Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Panetta Labels Climate Change a National Security Threat

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the he's-got-a-military-industrial-complex dept.

Democrats 397

skipkent writes "Defense Secretary Leon Panetta declared global warming a national security threat [Wednesday] during a speech before an environmentalist group in Washington, D.C. 'The area of climate change has a dramatic impact on national security,' Panetta told the Environmental Defense Fund last night. 'Rising sea levels, severe droughts, the melting of the polar caps, the more frequent and devastating natural disasters all raise demand for humanitarian assistance and disaster relief.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

War On Climate (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39901655)

... starts now.

Re:War On Climate (5, Insightful)

RebelWithoutAClue (578771) | more than 2 years ago | (#39901683)

And conveniently bypassing Congressional approval too.

Re:War On Climate (4, Insightful)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#39901783)

What does this translate into, in real terms? You know, contracts for Halliburton, Bechtel and the gang?

Re:War On Climate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39901827)

A series of high budget films and music albums to fight back in this War On Climate (aka War on the World).

TOwards Pacifiying And Controlling Climate (TO-PACC) will be the new name of the organization (war dept.) assigned this new front.

Re:War On Climate (4, Insightful)

RebelWithoutAClue (578771) | more than 2 years ago | (#39901853)

1. The EPA will get it's own SWAT team.

2. Green subsidies will be moved to the defense budget.

Re:War On Climate (4, Funny)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 2 years ago | (#39901991)

2. Green subsidies will be moved to the defense budget.

Gawd, I hope so. So many heads asploding.

Re:War On Climate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39902005)

Has anyone specifically written that scenario into a Cyberpunk-type book? It sounds perfect for one.

Re:War On Climate (4, Informative)

J'raxis (248192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39902013)

The EPA has [] a SWAT team. Plenty more examples come up if you search for "EPA SWAT team," too.

Re:War On Climate (4, Informative)

fustakrakich (1673220) | more than 2 years ago | (#39902067)

The EPA will get it's own SWAT team.

Eh ,why not? The NOAA has one. In fact the EPA might already have one [] . Guns and badges for everyone. Makes 'em feel all important and stuff

Re:War On Climate (4, Insightful)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 2 years ago | (#39902175)

Good Lord?!?!

What do environmental groups need with fucking GUNS and private cops?!?!

I wonder if there's any way to petition our elected officials, to pass legislation banning agencies from having their own police force and weaponry...? I mean, as far as gun play and all, I'd trust the FBI or Secret Service over these other home brewed forces. IF the EPA needs protection going on a raid...they should maybe have to coordinate with the FBI...keep it simple and separate.

I don't like the idea of these unelected departments making and enforcing all these rules...but at least lets start and be reasonable and take the 'teeth' out of them a little by mandating they can't have their own weaponized goon squads....

Re:War On Climate (1)

xclr8r (658786) | more than 2 years ago | (#39902215)

It equals more contracts for them (or their subsidiaries). One contract to make the mess and another contract to subsidiary to clean it up. If they want to avoid ethics violations and be smart they will do cross contracting for the clean up contracts.. i.e Hali sub cleans Bech's mess and vice versa.

[unrelated joking here]>Polls suggest liberal hipsters are not afraid of terrorist. Best to scare them with Enviro-Annihilation to get appropriate feedback response to vote rights away.[/end lame joke]

Kill Kill it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39901721)

way its worded they want to kill the environment LOL....RAWR

How convenient... (5, Funny)

Shark (78448) | more than 2 years ago | (#39901805)

Now everybody can be accused of terrorism: We caught this man attempting a global warming attack by emitting CO2 into the atmosphere. In fact, we had to put him down as he would not stop even after being caught, threatening the security of our agents.

Re:How convenient... (4, Funny)

dmbasso (1052166) | more than 2 years ago | (#39901895)

They found a recording from a surveilance camera, where he performed an even worse attack: the release of a greenhouse gas in an elevator, to the horror of the victims.

Re:How convenient... (1)

Chemisor (97276) | more than 2 years ago | (#39902035)

The man was later tried and sentenced to three hours of hard labor at Burger King, where he will be required to consume six supersized combo meals to atone for his transgression.

Re:How convenient... (1)

RebelWithoutAClue (578771) | more than 2 years ago | (#39902183)

In absentia ("we had to put him down") of course. The defendant could not be reached for comment at this time.

Re:How convenient... (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 2 years ago | (#39902219)

The man was later tried and sentenced to three hours of hard labor at Burger King, where he will be required to consume six supersized combo meals to atone for his transgression.

Isn't that really a death sentence? about cruel and inhumane punishment......

Re:How convenient... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39902135)

Talk about gov't mandated original sin: breathing is a crime

Re:War On Climate (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39901851)

A new study has shown that there is a direct link between between the number of professional left politicians and the rate of change of global warming.
this is explained by the massive amounts of CO2 and methane they exhail.

