuss how the division between science-philosphy-religion is artificial and weakens them all. But now, I am busy and must be guilty of "drive-by" posting.

  14. #34
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Hi 120,

    Quote Originally Posted by 120mm View Post
    BTW - Selil, that was some post. Some day when I have time I would love to discuss how the division between science-philosphy-religion is artificial and weakens them all. But now, I am busy and must be guilty of "drive-by" posting.
    Sounds like a wonderful way to kill many jugs of beer . Just to toss in my 0.0182 cents worth (aka .02 CDN), I wold have to say that you need to add in basic meta-epistemological stances into that discussion and look for correlations at the cultural level.

    On to it's effects on small wars...

    Why don't we try and develope a list of key strategic resources taking off on Van's start with potable water?

    If I was tossing one together, it would include:
    1. Potable water
    2. Food supplies
    3. Medical supplies
    4. Weaponry
    5. Transportation
    6. Electronics / communications
    7. Social "replication" (including both replicating the members of the society [e.g. kids], and their education)
    8. Structures of interpretation / meaning (i.e. how do we understand all of this?)
    Each of these resources should also have "or means of their production" added to them.

    We also might want to look at developing a causal typology of "displacement". So, for example, a 10' rise in sea level would cause a mass exodus from Bangladesh, unless certain non-military actions take place (think BIG dikes!). This is a different scenario from the displacements in Darfur or Iraq, or from the American South in the early 1950's and the Rust belt in the 1980's

    We might also consider possible scenarios of "good" coming from massive population displacements and try and develope pre-emptive scenarios. For example, Canada happens to have the largest reserves of potable water in the world and, also, a very low population density:
    Canada US
    area: 3,854,085 sq mi 3,718,695 sq mi
    population
    (2007 est.) 32,915,600 301,747,000

    Population
    density: 8.54 people / sq mi 81.14 people / sq mi
    PD rank: 219 172
    At the moment, just from personal observation, our winters have gotten warmer and our summers have gotten cooler.

    If we were to see increasing desertifictation in the US, which we are, would we have a flow of US "refugees" across our border?

    What if we were to look at South Africa instead?

    Marc
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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