House Directs Pentagon To Ignore Climate Change

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: Euphem
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Which predictions came true? There has been little to no change over the past 20 years. Climate scientists are worse than religious cult leaders. When their predictions don't come true they make up some other bull# and move on to new sheep they can manipulate.

I like this one -

Claim: “[By] 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots … [By 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers.” Michel Oppenheimer and Robert H. Boyle, Dead Heat, St. Martin’s Press, 1990. Oppenheimer is the Albert G. Milbank Professor of Geosciences and International Affairs in the Woodrow Wilson School and the Department of Geosciences at Princeton University. He is the Director of the Program in Science, Technology, and Environmental Policy at the Wilson School. He was formerly a senior scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund, the largest non-governmental organization in the U.S. that examines problems and solutions to greenhouse gases.

Data: When asked about these old predictions Oppenheimer stated, “On the whole I would stand by these predictions — not predictions, sorry, scenarios — as having at least in a general way actually come true,” he said. “There’s been extensive drought, devastating drought, in significant parts of the world. The fraction of the world that’s in drought has increased over that period.”

However, that claim is not obviously true. Data from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center show that precipitation — rain and snow — has increased slightly over the century.

When a Princeton University professor fails to see the incredibly stupid errors of his predictions you know you have serious problems. It amazes me how ignorant the majority of "intelligent" people are.

Posts like this scare the excrement out of me. The anti-science hysteria is breathtaking.

Many think there is still some sorta debate on the issue I am trying to tell them that..It is... OVHA!!! we are beyond the point of no return the next question before us is how do we cope!! but what ever we do our kids, grand kids, great grand kids most likely be living in some kinda dark ages,we should consider ourselves the last generation of our own Atlantis.

Good thing the US military is already equipped to fight in an any environment and weather conditions.

Good thing there are already bases all over the world in all kinds of climate extremes.

Meanwhile drought plagued areas in Texas may need to build an ark before the end of the week...

Too bad we can't get them to pass legislation that would allow us to forget to pay taxes.

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
Good thing the US military is already equipped to fight in an any environment and weather conditions.

Good thing there are already bases all over the world in all kinds of climate extremes.

Not if Pearl Harbor,Yokosuka,Sasebo,Diego Garcia,Bahrain, and numerous other ports is under water,hence the military's need to study options related to climate change which has been blocked,defunded or whatever by congress.

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: FarleyWayne
a reply to: Spider879

I believe that was a SMART-CHOICE ... BECAUSE:

Global warming on Mars, ice caps melting

From your source:

At this time, there is little empirical evidence that Mars is warming. Mars' climate is primarily driven by dust and albedo, not solar variations, and we know the sun is not heating up all the planets in our solar system because we can accurately measure the sun’s output here on Earth.

www.skepticalscience.com...

Read much?

Skeptics only read that which agrees with their belief and those articles tend to be short and snappy like a tabloid newspaper. In order to understand the complexities and interactions of climate change requires folks to read articles that are more than a couple of paragraphs. The texting generation can't cope.......information overload!

a reply to: yorkshirelad

Generalizing an entire group of people isn't very nice. I was actually a big believer in global warming(now climate change) for the past decade. Only after reading everything I could get my hands on regarding climate science over those years did I start to question it.

originally posted by: LDragonFire
a reply to: xuenchen

So the pentagon under the Bush administration are climate alarmists?

They may have fallen for the same banker malarkey.

a reply to: yorkshirelad

the same can be said either way.

We need to move away from politically charged arguments over scientific studies that have real world consequences on everything from budgets to peoples lives.

I presented a scholarly, peer reviewed published paper on solar irradiation proving its effect on earth´s climate. No one even tried to counter it except for providing a poorly cited "graph" and a snappy little bit of text about ONE small aspect of its supporting evidence. The entire theory I believe was "TLDR" for the average sunday reader. But hey we are SOOO concerned about this right?

No one checked the math in my suggested paper. No one checked the science behind it. Where is the scholarly debate you are so fond of?

Skeptics and climate proponents are both guilty of sloth.

