RE: Pentagon/CIA prepare for climate change

RE: Pentagon/CIA prepare for climate change (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

TheHeretic -> RE: Pentagon/CIA prepare for climate change (12/14/2009 9:56:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda Just exactly who are these "greedy whores" who are scheming to make billions of dollars off the climate change fraud, and exactly how are they planning to accomplish this? Just what, exactly, is the point of this supposed conspiracy? Can someone please explain it to me, because I've never understood this. First off, Muse, you pay far too much attention, I think, to the little "in reply to" portion. Deep breath, move on. Let's start simple, Panda. Al Gore is a greedy whore. The guys who are rounding up investors to build enormous photo-voltaic plants in the desert where I live without ever mentioning to the investors that the efficiency of their technology starts dropping like a rock when the temperature goes over 77 (ish) degrees farenheit are greedy whores (it goes over 77 degrees a lot here, especially when the power is most needed for the megalopolis down below). The scientists at East Anglia who conspired to make the Medieval Warm Period disappear from their declarations that the earth has never been this warm are greedy whores too. Maybe not for money so much as others, but for prestige and power. Does that clarify my statement for you a little?

rulemylife -> RE: Pentagon/CIA prepare for climate change (12/14/2009 10:30:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydawg "But the new attention to climate concerns among U.S. security officials does not mean the Pentagon and the CIA have taken sides in the debate over the validity of data on global warming. As with nuclear terrorism, deadly pandemics or biological warfare, it only means they want to be prepared. "I always look at the worst case," says one senior intelligence official who follows climate issues. "Whether it's global warming or the chance of Country A invading Country B, I just assume the most likely outcome is the worst one."" 4th paragraph of the article cited in the OP. An actual quote which contradicts the one sentance opening paragraph. It must be nice to be able to do selective reading that only highlights one sentence out of context to support your views. Also from the link: The reference to climate change follows the establishment in October of a new Center for the Study of Climate Change at the Central Intelligence Agency. ......"The American people expect the military to plan for the worst," says retired Vice Adm. Lee Gunn, a 35-year Navy veteran now serving as president of the American Security Project. "It's that sort of mindset, I think, that has convinced, in my view, the vast majority of military leaders that climate change is a real threat and that the military plays an important role in confronting it." ......"The [IPCC] projections lead us to believe that severe weather events will increase in intensity in the future, perhaps in frequency as well," says Amanda Dory, the deputy assistant secretary of defense overseeing the review process. "This is a mission area where the Department [of Defense] already responds on a regular basis in support of civil authorities, whether for floods, wildfires [or] hurricanes. We believe there's a possibility those types of requests will increase in the future." You remember the IPCC, you know those folks that are spreading the hoax of global warming? Yet somehow the Pentagon and the CIA are putting some credence into those reports.

luckydawg -> RE: Pentagon/CIA prepare for climate change (12/15/2009 12:43:37 AM)
First climate change, and Anthropogenic Climate change are not the same thing. That it has been getting warmer for over 10,000 years, is very obvious and no one denies it. Except for some people who think it would not be getting warmer, if it wasn't for Industry and capitalism. They (the military) believe there is a possibility, and they plan for the worst. And the chairman of the ASP is Gary Hart, a Democratic politician, and John Kerry serves on the board of directors. Its a left leaning group. And the group run by Democrats(with a couple of token Republicans), feels that in their view, the Millitary agrees with them...wow stop the presses. That proves a whole lot. Amanda Dory who works at Obama's pleasure, also agrees with the Democrats...wow big surprise....