Re:War On Climate (2)

Burdell (228580) | more than 2 years ago | (#39901897)

I think you're a little late. Nobody expects the Industrial Revolution!

War On Climate Change (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39901913)

It's the "War On Climate Change" ... get it right.

The only "obvious" solution is a complete government take over of all things that produce CO2 ... in other words ... socialism. People, Factories, Vehicles, ect ... all property of the state and may only be used if they give the ok, but not before they make you feel horrible about it.

Who cares that the US Debt:GDP has surpassed 1:1 and that true unemployment is well over 16% ... let’s focus on the climate and stop worrying about that whole economy thing.

Deus (Chevy) Volt!!! (3, Insightful)

RobotRunAmok (595286) | more than 2 years ago | (#39901959)

Be Very Afraid: The Church of The Climate is getting it's own Armed Inquisitition.

Life Imitates Super Bowl Ad: []

Re: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39902115)

Food quality is also overlooked, so we really need a parallel War on Food.

No one sees... (3, Insightful)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 2 years ago | (#39901669)

No one actually sees what is really happening to the climate any more, just what political advantage they can get from it. Because of that it has become just noise.

Re:No one sees... (0)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 2 years ago | (#39901877)

politcal and/or economic advantage. If America were to do what EU and liberals want America to do (apply cap/trade) it would actually make things WORSE. Much worse. Nations like China, Brazil, India, etc would quickly build up more coal plants to grab as much business as they can. The reason is that they will claim that it is their right to add more CO2 to the atmosphere.

Re:No one sees... (4, Insightful)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#39901921)

No, damn it. False equivalency. One side lies about it for political gain, the other is desperately trying to get the public to understand that it is a scientifically accepted truth that must be dealt with.

Tell me, in what way would flooding in NYC and global famine not affect our security?

Re:No one sees... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39901997)

You want to play. Explain this to me...

NASA does climate research with data from North America only, not valid on world wide scale. The UN IPCC reports are all based on original research done by Phil Jones at the CRU in England. Everyone else uses the CRU data directly or from the IPCC.

Phil Jones is the ONLY scientist in the world who has seen all the unmanipulated worldwide climate data. He admitted to manipulating it to prove his theories on global warming. He also deleted the original data because he didn't want to release the data for scientific peer review despite getting hit with hundreds of FOI requests. After twenty years of study, and manipulating data to his advantage, Phil Jones admitted that he was unable to scientifically prove global warming was happening. Remember, EVEYONE else is using his manipulated data now and there is no copy of the original data.

So you are telling me its scientifically proven when a single person is the only one who has seen all the original data, that single person was unable to prove global warming exists, and he has admitted to manipulating the data that gets released to other groups doing similar research?

Why are you so anti-science?

Re:No one sees... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39902163)

Yes Yes because no one really checked
and the initial reluctance to release the raw data had noting to do with the huge effort it took to get permission form all the thousands of individuals and governments who produced it
and no one ever went back and re collected it for public release either!!!

and the freedom of information requests where all completely innocent too!!!

Re:No one sees... (3, Informative)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#39902265)

The temperature record since ~1970 is very unlikely to be incorrect, because we have multiple sources, and multiple methods of measuring temperature (terrestrial, different satellites). Their data largely agrees.

Re:No one sees... (1)

Shavano (2541114) | more than 2 years ago | (#39902043)

By exaggerating the effects of the problem and making out like a change that happens so slowly you almost can't see it is suddenly an emergency.

Re:No one sees... (4, Insightful)

Loki_1929 (550940) | more than 2 years ago | (#39902127)

"That group of politicians are self-serving liars, but this group is benevolent and trying to help everyone!"

I knew there were still people like you out there, but I thought we'd pretty much fixed this kind of ignorance on Slashdot. I guess we've got some more work to do.

Here's a hint: neither side gives a shit about you. You're not even a pawn in their little game. At best, you're the chair they rest their fat, sweaty ass on while they play the game and get rich and powerful. That you believe you're on the same side or working towards similar goals is, quite frankly, pathetic.

If you want to see politicians who aren't stepping on every man, woman, and child to get a little higher up, look for the ones who've been marginalized as fanatical zealots and kooks. After all, in the game of politics, anyone who isn't crushing everyone else to get more money, power, and glory must be a lunatic.

Re:No one sees... (2, Insightful)

J'raxis (248192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39902139)

Which side is the one lying about it for political gain? The side that's trying to: Create all sorts of new taxes, laws, and regulations; expand their bureaucracies, create entirely new ones, and massively expand their budgets; hire swarms of new bureaucrats and "experts," who will come up with even more and more reasons for more taxes, regulations, and bureaucrats? You did mean that side of the debate, right? :)

Re:No one sees... (5, Insightful)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#39902243)

Which side is the one lying about it for political gain?

