Hey naysayers - now that the pentagon is making preparations for GW caused conflicts are U sure GW is a myth?

Question

So the US Gov denies GW - but the penatgon asks and is given money in readiness for GW conflicts as land and water are fought over and mass migration occurs.

Spectacular answers.

Outstanding -

"The absence of evidence that something doesn't exists does not prove that something doesn't exist. "
Donald Rumsfeld. - Which by that logic means climate change is all Santas fault.

BTW I love the answer that mass migration will be caused by alarmists - not actual droughts / famines.

You guys kill me - in fact I think you will be the death of me - if not by CO2 induced starvation then by shooting. Get a gun! Is that the American answer to everything ? Is that what the American Dream has become - Shoot first ask questions later.

Pour it on.

It is so good to see so many of you actually recognising climate change as a fact -
5 years ago I asked an international group a similar question and without descent ALL the American contributors denied global warming was even occuruing - To them ice melt, record floods and heatwave were just localised variations.

It's so good to see things have moved on - As Johann Hari predicted some time back stage 1 is denial - stage 2 for the naysayers would be "Yes Climate change is happening but it's got nothing to do with me. This was not caused by man it's natural".

Stage 3 is OK I have something to do with this

Stage 4 is I can do something to correct this.

My name is Wayne and I am a petrol head.

So with that logic the only recourse is to prepare not prevent. I suppose it's one better than ignoring it.

Answer 1

This may be an outgrowth of a study by these distinguished military experts, which said the security problems caused by global warming were a major threat:

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0407/041607kp1.htm

For those who make the philosophical argument that climate change has occuired before.

The scientific data clearly shows that this change is not natural. How does the fact that natural changes occurred before prove this particular change is natural? Scientifically, that argument is ridiculous.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

Answer 2

Global warming, or climate change as it should be properly called, is not really what is in dispute. The argument is whether or not it is being caused by the actions of man.

If the climate changes sufficiently to alter the food growing regions of the world and floods the coastal cities, you better believe that there will be mass migrations to escape it's effects. Seems to me that genetically-engineered crops made to withstand drought would be more acceptable to the rest of the world then.

Can you imagine the famine in the world if the food production of the U. S. were to drop by even 10% if not more? All food produced in the U. S. would have to kept in the country to feed our own population, and wouldn't the free-loaders of the world scream about that?! The problem we have with Mexico right now over illegal immigration would pale in comparison as people tried to go where the food is.

Mass migrations have occurred in the past, and only a fool would say they won't happen again.

Answer 3

You, like many others are missing the nuance in teh whole debate on climate change.

It isn't that we don't believe it is happening, it is that we are not as sure as the IPCC is that CO2 is the main culprit.

I have been on here arguing for more and improved science so that the radiative forcing models can be improved, thus allowing a realistic attribution of cause. From this attribution, energy and climate policy can be made with an eye towards proper prevention and mitigation strategies. But, until such time, I am not on board with this urgent need to "do something" right now.

As for the US military, it is their job to plan for things. They have planned for extraterrestial attacks (as noted above), they have wargamed a multitude of nuclear exchanges, I bet they have even worked out the plans for fighting some sort of regional civil war on US soil. That is what they do, they think up stuff, and then identify plans for dealing with it.

Preparation for these things does not mean they will ever happen.

Answer 4

Global Warming should actually be talked about as climate change - a scientific theory. Whilst there is much scientific debate about what the outcome of climate change is - potential global cooling or potential global warming, these names are talking about global trends and do not refer to what will happen in various locations. funding environmental protection schemes and other schemes which can be associated with Global warming is a recommended policy for any government. i am prepared to look at the evidence presented by scientists in an unbiased and educated way as i always have been. but i refuse to take on board the propaganda and hype generated by politicians and popular newspapers

Answer 5

That it might be getting warming is not the issue. That we had an Ice age a while back is not a issue. History shows time and time again, where the earth has been warm and then cold. They have found fossils of Palm trees and forest in the Arctic. That is not the issue. What you fail to understand is that these happen, they have always happened, and as long as this world survives they will continue to happen., We just disagree with the notion that people ( what they really mean is ) the American auto driver is the cause of these changes. there were no cars in the Arctic, 150,000 years ago, so what caused that?

Answer 6

As is the case with most "flag wavers" you have the facts wrong. GW is something that is not in contention. It is a cyclical event documented in the geological record.

The problem is the frantic accusations of, "Mankind is doing it! Mankind it doing it!" The geological record shows the same fluctuations multiple times through out the earth's history. Many occurred before the advent of humanity.

The question is not, "Is GW real?" It is, "How significant is the impact of humanity on the current GW cycle?" There are several opinions on the answer to that question.

Answer 7

Big deal. Back in the post WW2 era the Pentagon came up with contingency plans for the appearance of extraterrestrial beings, including attacks from same. That didn't prove flying saucers were real, did it? Its part of their job to have a plan in place for anything.

And GW used the correct version of the term during his state of the union speech in January; "Global Climate Change" with Mama Nancy proudly beaming behind him. Who's the denier here?

Answer 8

If the government gives the Pentagon money, then who gives it to the government?

That would be Joe Public! By getting ready for conflict they mean buying more tanks and war planes (which put out huge emissions and allegedly create global warming!)

This is just another ploy to get tax money for war! They are just disguising it as GW to con people to beleive that they care!

Answer 9

try word substitution ... instead of GW... try.. say... overpopulation. Lack of preparedness on a governments part for a natural climatic change is folly. And I say natural, cause at one time, Iowa was a Rainforest, and Utah was an ocean... Just a few short years ago, we were running headlong into an Iceage.... now we're burning up the planet?

Answer 10

This doesn't mean a thing. The alarmists - that would be the ones who would be trying to take lands and water, and making major migrations - are what they're preparing for. I might buy a gun to defend my home but that doesn't mean I think Martians are coming.