Musicmystery -> RE: Pentagon/CIA prepare for climate change (12/15/2009 8:24:20 AM)
quote: First off, Muse, you pay far too much attention, I think, to the little "in reply to" portion. Deep breath, move on. Rich, I pay attention to details. After all, haven't you, along with others, taken people to task about missing them? I don't need a deep breath. Panda asked a question, you had made the claim, yours to answer. What's the problem? Your answer is kinda wishy-washy. This has been in place long, long before Al Gore and desert solar electric plants. Nor do I see the connection to global warming in that example. I also think there's a place for such things. We certainly need additional power plants, and people do have great innovative ideas that deserve support. One of my favorite is the desert plant built not with rows and rows of solar panels--but with much, much cheaper mirrors, which in turn use sunlight to boil water and turn turbines. Old fashioned, inexpensive, and effective. Or wave energy. Or wind power, which despite what I've heard others say, at least here works well with virtually no impact on the environment, along with contributing cash to the farmers on whose farms they sit. Nor is it realistic to cite "greedy whores" on only one side. The "hell no there's no impact" side has more than its share of self-serving industry. The entire economy does. Welcome to the world. And this wasn't supposed to be yet another fucking thread about this side vs. that side. Do we pollute a lot? Yes. Is it harmful? Yes. Are greenhouse gases potentially dangerous? Yes. Does cyclical climate change happen naturally? Yes. Are there people manipulating data? Yes--on both sides. Does that mean all data/studies are invalid? Of course not. Where are the calls for re-examining other studies? Nowhere--just the rush to say SEE???!!!!!! Come on. Plenty of threads for that. I posted this because I found the shear scope of the preparations interesting, starting with the Himalayas. There are follow up stories too, like the severely fragile security situation in Columbia. Interesting stuff. But there's no point in posting it if folks are just going to keep marching around the same treadmill, shouting the same tired slogans. Don't you guys get tired of this? Looking at a few details would be far more interesting, and get us all far further. And that's in reply to not just you.

luckydawg -> RE: Pentagon/CIA prepare for climate change (12/15/2009 10:20:01 AM)
MM, your post would have some credibility, if you had taken that attitude, after Pen made post 2. Maybe if everytime a lefty pointed out a link between a researcher and industry, you jumped in demanding an acknowledgement that there are motivations for those who advocate AGW, it might have some credibility. You posted a biased article (the opening line is directly contradicted by the facts in the article) with no comment, and are upset at the direction the thread took. wahhh!

Musicmystery -> RE: Pentagon/CIA prepare for climate change (12/15/2009 10:37:26 AM)
What is it with you guys and emotions? Difficult childhood? Two points-- 1) If I babysat every answer to every post, CM would be a full time job. Nonsense. You guys can read. You guys can post. You need me to be able to carry on a conversation about a wide scope of preparations? Get real. 2) I'm not doing the crying here. I'm pointing out, frankly, the obvious. I don't jump on the lefties any more or less than the righties. I think you're both abandoning sense in favor of schoolyard taunts. I listed the reason for the posted article in the OP. Pure and simple. The preparations are there, whatever the perceptions about the writing. And that's where I hung my hat. The jumps in logic and position happened from there, entirely without my help or participation. Want to talk about bias? If someone else had posted this, your response would be different. What you HAVE done is what you typically do--throw in a red herring, in this case, circumstantial ad homenim. Otherwise, as you just said, you'd be fine with the actual points. Dude, it's the very definition of bias. And you turn the discussion again from what the actual evidence might show or not to righty vs. lefty hard line distortion. Again--don't you guys get tired of it? Yes, both left and right? Aren't there already a gazillion threads saying the same thing, over and over, with nothing but attitude to support these either/or positions? But instead, you go after the poster, ignoring the posted points. That's why I don't take you seriously. Ever. You've nothing to say. And yes, that applies equally to a few consistently extreme lefty posters.

pahunkboy -> RE: Pentagon/CIA prepare for climate change (12/15/2009 2:33:46 PM)
FR- no one is stopping people from cleaning up highways- sending in extra tax money and so on.

TheHeretic -> RE: Pentagon/CIA prepare for climate change (12/15/2009 6:01:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery One of my favorite is the desert plant built not with rows and rows of solar panels--but with much, much cheaper mirrors, which in turn use sunlight to boil water and turn turbines. Old fashioned, inexpensive, and effective. Is this the one you mean, Muse, http://www.esolar.com/our_solution/ ? I drive past the demonstration facility every day. It did look like a promising new approach to begin with, and launched with a certain fanfare. Since then, not so much. The screening on the perimeter fence is ripping away from our winds, and motorists are blinded by glare as they pass. Only one of the two towers is operational, and there just doesn't seem to be any progress on the second. I've also heard that the engineers thought that since the mirrors passed a hail test, blowing dust and sand wouldn't be an issue... We'll see how it turns out, I suppose. I really don't care about your intention in starting the thread. It went where it went, and I quoted what I was replying to when I joined the conversation. I'm going to stick by my deep breathe advice. You seem to get a bit hot under the collar (traditional meaning on the figure of speech) with other posters, including myself, without much provocation. Are you going to take the position that the legitimate concerns of the environment and our impact on it have not been co-opted to serve a political agenda that doesn't have one damn thing to do with the climate?

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125