The side that is LYING!! Truth is REAL. I know that it's trendy to deny it these days, but there are such things as objective facts. All of the science proves that global warming is a fact. You don't like it? Too fucking bad, go cry me a river. Your opinions hold absolutely no sway over fact. You can disbelieve climate change, you can disbelieve evolution, you can disbelieve the moon landing, you can disbelieve that passenger jets brought down the Twin Towers, you can disbelieve gravity. But none of that fucking matters. Because truth is true whether you believe it or not.

And tell me, how is there "political gain" for the Democrats in raising taxes and creating regulations? How does it help them? Cause from where I stand, they'd be able to win a lot more power if, like the Republicans, they simply denied objective fact and promised tax cuts for everyone. They don't do that. Instead they accept the truth and try to deal with it.

Fuck you for waging this war on objective truth. We cannot survive without science, and we cannot have science without objective truth.

Re:No one sees... (5, Insightful)

DogDude (805747) | more than 2 years ago | (#39902269)

The financial gain/loss by the fossil fuel industry dwarfs any political or economic gains anybody else may have.

Re:No one sees... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39902157)

It would not affect our security if it didn't happen, and it's not going to. At least not in the sense of "NYC will be under ten feet of water unless you buy carbon credits and drive $50,000 solar cars" which is how the leftist establishment is painting it. Look at yourself, you're pulling the standard "the other side is lying, we are the true science" bullshit that's been fueling this debacle since the beginning. AGW is not a "scientifically accepted truth." If it were, there would be no debate. You can't just keep saying "everyone agrees on this, except for those who don't, and they don't count."

AGW isn't science. It's politics. Flat-earth, no-growth, global-socialism politics. And it's ugly.

Re:No one sees... (4, Insightful)

clonehappy (655530) | more than 2 years ago | (#39902241)

I've got karma to burn, so I'll bite. This is the problem with you people, instead of rationally talking about what the problems are and practical things we can all do to help, you jump straight to the end of the world scenario. This makes people tune you out, and you sound like a fool.

Saying shit like that is the equivalent of saying that if we don't have mandatory internet ID and censorship, that pedophiles and terrorists are inevitably going to break into our homes in the middle of the night and rape our daughters, and take control of the nuclear power plants and run them up to 1000% causing Chernobylfukushimas at every generating station, respectively.

Both are hyperbole, and do nothing to get logical folks considering your point of view. Try being rational and practical instead of religious and fanatical for a change, and I bet you'll find people are a bit more receptive to your ideas.

You can't see things that aren't there. (1, Informative)

rs79 (71822) | more than 2 years ago | (#39902245)

Flooding in New York is most likely to come from a Tsunami caussed by that rock hanging by a thread in the Canary Islands.

The Alarmist In Chief recanted last week and said they were all exagerating, which was covered by, oh, wait, slashdot.

Maybe get him to read this: []

Re:No one sees... (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#39902277)

Seriously? You can't see how this might be a blatant grab for more political power? You really believe that this guy is 100%, sincerely desperately trying to inform and help the public?

You can't imagine that a public official could want more money for his department?

Re:No one sees... (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 2 years ago | (#39901935)

Sure we do, the sea levels have been rising since the last ice age, the one polar cap melts each and every year, while parts of the antarctic gain cover while other parts lose it, the global average temperature has been both hotter and colder than it is now....climate varies, and always will, with or without man.

Re:No one sees... (2)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#39901975)

But on the other hand it does not matter at all anyway. Why? Because we humans are still breeding like rabbits, and our impact on the climate is 100% linked to our population. Everything else is irrelevant. If there was only 1000 people in the world, those 1000 people could pollute as much as they wanted without ever impacting the ecosystem or the climate. With today's 8 billion and climbing, everyone is being "blamed" and told to be more frugal and more cautious. When we hit 16 billion in under 40 years, it won't matter how "careful" each individual is - damage will be done regardless. And when we hit 32 billion 80 years from now, who knows if the Earth will still be able to sustain our numbers.

But it's much easier to stick your head in the sand and bicker, blame this country or that, this lifestyle or that, and ignore the real problem.

Re:No one sees... (0, Troll)

IGnatius T Foobar (4328) | more than 2 years ago | (#39902129)

Exactly. Climate "science" (or what we hear about it in the news, anyway) isn't science at all; it's politics masquerading as science. And I have to say it's really a turn off when Slashdot suspends its "news for nerds" theme to take a hard line on a political issue.

Uh oh.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39901679)

Now if you get less than 40 mpg they can throw in gitmo....

AGW ? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39901685)

1:CO2 induces the greenhouse effect, TEST THIS YOURSELF.

greenhouse effect:

youtube links showing HOW to do an experiment showing CO2 induces the greenhouse effect

2:Humans emit a LOT of CO2 (oil or coal + O2 + ... = energy + CO2 + soot + ...

1+2 = default position is AGW, you need to provide proof of NOT-AGW

any holes here ?

