FARK.com: (7089216) US government now considers global warming a national security threat, which I guess means we'll start bombing the shiat out of the Arctic soon

If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

		US government now considers global warming a national security threat, which I guess means we'll start bombing the shiat out of the Arctic soon (campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com)		31
		More: Unlikely, CIA Director Leon Panetta, Mona Charen, Current sea level rise, Environmental Defense Fund, arctic, Canadian Studies

• • •

1261 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 May 2012 at 4:53 PM | Favorite | share:

Share this link:

URL:

http://fark.com/go/7089216

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

Voting Results (Smartest)

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Redisplay/refresh voting results (Smartest or Funniest) or Return to comments

Archived thread

HypnozombieX		2012-05-05 07:33:44 PM

3 votes:

I wonder how many of the useful idiots realize that the corporations that they are shilling for are actually planning for global warming in their gas and oil research. Just another blip in history where the very stupid take up for the very evil.

Hypnozombie

ghare		2012-05-05 07:30:51 PM

3 votes:

The libs at the CIA believe in global warming
the lib the Kochs hired to disprove global warming now believes in it
the libs at the Pentagon believe in it
the libs at every insurance company believe in it

Stupid libs

LouDobbsAwaaaay		2012-05-05 09:09:54 PM

2 votes:

ordinarysteve: All that this (polar bears, glaciers) shows is that scientists need to realize that climate change is a hot button issue, and they can't be releasing incomplete, half-assed papers and statements to the media.

Right, because the media would never blow a scientific statement it didn't understand completely out of proportion just so it will resonate with their readers who can barely achieve an 8th grade reading level. Why, you'd have to go back an entire five days to find an example of that!

Thank God we don't live in that era anymore, and we can safely blame the scientists themselves for all the media hype, amirite?

Damnhippyfreak		2012-05-05 07:46:15 PM

2 votes:

chuckufarlie: The data that was used by the IPCC for temperature data came from the CRU and only the CRU.

This bit is a flat-out falsehood. At least it's easy to debunk:

www.ipcc.ch

/hotlinked from here.

The more important question is how did you come to believe this idea of yours?

JRoo		2012-05-05 06:58:17 PM

2 votes:

fusillade762		2012-05-05 05:58:44 PM

2 votes:

Aw, not this shiat again. Oh well, I'll just do what I always do in these threads.

a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net

casual disregard		2012-05-05 05:55:40 PM

2 votes:

One of the oddly funny things about USA is that the military has a frankly sober view of reality and our politicians are drunk as shiat. A General will say "that's such an astonishingly bad idea that the entire Army will oppose it" and then the Republican will say "do it anyway, I have a mandate from heaven."

The military soberly compartmentalizes issues that we know we will face very soon, and then our politicians completely ignore them.

It's like asking the best expert on national security to formulate a five-year plan and then completely ignoring all of the recommendations. The GOP is so flagrantly out of touch with national security that I believe they are actively attempting to destroy our nation. The GOP is the biggest threat to the national security we now face.

GOP = Terrorism

/used to vote GOP
//never again

Slaxl		2012-05-05 01:15:25 PM

2 votes:

Whether it's caused by man or not, if the Earth is heating up then it should be treated as a threat to your national security, to pretend otherwise is to fail to understand the potential ramifications such a thing would pose.

Monkeyhouse Zendo		2012-05-06 02:15:57 AM

1 votes:

chuckufarlie: The United Nations climate change panel "admitted that the melting Himalayas prediction was not based on science but on a 1999 media interview given by one scientist," Charen observed. "They said they regretted the error. Now, a study in nature, based on satellite imagery, has shown that some melting of lower altitude glaciers is taking place but that higher glaciers have been adding ice."

Late in the day but I'm just going to point out that high elevation glaciers adding ice while low level ones are melting is probably an indication that there is more warmer, damper air at higher elevations than previously. You see, cold air doesn't hold on to moisture very well so when it is very cold the air is very dry meaning no snow meaning no additional ice. When air gets warmer it can hang on to more moisture so you get snow at elevations and at times or in volumes that you didn't see previously. So sometimes more snow means warmer.

