J.D. Hall
United States
Oklahoma
flag msg tools
It's from one of those "legit" websites

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/09/14/climate-change-poses-si...

I read about this two years ago ... in Readers' Digest. Yeah, I'm that old.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Russell
United States
Clarkston
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Not directly related, but I was involved in an upgrade of the HMMWV.

They wanted to add traction control so that the grass on the dunes where a military base held maneuvers wouldn't get as torn up.

They already had ABS for which they were paying $2000/unit. Our unit did ABS and TCS for ~$400. We did all the engineering (and got paid for it), got it ready for production, then they cancelled the upgrade.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin Keefe
United States
Kettering
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The military seems to think so.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/7/pentagon-orde...
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Wendell
United States
Alexandria (temporarily)
Virginia
flag msg tools
All the little chicks with crimson lips, go...
badge
Hey, get your stinking cursor off my face! I got nukes, you know.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
Quote:
Will climate change have an adverse effect on national defense?


No.

Well, yes, when it means that funding for national defense gets redirected to combating global warming (and in the process "mysteriously" ends up in the pockets of the world's wealthiest).

But otherwise, no.


If somebody secretly destroyed the US naval station at Norfolk, that would be seen as having an adverse effect on national defense.

But somehow, rising sea levels doing the same isn't a problem?
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Wesley
Nepal
Aberdeen
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mb
They should 'recruit' amongst 'Postal Workers' since they already 'Like' "going Postal" along with already being 'acclimated' for "adverse weather environs"!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Austin Andersen
United States
Berrien Springs
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Anything is possible. If the world's resources become more scarce because of climate change, it could press action from some countries.

Look at Russia looking to expand. They already claimed a part of the Ukraine. China is getting in on expanding as well as they look to claim the South China Sea.

If the US were to get attacked. After a major disaster of epic proportions would be an ideal time for attackers.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lone Locust of the Apocalypse
United States
Sandworms USA
Plateau of Leng
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:


When 1,700 private jets



Yes, because we all know that world leaders should all travel together in groups on the same plane.

And there is absolutely no way that could ever backfire.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Woodcock
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
wifwendell wrote:
Drew1365 wrote:
Quote:
Will climate change have an adverse effect on national defense?


No.

Well, yes, when it means that funding for national defense gets redirected to combating global warming (and in the process "mysteriously" ends up in the pockets of the world's wealthiest).

But otherwise, no.


If somebody secretly destroyed the US naval station at Norfolk, that would be seen as having an adverse effect on national defense.


It would indeed!

wifwendell wrote:

But somehow, rising sea levels doing the same isn't a problem?


Fully half of the "sea level rise" isn't the sea at all, it's subsidence. Norfolk was built in a particular bad spot, that being a big crater filled with mud next to the ocean.

The USGS did a great study on this a few years back:

http://web.vims.edu/GreyLit/VIMS/sramsoe425.pdf

Just looking at the Executive Summary and not the more detailed charts and data that follow, we come across this little gem on page vii (emphasis mine):

"...leading to the general conclusion that about 53% of the RSL rise
measured at bay water level stations is, on average, due to local subsidence
. "


So I'm certainly willing to make you a bet....how soon do you think it'll be underwater, and will you put $100 on it? If I win you give to the charity of my choice, you win I'll donate to the charity of your choice.


Ferret
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Woodcock
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
galad2003 wrote:


How about when one of these climate change people in RSP get solar panels installed on their roof? You know, put their money where their mouth is. Which is ironic because you can get the panels installed for free from Solar City if you lease.


Heck, I think global warming is (at best) an interesting if unproven theory and I'm 100% on solar panels.

Guess I'm taking up the slack for the greenies who talk but don't act.


Ferret
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Donald
United States
New Alexandria
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:

When 1,700 private jets spew hundreds of thousands of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere to fly to Davos to have a global warming conference, it's hard to take these chicken littles seriously.



Only 200 jets flew into Davos

Quote:
the 1,700 number doesn’t actually measure jets at all: it measures something called “movements.” A typical jet, for instance, might fly its plutocratic payload into Zurich airport to drop off its passengers, then fly to Dubendorf to park, then fly back to Zurich for pick-up, and then fly out of Switzerland altogether. That’s four flights, and six “movements,” because taking off from Zurich and landing in Dubendorf count as a movement each.