Re:AGW ? (3, Insightful)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 2 years ago | (#39901753)

The greenhouse effect creates conditions that will increase plant growth. This removes more CO2. You can TEST THIS YOURSELF. []

Now go ahead and slaughter me for not posting this AC. I can spare the karma for people who disagree. Feel free to ignore that the science is really split on how the global feedback mechanism actually works. Feel free to ignore that the oceans have not risen and buried Houston, like they said they would for years...

Re:AGW ? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39901849)

...the oceans have not risen and buried Houston...

Yeah, that's too bad...

Re:AGW ? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39902081)

Only in some conditions for some plants see
Higher temperatures above a certain point decrease efficiency, to differing levels for different plants, and can lead to death or decreased yields. This could well render California's wine industry economically unsustainable with only a few degrees change see

It is true that to sea level rises will be minor, more a problem for a few cities on coastal swampland and some protected habitats but this is not the damage that real scientists have been most worried about, at least for America. If you got your idea on climate scientists opinions from newspapers understand that the often twist the subject to use fear to sell the paper and are often too scientifically illiterate to know when they crossed the line form exaggerating into lies. This is a problem they also have with everything form climate yes and diet advice eg super foods and medicine eg cancer drugs and even computer science (have you read a computer security article in a normal newspaper recently?).

The real problems are smaller but still important like the desertification that is currently happening in places like Texas, Global warming increases average rainfall but also makes it more "patchy" and increases evaporation. Also how do you like hurricanes? Because increased surface temperature and sea level moisture directly drive stronger storms in the American "hurricane ally" How a bout a bit of malaria or Lyme disease ect, as increase temperatures will drive the movement of biting insects. Note that none of these are a global doom scenario but go tell a Texan farmer the drought was not important, even if they do not believe in global warming reality is not a matter of opinion and the pain it has caused them is very real.

Warning, your videos have been rigged (3, Informative)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 2 years ago | (#39901765)

There are all kinds of problems with the videos you presented. See here for a very clear step by step instructions and video showing what your videos are claiming to show, have results that have been fabricated:

Real CO2 in a bottle experiment []

The problem is you and so many others not actually understanding the effects that CO2 really has, and only believing in a simplistic view of warming promoted by your cult leaders.

No. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39902007)

The video you posted critiques only Al Gore's "experiement" and saying those results and those alone are bogus. Of course that assumes that the person who published that wesite is in fact telling the truth himself.

If you're going to be a skeptic, at least be consistanlty skeptical.

....only believing in a simplistic view of warming promoted by your cult leaders.

*dripping with condescending sarcasm* Yeah, you don't have an egenda either. It's good of you to be so objective.

Re:Warning, your videos have been rigged (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39902025)

the biggest cult is You guys believe every fucking word he says. This guy is GOD. At least climate scientists, real climate scientists not weathermen, question data and results. They experiment and retry. Then readjust to fit the results. Your guy just says fuck you I know everything. And you believe him. Every word. Every single word he says you believe. Why don't you go suck his dick some more?

Re:Warning, your videos have been rigged (1)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#39902119)

So your position is that you can model the global climate with a high school science project more accurately than can all the climatologists in the world. Perhaps while you're at it you'd like to use the water-in-pipes model for electricity to disprove quantum mechanics?

Re:Warning, your videos have been rigged (5, Informative)

ideonexus (1257332) | more than 2 years ago | (#39902189)

Here's Bill Nye's response [] to WattsUp's experiment, explaining why they failed to reproduce results that have been successfully reproduced over and over and over again [] by other scientists, organizations, and amateurs.

What's sad is that the AGW skeptics give so much link-love to this bungled demonstration, that the other experiments get pushed down in the google results. AGW Skeptics are a lot like evolution-deniers in this regard, who also push anti-evolution nonsense to the top of all google results. It must be nice to have so much free time to promote this propaganda, while real science is so careful, nuanced, and time-consuming it gets lost in the politics.

Re:AGW ? (2)

jklovanc (1603149) | more than 2 years ago | (#39902259)

There is also a simple issue with the experiment; the amount of CO2 in the bottles. In 2009 the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was 0.0387%. That is 387 parts per million. By allowing the CO2 from the generator to freely flow into the bottle and the fact that CO2 is heavier than air it will displace the regular atmosphere out the top of the open bottle. In effect one will have nearly 100% CO2 in the bottle, lets say 90% to account for some mixing. Between 1960 and 2010 atmospheric CO2 at Muana Loa [] has increased from 315 ppm to 385 ppm. That is a 20% increase. To go from .0387% to 90% is a 232000% increase. It all comes down to a statement at the 9 second mark in the video [] ; "The problems occur when we have too much carbon dioxide". Obviously a 23200% increase in the concentration of CO2 is too much but where is the line between enough and too much? This experiment does not show that. Comparing the actions of a mostly nitrogen atmosphere to a mostly carbon dioxide atmosphere is no where near what is happening on earth.