Mavent		2012-05-06 12:18:57 AM

1 votes:

chuckufarlie: You warmers are the religious fanatics, not me. I have actually looked into the data. Might I suggest that you do the same?

farm5.static.flickr.com

BuckTurgidson		2012-05-05 11:10:29 PM

1 votes:

"Some Guy", FarkTardTrollMins?

"Some Guy"?

The Examiner - insular sociopath multi-billionaire Phil Anschutz's free hobo-toilet-paper extremist hyperbolic irresponsible vanity rag, which you f*cktards link day in and day out whenever you're too f*cking lazy to come up with anything both provocative and worthwhile - "Some Guy"?

Jesus.

NeverDrunk23		2012-05-05 08:56:28 PM

1 votes:

Krymson Tyde: Why waste your time with chuckufarlie? It's like debating with SkinnyHead or Bevets: completely useless.

Probably to educate lurkers in the thread that those 3 are liars. Its the only way to combat people who will spend all their time here lying every time.

DeaH		2012-05-05 08:54:27 PM

1 votes:

chuckufarlie: Baryogenesis: cameroncrazy1984: chuckufarlie: NeverDrunk23: It is always the best plan of action to not bother prepping for anything until its close to too late. After you ignored it all that time, you can then get outraged and blame the people who warned you to change, claiming that it was their fault they didn't educate you on something you constantly rejected to learn from.

I do not disagree with you in principle, but are you aware of the proposals on the table for dealing with AGW?

Where is the CRU data and why haven't you linked to it in 10 posts that you've made since you referenced it?

Ooh, ooh! Can I answer that one? Is it because if he actually read a legitimate source on the subject his pathetic, nonsensical denialism would cave in on itself?

Barry, you are as aware as I that the data is available at the CRU and IPCC websites.

I wonder who exactly it is that pays you? Oh, I know, you have to deny being a paid troll to keep getting your check, but it's really obvious. It's awfully clear you're paid to spread disinformation because no one is that dumb who actually cares about the issue. There's a lot more going on here than mere trolling, pushing outdated information, and confusing facts. You have to be a paid shill, and that it how I will be highlighting you going forward. Every time I see the yellow highlighted text, I'll know that someone is actually paying money to obfuscate a real issue, and I'll know to look further into that issue, and I will also try really hard to inform people about the issue.

In a way, your bosses are now performing a great service in the cause of getting global warning under control. You're the sign that something really is wrong, and someone is willing to pay to cover things up.

Trapper439		2012-05-05 08:41:30 PM

1 votes:

chuckufarlie: DrBenway: chuckufarlie: so, what you are saying is that you really have nothing intelligent to add to the discussion.

Funny how someone so far in a hole can still try to condescend. Good luck with that, hoss.

All your boys do is make personal attacks and not one of you has the intelligence or the knowledge to address the things that I have stated. Good for you.

DIAF chuckufarlie, you asshole. I mean that literally. Die In A Fire.

You always demand citations from others, but never provide them yourself. You call people who disagree with you imbeciles, but whine about perceived personal attacks. You bring nothing whatsoever to any discussion besides infantile bullshiat, but you're constantly telling others to grow up.

You post repetitively and continually threadjack, but the mods let you get away with disobeying the posting rules in the FArQ because you drive up page clicks and therefore revenue.

Screw you, Drew, you farking sellout. You created a site that was supposedly designed to highlight hypocrisy and hyperbole in the media, and yet you've let it become a playground for shills and trolls.

LouDobbsAwaaaay		2012-05-05 08:37:49 PM

1 votes:

serial_crusher: My only problem with that line of reasoning is the relatively low barrier of entry to claim the title of "scientist". Oh you have a bachelor's degree in environmental science with a 2.0 GPA and have been working at Starbucks since you graduated 5 years ago. Tell us all your opinion, oh great scientist!

If that's your only problem, I have good news! You just made that up five seconds ago, so it's not really a problem!