And while some billionaires are surely happy for their jets to sit idle for the entire week of Davos, many corporate jets will be used for other purposes during the week before coming back. Essentially, the Zurich area is becoming a temporary hub for a lot of non-Davos-related private aviation, all of which is being included in the “1,700 jets” figure.

So how many private jets are flying in to Davos? If you take the 850 number and divide it by 4, that gets about 210; dividing by 5 gets you 170. Call it 200 altogether, not 1,700. The headlines, it seems, are off by an entire order of magnitude.


3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Wendell
United States
Alexandria (temporarily)
Virginia
flag msg tools
All the little chicks with crimson lips, go...
badge
Hey, get your stinking cursor off my face! I got nukes, you know.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Ferretman wrote:
wifwendell wrote:
Drew1365 wrote:
Quote:
Will climate change have an adverse effect on national defense?


No.

Well, yes, when it means that funding for national defense gets redirected to combating global warming (and in the process "mysteriously" ends up in the pockets of the world's wealthiest).

But otherwise, no.


If somebody secretly destroyed the US naval station at Norfolk, that would be seen as having an adverse effect on national defense.


It would indeed!

wifwendell wrote:

But somehow, rising sea levels doing the same isn't a problem?


Fully half of the "sea level rise" isn't the sea at all, it's subsidence. Norfolk was built in a particular bad spot, that being a big crater filled with mud next to the ocean.

The USGS did a great study on this a few years back:

http://web.vims.edu/GreyLit/VIMS/sramsoe425.pdf

Just looking at the Executive Summary and not the more detailed charts and data that follow, we come across this little gem on page vii (emphasis mine):

"...leading to the general conclusion that about 53% of the RSL rise
measured at bay water level stations is, on average, due to local subsidence
. "


So I'm certainly willing to make you a bet....how soon do you think it'll be underwater, and will you put $100 on it? If I win you give to the charity of my choice, you win I'll donate to the charity of your choice.


Ferret


I'm pretty sure that there will be no level of proof that would make you pay off on that bet, just as there is no level of proof that can make most American conservatives admit that climate change is real and is happening now. So I won't bother making a bet that you will never admit to having lost. Also, I don't know exactly when Norfolk will be under water.

But a Navy Times article from July of this year discusses the problem at Norfolk and eight other Navy facilities. Which, no doubt, you will read and find lacking, because (waves hands to dismiss science).

https://www.navytimes.com/story/military/2016/07/29/rising-o...
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Les Marshall
United States
Woodinville
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
remorseless1 wrote:
It's from one of those "legit" websites

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/09/14/climate-change-poses-si...

I read about this two years ago ... in Readers' Digest. Yeah, I'm that old.


It isn't just the defense sector concerned with climate change. This is one of many articles discussing how the insurance industry is having to adjust forecast models:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-the-insuran...

There are many more such stories but, the general theme is that Insurers are either using their weight to prompt regulation, sue state and local governments or simply retreat from providing coverage in coastal areas.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Wendell
United States
Alexandria (temporarily)
Virginia
flag msg tools
All the little chicks with crimson lips, go...
badge
Hey, get your stinking cursor off my face! I got nukes, you know.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Rulesjd wrote:
remorseless1 wrote:
It's from one of those "legit" websites

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/09/14/climate-change-poses-si...

I read about this two years ago ... in Readers' Digest. Yeah, I'm that old.


It isn't just the defense sector concerned with climate change. This is one of many articles discussing how the insurance industry is having to adjust forecast models:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-the-insuran...

There are many more such stories but, the general theme is that Insurers are either using their weight to prompt regulation, sue state and local governments or simply retreat from providing coverage in coastal areas.


Now, we all know that the insurance industry and the military are a bunch of flighty loons who grab at any half-baked idea, and are not calculating, sober assessors and planners who look seriously at things.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Edwards
United Kingdom
London
Unspecified
flag msg tools
Avatar
Drew1365 wrote:
I'll believe the climate change is an impending crisis when those who tell me that it's an impending crisis behave as if it's an impending crisis.

When 1,700 private jets spew hundreds of thousands of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere to fly to Davos to have a global warming conference, it's hard to take these chicken littles seriously.



You will likely never believe climate change is an impending crisis because it presents a problem the possible solutions to which you are ideologically opposed to.