Then he's a terrorist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39901689)

Considering all those unnecessary flights home he took and charged to the US taxpayer

plane (2)

kqc7011 (525426) | more than 2 years ago | (#39901719)

Was this said on one of his weekly trips from D.C. back to California in a VC plane?

Re:plane (2)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#39901801)

Declare US a no-fly zone.

Re:plane (2)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 2 years ago | (#39901841)

The TSA is working on that...

Anyone else wondering... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39901727)

... why the Secdef was addressing an environmental group? Wouldn't it have been more appropriate to send an EPA bureaucrat?

This is not new (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39901729)

He's saying what's been said many times before, e.g. this from 2009 about the Pentagons simulations:

"Such climate-induced crises could topple governments, feed terrorist movements or destabilize entire regions, say the analysts, experts at the Pentagon and intelligence agencies who for the first time are taking a serious look at the national security implications of climate change."

"The National Intelligence Council, which produces government-wide intelligence analyses, finished the first assessment of the national security implications of climate change just last year. "

Re:This is not new (2)

Shavano (2541114) | more than 2 years ago | (#39902059)

Toppling governments and feeding terrorist movements and destabilizing entire regions. What's the big deal. That's all in a day's work at the Pentagon.

Just like... (0)

HotNeedleOfInquiry (598897) | more than 2 years ago | (#39901735)

TSA is keeping us safer. Lips moving.

The American Way (1)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#39901747)

Even if it's for the right cause, I can't help but find it weird that dealing with climate change in the US starts by the military declaring it a terrorist.

Re:The American Way (2)

couchslug (175151) | more than 2 years ago | (#39901769)

Everything is terrorism!

Think of the children!

Re:The American Way (3, Interesting)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 2 years ago | (#39901899)

And yet, they did not. They have said for the last 8 years that AGW is a threat to global security and ultimately to the West. The scenarios painted over and over show that China runs out of water which is why they are building dams higher up on the rivers. They plan to take the water from India and bangladash. In the mean time, China is helping Pakistan and Burma knowing that they could tie up India and Bangladash with nukes pointed at them.

Then you have central and southern America which are heavily populated and they will likely have issues with water as well. With the overpopulation that exists there now, ppl will leave to go to Argentina, or northern America. Northern Africa will have massive wars as it dries up further.

Re:The American Way (1)

ghostdoc (1235612) | more than 2 years ago | (#39902045)

and yet no-one is even attempting to deal with the cause of all of these problems: human overpopulation.

(Well, except China and their famous one-child policy of course)

Reducing the environmental impact of people is kinda pointless if you keep adding more people. In fact, it just worsens the problems because when you finally have to deal with the population problem you've got a larger population to deal with.

Re:The American Way (1)

mmcxii (1707574) | more than 2 years ago | (#39902179)

Oh? And what is "the right cause"?

Possibility of GW known since the 1970s/SCEP (2, Informative)

dryriver (1010635) | more than 2 years ago | (#39901751)

From Wikipedia: [] >>> The 1970 "Study of Critical Environmental Problems"[18] reported the possibility of warming from increased carbon dioxide, but no concerns about cooling, setting a lower bound on the beginning of interest in "global cooling". ------- So Global Warming is a phenomenon that the science community was aware of, as a theoretical possibility, as far back as 1970 (that's 42 years ago). ------ But it took several decades for prominent figures like Al Gore to go around popularizing the knowledge. ------ I'm glad Panetta has awoken to the danger. But you gotta admit that it took him and others a while to get to behind the conclusion that there is such a thing as "man-made climate change". ------ Some oil-producing countries like Saudi Arabia still bury their head in the ground about this and go around arguing that "There is no such thing as man-made global warming. Its nothing more than bad science." ---- All that's left to hope is that more people become educated about global warming, and join in the effort to do something about it.

Re:Possibility of GW known since the 1970s/SCEP (2, Informative)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 2 years ago | (#39901811)

I live in Houston. We are essentially at sea level, and close to Galveston which is on a barrier island. I have been hearing that Global warming will cause the seas to rise for 30 years. And yet the concrete piers in the gulf are still at the same level as they were 30 years ago. Real proofs like that make me sceptical of the doom and gloom predictions tossed around all the time.

Re:Possibility of GW known since the 1970s/SCEP (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39901859)

And that is human nature, and precisely why nothing ever gets done before it's too fucking late to make any difference whatsoever.

Re:Possibility of GW known since the 1970s/SCEP (3, Interesting)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 2 years ago | (#39901881)

It is observation of effects. Another term for it is science... They have proposed the same hypothesis for 30 years, and it keeps not being right. The temperature has risen a degree or two, and the seas have not.

Re:Possibility of GW known since the 1970s/SCEP (2)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 2 years ago | (#39901983)

The temperature has risen a degree or two, and the seas have not.

Here ya' go. []

Now is an inch going to inundate Houston? No. But it's entirely possible for the effect to lag the cause.