/here to help

ghare		2012-05-05 08:17:50 PM

1 votes:

chuckufarlie: ~~Lots of people~~ NO scientists believe in Big Foot.

~~Lots of people~~ No scientists believe in the Loch Ness Monster.

~~Lots of people~~ All scientists in the field believe in AGW.

Like all your other posts, someone had to fix this one.

cameroncrazy1984		2012-05-05 08:07:46 PM

1 votes:

chuckufarlie: Have you ever sat around and listened to adults having a discussion? One person makes observations or provides data

Hint: that person is not you.

cameroncrazy1984		2012-05-05 07:52:15 PM

1 votes:

chuckufarlie: I think that you should actually address the facts that I provided. That is how an adult discussion works

What facts? The CRU graph shows you to be lying.

DrBenway		2012-05-05 07:44:59 PM

1 votes:

chuckufarlie: so, what you are saying is that you really have nothing intelligent to add to the discussion.

Funny how someone so far in a hole can still try to condescend. Good luck with that, hoss.

Pharque-it		2012-05-05 07:38:59 PM

1 votes:

I just leave this here:

Arguments...

JRoo		2012-05-05 07:24:13 PM

1 votes:

chuckufarlie: Pharque-it: Shut up everybody!

chukufarlie knows this better than anybody, including US Gov (of course, Govs are commies).
Facts are not for people who knows everytyhing.

FACT # ONE

The increase in average global temperature has increased by less than one degree Celsius since 1850. This is in the data provided by the CRU and included in the IPCC report.

FACT # TWO

Per the information gathered from the Vostok ice core samples, increases in CO2 have always followed an increase in temperature. I suggest you google VOSTOK if you want to look at that information.

FACT # THREE

Even though it has been reported that glaciers are retreating, but a study in nature, based on satellite imagery, has shown that some melting of lower altitude glaciers is taking place but that higher glaciers have been adding ice.

FACT # FOUR

Environmentalists like to tell us that polar bears are dying off but a new Canadian study shows that the polar bear population is on the rise.

Your turn.

"there's still plenty of evidence that the earth is getting warmer and that humans are largely responsible.
Some critics say the e-mails negate the conclusions of a 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but the IPCC report relied on data from a large number of sources, of which CRU was only one."

"the World Meteorological Organization announced on Dec. 8 that the 2000-2009 decade would likely be the warmest on record, and that 2009 might be the fifth warmest year ever recorded. (The hottest year on record was 1998.) This conclusion is based not only on the CRU data that critics are now questioning, but also incorporates data from the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). All three organizations synthesized data from many sources."

"the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world scientific body that reaffirmed in a 2007 report that the earth is warming, sea levels are rising and that human activity is "very likely" the cause of "most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century." But the IPCC's 2007 report, its most recent synthesis of scientific findings from around the globe, incorporates data from three working groups, each of which made use of data from a huge number of sources - of which CRU was only one. The synthesis report notes key disagreements and uncertainties but makes the "robust" conclusion that "warming of the climate system is unequivocal."

Link

LouDobbsAwaaaay		2012-05-05 07:05:50 PM

1 votes:

People like chuckufarlie turn denialism into a very weird religion. He behaves exactly like how I'd expect a Scientologist to behave if you told him his religion was nothing but a get-rich-quick scheme from a penny-a-page (incredibly shiatty) sci-fi writing dimwit.

It goes beyond a troll's need to antagonize others into interacting with him because he has no real-life relationships. He screams bloody murder as loud as he can to keep the constant doubts from creeping into his surface thoughts. What a horrible life that must be.

NeverDrunk23		2012-05-05 06:19:48 PM

1 votes:

It is always the best plan of action to not bother prepping for anything until its close to too late. After you ignored it all that time, you can then get outraged and blame the people who warned you to change, claiming that it was their fault they didn't educate you on something you constantly rejected to learn from.

T-Servo		2012-05-05 05:57:58 PM

1 votes:

chuckufarlie: The data available from the CRU indicates that the average global temperature has increased by less than one degree Celsius since 1850. At that rate, I am pretty sure that I am in no danger of getting the tops of my feet wet.