9 
 Thumb up
1.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Neil Tomlinson
United Kingdom
Oldham
Greater Manchester
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mb
Since when did the conservative narrative on climate change go from "It's not caused by humans" to "It's not happening at all"?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Woodcock
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
wifwendell wrote:

I'm pretty sure that there will be no level of proof that would make you pay off on that bet, just as there is no level of proof that can make most American conservatives admit that climate change is real and is happening now.


I'm pretty sure you don't know me very well if you believe that.

I'm a scientist; propose something testable and relevant and I might go for it.

wifwendell wrote:

So I won't bother making a bet that you will never admit to having lost. Also, I don't know exactly when Norfolk will be under water.


Chicken.

wifwendell wrote:

But a Navy Times article from July of this year discusses the problem at Norfolk and eight other Navy facilities. Which, no doubt, you will read and find lacking, because (waves hands to dismiss science).

https://www.navytimes.com/story/military/2016/07/29/rising-o...


I had read that already and have actually posted it on a few other sites to bolster the "real science not Alarmism" case. Since it left out the cause of half of the "sea level rise" (which I note you didn't address, you just jumped to criticizing me) it's not particular relevant or something you'd want to base your case on. Or do you reject the findings of the USGS in this instance?



Ferret
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Wendell
United States
Alexandria (temporarily)
Virginia
flag msg tools
All the little chicks with crimson lips, go...
badge
Hey, get your stinking cursor off my face! I got nukes, you know.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Ferretman wrote:
wifwendell wrote:

I'm pretty sure that there will be no level of proof that would make you pay off on that bet, just as there is no level of proof that can make most American conservatives admit that climate change is real and is happening now.


I'm pretty sure you don't know me very well if you believe that.

I'm a scientist; propose something testable and relevant and I might go for it.

wifwendell wrote:

So I won't bother making a bet that you will never admit to having lost. Also, I don't know exactly when Norfolk will be under water.


Chicken.

wifwendell wrote:

But a Navy Times article from July of this year discusses the problem at Norfolk and eight other Navy facilities. Which, no doubt, you will read and find lacking, because (waves hands to dismiss science).

https://www.navytimes.com/story/military/2016/07/29/rising-o...


I had read that already and have actually posted it on a few other sites to bolster the "real science not Alarmism" case. Since it left out the cause of half of the "sea level rise" (which I note you didn't address, you just jumped to criticizing me) it's not particular relevant or something you'd want to base your case on. Or do you reject the findings of the USGS in this instance?



Ferret


Not a chicken, so screw you. You proposed a bet that would likely NOT be able to pay off in the next 20 years, so what's the point? The basic point that climate change and sea levels rising have real impacts is correct, and is not invalidated by the fact that there is also subsidence happening in SE Virginia.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
フィル
Australia
Ashfield
NSW
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Pushing a lesbian old growth union-approved agenda since '94.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Greldin wrote:
Since when did the conservative narrative on climate change go from "It's not caused by humans" to "It's not happening at all"?

Remember when it was caused entirely by volcanoes? Those were the days.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
G L
United States
Georgia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Greldin wrote:
Since when did the conservative narrative on climate change go from "It's not caused by humans" to "It's not happening at all"?


It's an endless loop. They start at "it's not warming at all, we probably even need to be worried about cooling!" When confronted with overwhelming evidence to the contrary, they concede that it might be happening, but "it's caused by volcanoes, solar activity, or orbital variations." When people point out that none of those explanations square with the data, they say "warming might even be good and now that we've successfully derailed action for 25 years, it's too late to do anything anyway!"
Once the interlocutor who started arguing with them in the first place gets tired of the constantly shifting goalposts and quits, they go back to "it's not warming at all!"

Insert insinuations about communist watermelons... wash, rinse, repeat.

Climate Change Deniers Present Graphic Description Of What Earth Must Look Like For Them To Believe

http://www.theonion.com/article/climate-change-deniers-prese...

Quote:
WASHINGTON—Evoking cataclysmic scenes of extreme weather and widespread drought and famine, the nation’s climate change deniers held a press conference Wednesday to describe exactly what the Earth must look like before they will begin to believe in human-induced global warming.

The group of skeptics, who said that the consensus among 97 percent of the scientific community and the documented environmental transformations already underway are simply not proof enough, laid out the precise sequence and magnitude of horrific events—including natural disasters, proliferation of infectious diseases, and resource wars—they would have to witness firsthand before they are swayed.