If the current trend of an inch each hundred years keeps up, I'm pretty confident in humanity's ability to cope :)

Talk about human nature! Gullibility. (2, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 2 years ago | (#39901909)

And that is human nature, and precisely why nothing ever gets done before it's too fucking late to make any difference whatsoever.

And THAT is human nature. The ability to believe dire warnings that benefit someone else without any proof whatsoever.

Man in inherently gullible, as you so aptly demonstrate. Those few simply asking for some small bit of proof are so often shouted down by the panicky mob insisting something "must be done" "for the children".

On the other hand the willing suspension of disbelief that is part of human nature makes it easier to enjoy movies so we have that going for us.

Re:Talk about human nature! Gullibility. (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 2 years ago | (#39901949)

Nicely said!

I just get a kick out of the people that want to "Save the Planet" by making reasoned argument "Troll" but may have a device or two on this list... []

Re:Talk about human nature! Gullibility. (1)

DogDude (805747) | more than 2 years ago | (#39901993)

The ability to believe dire warnings that benefit someone else without any proof whatsoever.

Right. In this case, it's the fossil fuel industries that have the most to lose. The oil/natural gas companies are the largest, wealthiest, most powerful legal entities on the planet. []

Re:Possibility of GW known since the 1970s/SCEP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39901965)

You (like me) live in Texas. Your opinion is not wanted here, and your anecdotal comments are modded down as trolling because they do not support the moonbats' agenda and that of Glorious Dear Leader Obongo I.

Re:Possibility of GW known since the 1970s/SCEP (3, Insightful)

hey! (33014) | more than 2 years ago | (#39902281)

The average sea level rise in the last few decades has been about 3mm/year. So the sea level rise in the last thirty years has been about 3 inches since 1980. Your situation may vary due to geology. In Alaska sea levels are falling due to uplift of the land.

Take out a 3mm allen key and ask yourself, would you be able to eyeball that much change from year to year, given that the diurnal tides at Galveston are over two feet, and vary by several inches depending on weather and the moon. That's not counting the effect of wind and waves, which have to be averaged out.

You *can't* eyeball this magnitude of change without special instruments, even if it happened overnight, and you'd still need a long sequence of measurements to know what you are looking at. The practical effects of recent sea level rise are statistical, rather than directly observable.

Re:Possibility of GW known since the 1970s/SCEP (4, Interesting)

hey! (33014) | more than 2 years ago | (#39902143)

Actually it goes further back than that. In the 1950s climate scientists, reasoning by extrapolation, expected the next climate swing would be toward cooling. If you do a Google Scholar search you'll find papers starting around 1956 suggesting (tentatively) that anthropogenic CO2 generation would drive climate the other way, toward warming. Scientific consensus shifted over the next two decades toward a warming trend.

My wife was a physical oceanography grad student at the Woods Hole Oceanographic in the early 80s. I distinctly recall her telling me about a symposium in which CO2-driven AGW was discussed. It wasn't controversial -- nobody outside of geophysics and climate research had heard of it. Nor was the position that global warming wasn't happening controversial, although it was increasingly a minority opinion. Over the next two decades I watched the back and forth as evidence for warming per se was challenged, then vindicated in the pages of the journals she read and in geek publications like Science News. It wasn't until about a decade or so ago that the term "global warming" started taking off in the popular press.

Then there was Al Gore's *An Inconvenient Truth*, which was a blow against actual science having any influence in the public debate on pollution. It's not that the movie was scientifically inaccurate on the whole, although it was stated in much more positive terms than scientists are comfortable using. It's that a lot of people had been taught to hate this man, and for those people scientists and science as a whole was tarred with the brush of partisan distrust as well.

EDF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39901803)

Why the hell is the Secretary of the Department of Defense of the United States of America talking to a group of terrorists?

Re:EDF? (0)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 2 years ago | (#39901951)

the elite with our government in their pockets has found ways to profit from cap & trade, carbon credits, AGW. therefore, their minions will push the agenda. take their tool Al Gore, for instance.....

Hey at least it's a real threat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39901819)

Unlike this "terrorist" nonsense we've been enjoying freedom gropes for years about just so Red State defense contractors can get their pork.

Re:Hey at least it's a real threat (2)

J'raxis (248192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39901893)

Of course the outcome will be the same. Plenty of new justifications for eliminating freedoms, just different ones and different excuses (e.g., stealing more of your property by taxing you for your "carbon footprint"). And it'll be a bunch of Blue State contractors cleaning up on this (e.g., "green energy" producers).

Waiting for the hypocrisy to start (3, Insightful)

J'raxis (248192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39901833)

When anyone who isn't a climate change "expert" voices skepticism on climate change, all the believers pile on, outraged, about how the person isn't qualified to be making such statements, how they're abusing their position/authority to sound like they know what they're talking about, &c.. (Remember Bjorn Lomburg?) So I'm sure we'll see the global-warmers express similar outrage about this, right?