We should kick all agitators to the curb if things are so dire. They have done nothing but muddy the waters of rational thought with party lines and name slinging for over 2 decades. The world is not ending and we are no closer to proving a theory.

If the science is there fact check it. If its true then its testable and as such is provable in a repeatable process.

If not you have to leave room for that event and look for that horizon. Whether its lies in your camp or the other.

That should be our primary concern.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: seeker1963

Agenda 21 is a real program initiated by the UN. The US rejected it a long time ago.
It isn't a conspiracy to crowd people into massive tenement buildings nor a conspiracy to take over the US or the world.

Have you ever read it?

Clever how the U.S. casts the *Illusion* of rejecting Agenda21.

All the while they call it by a different name and selectively use parts of the big daddy document.

Agenda 21 itself encourages "Local" implementation.

In the United States, over 528 cities are members of ICLEI, an international sustainability organization that helps to implement the Agenda 21 and Local Agenda 21 concepts across the world. The United States has nearly half of the ICLEI's global membership of 1,200 cities promoting sustainable development at a local level. The United States also has one of the most comprehensively documented Agenda 21 status reports. In response to the opposition, Don Knapp, U.S. spokesman for the ICLEI, has said "Sustainable development is not a top-down conspiracy from the U.N., but a bottom-up push from local governments".

Agenda 21

Very Very dangerous.

It's a banker scam.

originally posted by: Spider879

This means in the up coming water wars ,political unrest ,mass migrations,the U.S military will just sit on it's collective behinds whistling Dixie because some paid off climate change denying politician set up road blocks for them in preparing for what's coming,as everyone who ever belonged to any military organization knows you don't avoid or win battles, wars without preparation,these extremely greedy Pols would rather see us not getting ready just because they believe the $$$ they are receiving from the folks who are behind the anti climate agenda their financial overlords like the Koch Brothers, and Americans for prosperity types will keep them immune.
Oh one more thing climate does affect battle field conditions,as one who was almost swept overboard during foul weather conditions while on-rapping I had a lil taste of that.

When he was alive my ex father in law was aboard a Naval ship that rounded cape horn in WWII, he told me the waves were so tall they broke over the conning tower, no one mentioned Global Warming/Climate Change, all they mentioned was Holy Crap!!

Everyone wants to take the money out of politics, I just wonder how much Global Warming/Climate Change we would experience if there was no money in the funding of scientist to prove it.

I find it rich that GreenPeace reports the Koch brothers are funding climate deniers. A quick list of supporters of Climate Central:

Anonymous
Changing Horizons Fund of the Rockefeller Family Fund
ClimateWorks
The David & Lucille Packard Foundation
The Dixon Family Fund
Flora Family Foundation
Foundation for Environmental Research
Google.org
The High Meadows Foundation
Island Foundation
Kresge Foundation
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
NASA Headquarters
NASA Langley
National Institutes of Health via Johns Hopkins University
National Science Foundation via Columbia University
National Science Foundation via George Mason University
NOAA CICS (Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites) via North Carolina State University
Northrup Grumman
Peter T Paul Foundation
Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation via Pepperwood Preserve
The Pisces Foundation
Rockefeller Brothers Fund
The Robert & Ellen Gutenstein Foundation
Robertson Foundation
Saul D Levy Foundation
The Schmidt Family Foundation
Town Creek Foundation
Turner Foundation, Inc.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
U.S. Department of Energy
University of Tennessee
V. Kann Rasmussen Foundation
The Winslow Foundation
The World Bank via The Nature Conservancy

Doesn't look to me like they are going without. Lets take the money out of this as well as politics and see how long term weather prediction is. Doom Porn without funding is just ........ Well none existent.

a reply to: tadaman

You provided a peer review science paper yet you reject hundreds perhaps many more of other peer reviewed papers.

Your almost zealotry based disbelief of science unless it agrees with your ideology is amazing.

a reply to: MarlinGrace

Conservative billionaires used a secretive funding route to channel nearly $120m (£77m) to more than 100 groups casting doubt about the science behind climate change, the Guardian has learned.

