Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am curious as to the others on the panel also, plenty of qualified people. If the National Institute of Health came out with a report indicating a cause of cancer why would you select a panel to verify their results.
You wouldn't, and I am not sure that is the mandate of this panel either. They are supposed to be looking into the question of how climate change will impact national security, so there is an implicit assumption that climate change is operative. But a denier can derail the discussion by pooh-poohing things like how sea level rise will necessitate that the US navy relocate harbors and such.
I tend to think the military takes climate change seriously, at least all their statements have indicated that they believe it to be real.
It anyone really wants to know whether climate change is real, ask insurance companies. They can lose trillions of dollars if they guess wrong, so they tend to think along purely rational lines, not political, and according to the WSJ, they are taking it seriously. The military is similar.
Is that why you want politicians and bureaucrats to come up with the edicts, laws,rules, regs and taxes that will be used against us in attempts to control the temperature?
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,400,252 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tall Traveler
Oh no...diversity of thought....must have one mind thought control.
About time we had a real discussion on the effect on climate by human activity, whether that effect is positive or negative, and what if anything can be done to optimize the climate...we are under a long term Snowmadden and more than 1 month deep freeze where I live so I'm personally hoping for accelerated Global Warming or at least local warming.
I realize this may be too factual but the tiny spot on the earth where you live does not represent the entire globe and the predictors of global warming have also predicted more frequent weather extremes, both hot and cold.
‘High above Earth’s surface, near the edge of space, our atmosphere is losing heat energy. If current trends continue, it could soon set a Space Age record for cold.’
So everyone on the panel should have the same views?
Depends on what their mandate is. If they are being asked to say whether climate change is real, then yes, all views need to be represented. They can then vote on it. But the latter has already happened in the science-sphere so no need to repeat that step.
If their mandate is to figure out what security implications are, then there is an assumption climate change it real and no other viewpoints are needed. I believe this is their mandate.
One security risk to the US from climate change is it is assumed mass migrations will occur from mid latitudes to northern latitudes. We may well need a wall as a result. So climate deniers, the ironic thing is if you accept climate change, it is a perfect rationale to build a wall.
Last edited by TwoByFour; 02-21-2019 at 10:50 AM..
‘High above Earth’s surface, near the edge of space, our atmosphere is losing heat energy. If current trends continue, it could soon set a Space Age record for cold.’
Correct. As more CO2 holds more heat in, there's less heat transferred to the upper atmosphere, so it becomes cooler up there.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.