And... "national security threat"? This is the same government agency that thinks that bearded malcontents hiding out in desert caves is a "national security threat." This is the same agency that spent decades fighting the "national security threat" posed by tiny little countries like Vietnam and Cuba going communist. I seem to remember an awful lot of progressives dismissing the lunacy of the War on Terror and the Cold War. So I'm sure they'll dismiss and mock this latest attempt by the U.S. military to imagine or invent new threats, right?


Re:Waiting for the hypocrisy to start (1)

J'raxis (248192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39901953)

Didn't take long for that to get modded down. Cognitive dissonance too much for you? :)

Oh, and the U.S. Military is the biggest user of fossil fuels [] in the nation, and the biggest polluter [] too. Maybe if this bureaucrat thinks climate change is such a big threat he can start by not wasting 395,000 barrels of oil per day on the useless wars he's prosecuting in the name of "national security."

Re:Waiting for the hypocrisy to start (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39902145)

In fairness, the outrage isn't that the "non-initiated" talk about climate change, its that people lacking even a layman's knowledge of the field ignore or dispute settled science because it is inconvenient for other ideologies they hold. Panetta has taken scientific consensus and made a policy statement using it. That is appropriate. Men like Sean Hannity take the conservative consensus that AGW would be bad for conservative ideology more broadly, mix it with irrelevant everyman logic, and push "denialism" masquerading as science to the public.

The "debate" we are having isn't about science. In a less relevant field, on a less relevant topic, a similar weight of evidence as has been presented for AWG would be sufficient to end most debate on a topic until major new research put it in doubt. The difference here is the science has presented a problem that endangers popular conservative ideas about the free market and the evil of government. So legitimate scientific concerns were spun into an illuminati plot to form a world government and brainwash children into becoming miniature Stalins, and the "debate" became a political poo flinging contest. The sad part is unlike something like the "debate" on evolution, where that strategy just makes the next generation stupid, this could kill people.

Re:Waiting for the hypocrisy to start (2)

Stray7Xi (698337) | more than 2 years ago | (#39902279)

Scientists do research, policy makers act on it. Is your argument that policymakers should completely ignore science? Panetta is not a scientist, and it appears he's not talking on science but the policy that stems from it.

This is pure political games that Panetta doing giving speeches to environmental groups. But he's also right, it's his job to consider possible threats. DoD plans for things that aren't a certainty all the time. What if China invades Taiwan? What if strait of Hormuz gets blockaded? and a thousand more things that are far less likely then climate change. The pentagon is massive and basically all it does planning for different contigencies.

National Security Theater Company (2)

sir-gold (949031) | more than 2 years ago | (#39901847)

In the U.S., EVERYTHING is a threat to national security, it is much easier to get military funding when your enemy is the bogeyman.

Re:National Security Theater Company (1)

J'raxis (248192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39901985)

How do you get a conservative to jump on the environmentalism bandwagon? Call climate change a "national security threat."

How do you get a progressive to start lavishing praise on the U.S. Military? Get the military to tackle "climate change."

It's a win-win for the political establishment.

So easy for all of us to solve this, and yet, .... (3, Interesting)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 2 years ago | (#39901861)

it will not happen. The reason is that many nations like China will take advantage of this to build up their own economy and hope that other nations do the heavy lifting. Worse, EU and liberals here fall for the trap of emissions PER CAPITA. It is the WORST IDEA EVER. China has not had a changing population, yet, their emissions went up nearly 10 fold over something like a 20 year period. It is about ECONOMIC OUTPUT and how you cheat at it. And yes, China CHEATS HEAVILY. So do many nations.

If we want this solved, America is the solution. We are the largest importers. At this time, we should put a tax on ALL GOODS, both local and imported, based on the CO2 (and later add other pollutants) that is emitted from an area. The CO2 should be measured by satellite and it should be a case of (co2 out - co2 in).
The important part is that the tax is then based as a % of CO2 PER GDP (unleveled) or a combination of CO2/GDP and CO2/land size (deals with farming which can add a lot of CO2).

If America was to do this, it would impact the world over. Basically, nations that have been working on lowering their emissions will have lower taxes. Those like China which continue to cheat, would have top taxes applied to them.

Ideally, ALL nations that care should do this. They will encourage all other nations to move quickly towards dropping their emissions.
Since the economy is fragile, the maximum tax should start low and build yearly. That gives nations time to adjust.

Re:So easy for all of us to solve this, and yet, . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39902063)

Most retarded "solution" I've ever heard of and I'm not even American... What you propose is Americans should pay significantly more for stuff that's really cheap because somebody tells you "CO2 is bad mmkay"? What exactly would that accomplish besides lowering your standard of living and state having more money to burn by their representatives for hookers and blackjack. And why would other countries follow suit is beyond me...

Logic, you fail at it.

Climate change/Global warming/Global freezing (whatever you want to call it) is a cash grabbing hoax and nothing more. This planet has been changing weather much more violently in the past and for that we actually have evidence, we don't have clear evidence people are responsible for whats happening now, neither that these changes are actually bad for the planet (CO2 happens to favor plants so its not like "its killing the planet ZOMG!!!!").