“For us to accept that the average surface temperature of the Earth has risen to critical levels due to mankind’s production of greenhouse gases, we’ll need to see some actual, visible evidence, including a global death toll of no less than 500 million people within a single calendar year,” said spokesperson William Davis, 46, of Jackson, NJ, who added that at least 70 percent of all islands on the planet would also have to become submerged under rising seas before he and his cohort would reconsider their beliefs. “To start, we’re going to have to see supercell tornadoes of category F4 or higher ripping through Oklahoma at least three times a day, leveling entire communities and causing hundreds of fatalities—and just to be perfectly clear, we’re talking year-round, not just during the spring tornado season.”

“I don’t think it’s too much to ask to see a super hurricane destroying the Southeast U.S. and another one at the same time decimating the Pacific Northwest before I make up my mind about this.”
“The reality is that we’re still experiencing cold, snowy winters, and the entire global population is not currently embarking on cross-continental migrations in search of arable land,” Davis continued. “Until that changes, we cannot be expected to believe climate change is occurring.”

Davis went on to say that certain events, such as massive, uncontrollable wildfires across the U.S—not just restricted to the American West, but in areas including Florida and New England—would render climate change deniers open to reevaluating the decades’ worth of data that show the planet is warming at a catastrophic rate. Additionally, Davis said that for the community to begin believing a single word of any scientific journal article corroborating climate change, every one of Earth’s glaciers would have to retreat at a rate exceeding 20 miles per year, and each of the skeptics, individually, would have to go a decade without seeing naturally occurring ice anywhere.

Furthermore, climate change deniers maintained that if the total number of plant and animal species on the planet remained higher than 200 in aggregate, they would not be dissuaded from their belief that Earth is simply experiencing one of its natural warming cycles that would eventually resolve itself on its own.

“I don’t think it’s too much to ask to see a super hurricane destroying the Southeast U.S. and another one at the same time decimating the Pacific Northwest before I make up my mind about this,” said global warming skeptic Michelle Wilkinson of Medina, MN, adding that she would be willing to recognize the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change if repeated and unpredictable storm surge flooding rendered every major East Coast city, including Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Washington, D.C., wholly uninhabitable. “The fact of the matter is that if I walk outside at any time of day at any point in the year and it’s below 90 degrees, then there simply isn’t enough proof that we need to be cutting carbon emissions.”

After clarifying that the desertification of major population centers, and the global refugee crisis that would result, would be necessary but not sufficient evidence of climate change, the skeptics reportedly unveiled a vivid artist’s rendering of the vast expanse of parched, lifeless earth and dead trees that each of them must see through the windows of their homes before reversing their opposition to public schools teaching children about global warming.

“We keep hearing all this mumbo-jumbo about the sixth mass extinction we’re in the midst of,” said Mitch McConnell, a U.S. senator from Kentucky, at the conclusion of the press conference. “Well, if that’s the case, then tell me this: Why aren’t the streets littered with human bodies right now, with the ragged bands of the still-living siphoning the moisture from the corpses of the dead?”

“We’re not unreasonable; we just need the evidence to be convincing before we make a decision,” McConnell added.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Edwards
United Kingdom
London
Unspecified
flag msg tools
Avatar
galad2003 wrote:
Ferretman wrote:
galad2003 wrote:


How about when one of these climate change people in RSP get solar panels installed on their roof? You know, put their money where their mouth is. Which is ironic because you can get the panels installed for free from Solar City if you lease.


Heck, I think global warming is (at best) an interesting if unproven theory and I'm 100% on solar panels.

Guess I'm taking up the slack for the greenies who talk but don't act.


Ferret


I have found a lot of liberals are full of shit when it comes to environmentalism and conservatives actually do it instead of talking about it.

The conservatives I am thinking about are avid hunters and believe in conserving wildlife and their land to perpetuate being able to hunt or enjoy nature. They also like to be self sufficient so they do things like solar panels.

Obviously that's an anecdote and individuals will vary. I am a huge fan of solar panels. I don't have them since I don't own a house. I am getting more proactive when I see people going on about global warming I call them about solar panels and electric/hybrid vehicles.


What has ordinary people potentially being hypocrites have to do with the facts in relation to climate change?

I'll give you a hint. It's the same thing these same people could do to convince you.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.