The funds, doled out between 2002 and 2010, helped build a vast network of thinktanks and activist groups working to a single purpose: to redefine climate change from neutral scientific fact to a highly polarising "wedge issue" for hardcore conservatives.

The millions were routed through two trusts, Donors Trust and the Donors Capital Fund, operating out of a generic town house in the northern Virginia suburbs of Washington DC. Donors Capital caters to those making donations of $1m or more.

Secret funding helped build.....

I find it interesting you can trace funding for global climate change research but on the right side its mostly anonymous sources and now they are using the non profit groups to spread there ideology.

Who do you trust open sources or secret sources backed by the fossil fuel industry?

a reply to: Spider879

Wow, what a lame title. The House did nothing of the sort. All it did was protect it's defense money from being used on Climate Change. Which isn't what it should be used for anyway. Talk about a fail.

This shows that its a 50/50 issue in the US. Its not a majority supporting global warming or climate change.

Anyone saying that skeptics are stubborn is calling half the US zealots.


www.gallup.com...

Here is a poll showing the Uk´s faith in man made global warming and climate change.

UK public is the most sceptical in Europe.
Page 9
Question : Which one of the following two statements best corresponds to your opinion ?
Climate change has been proven by science UK 63%
Climate change has not been proven by science UK 37%

repealtheact.org.uk...

Here is a telling article showing that the 97-98% consensus on gloabl warming among scientists is being doctored. The question posed by the cook survey to the scientific community was "if they thought SOME global warming was caused by human activity". NOT if it has been proven in their eyes or is definitive in any way by traditional scientific standards. We all agree climate change is real. Half think its natural and question if human activity can even alter such a powerful natural cycle at all. The others are convinced of it and dream of doom scenarios while calling people who hold reservations about it zealots for not falling in line. Part lines are usually invoked but the scientific community is still being true to their professions by being cautious about showing intellectual dishonesty about it. NO matter the funding promised.

Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media have been caught doctoring the results of a widely cited paper asserting there is a 97-percent scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming. After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative journalists report the authors’ claims of a 97-pecent consensus relied on the authors misclassifying the papers of some of the world’s most prominent global warming skeptics. At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism.

Global warming alarmist John Cook, founder of the misleadingly named blog site Skeptical Science, published a paper with several other global warming alarmists claiming they reviewed nearly 12,000 abstracts of studies published in the peer-reviewed climate literature. Cook reported that he and his colleagues found that 97 percent of the papers that expressed a position on human-caused global warming “endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”

As is the case with other ‘surveys’ alleging an overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, the question surveyed had absolutely nothing to do with the issues of contention between global warming alarmists and global warming skeptics. The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming. The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action.

Either through idiocy, ignorance, or both, global warming alarmists and the liberal media have been reporting that the Cook study shows a 97 percent consensus that humans are causing a global warming crisis. However, that was clearly not the question surveyed.

www.forbes.com...

Look at the growing numbers of fires in California, Arizona, Alaska and others, early in the season... Heavy rains in areas ongoing, flooding and storm damage, and we are just getting started... Last winter was a bitch, next will likely be hell, frozen over... It's going to get bad enough with wild extremes and record breaking conditions that eventually no one will be able to deny climate change.

We can debate the cause, and discuss what may be done to mitigate the impact, but it will make no difference in the end.... We are not the cause, we have no solutions... We need to be planning and preparing for the worst. Ignore the pentagon, what use is the military in an uninhabitable northern hemisphere?

On second thought we may need them to invade equatorial regions and relocate there...

a reply to: ausername

climate change is not being debated. It is proven that the earth goes through cycles of cold periods and hot periods. We all agree on that much.

The impact man can possibly have on that billions of years old natural cycle is what is being debated considering that it has been going on since the dawn of the planet. We have been here for less than 1% of that time. In a show of ultimate human arrogance some think we can affect the earth enough to make it split in two as a result.

But you are right.

We should plan ahead. Just not for doom porn scenarios. That is irrational. No amount of money and public funding of private enterprise will change that even if true. (which it has not been proven so)