No, that's true. But since chuck doesn't understand the difference between means and power-law variation, his point is misleading.

The mean temperature deviation for Europe in 2003 was also 1C. But that year saw record heat waves that killed 70,000 people, because small changes from the historic mean aren't the same as changes to the variation.

quatchi		2012-05-05 05:31:46 PM

1 votes:

chuckufarlie: quatchi: Every major nation on earth has been putting together long term strategies against the potential national defense repercussions of AGW. From climate refugees over-running borders to food shortages and water wars the reality of AGW must be considered regardless of whatever line the ignorant, misinformed, disinformed, contrarian AGW deniers are whinging on about at any given moment.

CITATION REQUIRED

A report, scheduled to be published on Monday but distributed to some reporters yesterday, said issues usually associated with the environment - like rising ocean levels, droughts and violent weather caused by global warming - were also national security concerns.

"Unlike the problems that we are used to dealing with, these will come upon us extremely slowly, but come they will, and they will be grinding and inexorable," Richard J. Truly, a retired United States Navy vice admiral and former NASA administrator, said in the report.

The effects of global warming, the study said, could lead to large-scale migrations, increased border tensions, the spread of disease and conflicts over food and water. All could lead to direct involvement by the United States military.

NYT Link (from 2007)

That's the US.

Here's a PDF that goes into greater detail...

Link

Here's a pdf indicating Europe's concerns.

Link

Thanks for asking.

T-Servo		2012-05-05 05:20:28 PM

1 votes:

Oh, and then there's the Army Green Warriors program- that deals more with contingency operations, but it's a good read (the ebook is free). The Army finally figured out in Iraq that providing water and electricity contained insurgencies in places like Sadr City faster than anything else. Another program replaced batteries for troops and Marines with folding solar panels, which saved 20lbs on each man's pack. -That was quickly popular.

/not really climate, but still want the SECDEF was referring to

whidbey		2012-05-05 05:20:23 PM

1 votes:

furiousxgeorge: The Iconoclast: Nickster79: Even if global warming weren't real, it's probably a good idea to reduce toxic emission into the air that we breathe.

And if it is real it will eventually become too obvious to deny.

Just in time for the argument to become, "Real, but we can't do anything about it." This process has already begun.

There's only so much derp you can try to counter science with. Time to move the goalposts again.

furiousxgeorge		2012-05-05 05:19:32 PM

1 votes:

The Iconoclast: Nickster79: Even if global warming weren't real, it's probably a good idea to reduce toxic emission into the air that we breathe.

And if it is real it will eventually become too obvious to deny.

Just in time for the argument to become, "Real, but we can't do anything about it." This process has already begun.

T-Servo		2012-05-05 05:13:26 PM

1 votes:

Slaxl: That was quite interesting, is there a more up to date report?

There are tons of reports out there now, one of the latest being the Defense Science Board.

Also (first link- USAF view)

And (National Intel Council PDF)

And (links inside to UK Defence Green Paper and US QDR)

Navy Task Force Climate

And finally (CIA programs- though most were housed in DOE)

Don't Troll Me Bro!		2012-05-05 05:11:42 PM

1 votes:

The Iconoclast: Nickster79: Even if global warming weren't real, it's probably a good idea to reduce toxic emission into the air that we breathe.

And if it is real it will eventually become too obvious to deny.

These are people that still claim that more tax cuts for the rich will create jobs, despite 30 years of empirical data that says otherwise. These are people that call our military's top generals liars when they claim that the military does not need as much funding as they currently have. These are people that claim "Tide goes in, tide goes out. You can't explain that," despite the fact that it is easily explained with a 3rd grade understanding of science. These are people that not only claim a bumper sticker saying "don't re-nig" isn't racist, but claim they don't understand how anyone else can see a racist tone, despite the fact that it is properly spelled "renege" and is next to a picture of a black man's face morphed with a monkey.

If Rush tells them that the sky is green, they will parrot that the sky is green.