I'm not saying we shouldn't care about the environment, we all should be conscious about whats actually good and try to live with that in mind but giving somebody money to solve a problem you "believe in" is naive at best and religious at worse.

Re:So easy for all of us to solve this, and yet, . (1)

DogDude (805747) | more than 2 years ago | (#39902065)

You're 100% right.

Unfortunately, most of the US looks like something out of the movie Idiocracy, now. People want to buy shit cheap. That's really all they care about.

Re:So easy for all of us to solve this, and yet, . (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 2 years ago | (#39902077)

It would probably be workable if you also applied it to native products. To make exports competitive, you could give them back a credit for any exports (let the other countries enact similar taxes for their imports).

Of course, this is just another way of implementing something like Kyoto, but without all that pesky international co-operation :)

Re:So easy for all of us to solve this, and yet, . (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39902085)

Way to frame the world's politics into your own myopic worldviews, you redneck yankee merkin, you. Shit, if we frame everything into american politics, everybody else in the world is a leftist extremist. That why you keep starting wars on bloody everything? Now you have a lucrative, long-term business opportunity and you're still complaining.

So what if the USA ends up doing the heavy lifting on this one? You're still using way more than your fair share of resources like, oh, energy, and have for quite a while. Go on, learn how to do with less. Then sell the technology —of course you'll involve technology somehow, you're American— and get even richer. You should like free market enterprise, no? Or are you some sort of commie hippie or something?

Re:So easy for all of us to solve this, and yet, . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39902171)

If you tax the consumer equally, that is domestic and imported goods have the same rate of tax per CO2, then you aren't actually impacting the producer just the domestic consumer. This will the drive domestic producer to sell or produce outside the domestic market to compensate for reduced demand/increased costs at market. You are only impacting the domestic buyer with a tax scheme like that. The domestic buyers then have an incentive to purchase the goods through a black market to lower the price, or to purchase abroad without the CO2 tax. You'll start to get the effect of inflation without prices increasing from the producer.

Schemes like this don't work. you either have to outlaw the uses of certain fuels, or require greater regulation at the production point which will directly raise costs too, but doesn't create the situation with taxes where the raised revenue does not go to reducing CO2, with taxes it just goes straight into the general fund and in essence gets wasted. Taxes are a terrible idea for lowering emissions, if you want to lower emissions you require it at the source.

I'd love to see some actual proof (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39901879)

... not the manufactured data they were caught trying to pass off as fact before copenhagen.

I'm suspicious that what's really going on is the creation of a new industrial complex, much like 'cybersecurity' is creating a security industrial compex - for no other reason beyond robbing the people for the enrichment of the 1%.

Re:I'd love to see some actual proof (1)

J'raxis (248192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39902187)

Arguing over the factuality of climate change misses the most important point, though: It bypasses the whole moral/ethical question of whether or not the government should be regulating people's lives and livelihoods to this extent to begin with. You've already accepted the progressives' idea of utilitarianism ("the State should do whatever is good and ban whatever is bad") and technocracy ("political decisions made by experts"), and rejected the principles of liberalism and freedom that our society is supposed to be based upon.

panetta is (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39901905)

a Gore-sucker

On the surface it sounds like a budgetary decision (1)

bjdevil66 (583941) | more than 2 years ago | (#39901937)

If it's a "national security threat", that means more government money needs to be spent on it... Maybe they'll even declare the entire country a "disaster zone" at some point?

Overstated (1)

Shavano (2541114) | more than 2 years ago | (#39902021)

Yes, there is an effect or at least a potential effect on national security, just like climate change has potential impacts on everything from where and how people live to agriculture to industry. In fact, the effects in all those areas will be more important and deeper than the effects on defense.

But to say it has a dramatic impact is just bullshit. Its effects will be gradual and we will see them as they happen and they will be slow enough for us to adjust gradually to the changing situation.

Meanwhile, there are other things that will dramatically affect defense: the emergence of China as a dominant international economic and military power, economic changes in Africa, population expansion, the proliferation of weapons technology, the potential to attack countries by sabotaging and surveilling their communications, control of shipping routes, new ideologies and religions, the fact that we can't afford to spend money on defense like we used to...

CO2 emission =terrorism (2)

tmosley (996283) | more than 2 years ago | (#39902247)

Any person found to be emitting any amount of CO2 will be detained for permanent questioning under the Patriotic Clean Air and Water Anti-terrorism Act. Only government officials are allowed to emit CO2.

Arm the nukes (1)

zammer990 (2225956) | more than 2 years ago | (#39902273)

nuke the iceburgs...

Didn't the Pentagon and War College do this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39902275)

If memory serves, climate change has been on the Pentagon's and US Army War College's radar for some time. I'd imagine the Navy ( one of the largest oceanographic researchers in the world ) is already planning for it.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?