That bastion of alarmist tree-hugging liberals known as The Pentagon says:

“Global climate change will have wide-ranging implications for U.S. national security interests over the foreseeable future because it will aggravate existing problems — such as poverty, social tensions, environmental degradation, ineffectual leadership, and weak political institutions — that threaten domestic stability in a number of countries.”

So your poverty eradication wishcasting seems to be under direct threat.

Obama's Pentagon would say that. *eyeroll*

I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but government institutions like to justify reasons for expanded funding. Which is not to say that warnings like that should not be considered carefully, but instead be put in the proper context.

Poverty is going to be eradicated far faster than the slow-moving effects of climate change.

Any progress on this suzzer?

Surely you aren't just making up random stuff again.

Still no response. Standard.

well, you may not be aware of this, but the military has no problems getting funding in this country. they don't need to jump on the climate change bandwagon for funding.

May want to read the news once in awhile. Military spending has been decreasing the past few years, as too has the number of active duty military. Not that any of that has anything to do with climate change, but your point here that they don't need to justify their budgets is completely wrong.

Just start with a simple question, is it in their self-interest to say that the world will become politically volatile due to climate change? Obviously yes. A potentially violent world needs a strong military.

This does not mean that one should be dismissive of their predictions, merely leery of their bias, which may result in exaggerated threats.

I still don't get how poverty reduction relates to global warming. Are the newly less poors going to come up with the idea to stop it or something?

You should go Google about the flooding in Britain to find out about how this is a problem. We spent millions on flood defences for a normal decade then got a once on 25 years storm event like two years later. We are like the masters of getting rained on and we can't effectively defend against it. Most of the planet will be ****ed unless they spend an absolute fortune on defences, which won't protect areas not protected where food is grown and people still live. You think this is easy, go as New Orleans how effective flood defences are.

BTW a one inch rise on average every decade is huge. Go research what an average is. Hint, it isn't an inch more all the time.

The former poors buy yachts and sail around the ocean where their island nations used to be.

read some more news, like where congress is forcing them to take and spend money that they don't want to.

that statement from the pentagon doesn't mean what you want it to mean. it is an assessment of future potential threats. which is kinda one of the things that is their job.

c'mon. this is usa#1. if our military wants money, they'll get money, they'd have no reason to use climate change scare tactics.

especially since the party that would happily hand our entire gdp over to the military are climate change deniers. it would make no sense for the military to jump on the bandwagon for financial reasons. that dog don't hunt.

If the oceans were going to rise 6 inches next year, a very significant percentage of the world would be ill equipped to deal with it. There would be complete pandemonium, obv.

But given that that rise in sea levels is likely to continue at a rate of a little over 1 inch every 10 years, nations that right now could not deal with it will be far better off over time as their countries industrialize and become wealthier.

Human wealth is increasing far faster than the progression of the potential dangers of climate change.

building "flood defenses for the cities" against rising ocean levels is about a billion billion billion times less rational than building a mexican wall. breaking news: the ocean will win.

besides the tiny little fact that there's a ****load more to the coasts than the cities.

and obviously more thought needs to be put into that if someone thinks it would be "not technologically challenging or expensive".

oh well, **** it, i'll be dead by then anyway, right?

The examples you cite are weather not climate. Our food supplies are not in jeopardy by sea level rise (or by anything for that matter).

On your second point, the only time there is even slight fluctuation is during large ENSO events (like this year's El Nino).



Sea level rise has been slow and predictable, and a significant portion of it is likely to be natural as we continue to shake off the last ice age (sea levels during the last interglacial period peaked at 20+ feet higher than they are today).

I think you're very naive about Washington and the Pentagon.

I live in New Orleans and flood defenses are hugely effective when built properly. Hope this helps.

How about that lead poisoning in Flint?

Well about every post in this thread circa 2013 you argue against temperature data. Do you just assume peopel are too lazy to look things up? Or you really just don't care about your credibility either way I'm guessing. Your job is just to make noise.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/41...l#post40061926



But other than those several hundred posts, no - you've always conceded the earth is warming.

Looks like we've moved on to stage 3 eh domer?

There are no posts itt circa 2013.

In zero of those posts, or any other posts for that matter, do I say that the Earth is not warming. In fact the very definition of the word "hiatus" implies just the opposite.

I think the problem is you are way out of your depth on this topic, and have no clue what my position is, so instead make up random stuff to malign me.

We're in an interglacial period, bro. Sea levels are extremely high across the globe relative to glaciation, and would likely slowly get higher through the end of the holocene were humans not here.

whataya gonna do?

domer, we are IN an ice age, and have been for about 2.5 million years or so. and going by ice core records over the last 500,000 years, it very likely that it should be getting colder now as the next glaciation cycle of the current ice age starts anew. but it isn't.

it is possible, but highly unlikely (previous ice ages have lasted significantly longer than 2.5 million years), that we are coming out of the current ice age.

it is much more likely, given the evidence that we have in hand, that we as humans are having a non-negligible effect upon the climate.

fwiw, the effect of melting ice causes other consequences than sea levels rising. that's where "weather" comes into the equation.

eta. i give up.

Lol, yeah, you used the term hiatus, but it was being used to mock global warming proponents.

the previous glaciation (a little over 10,000 years ago) is often called the ice age, including by the IPCC, as opposed to our current interglacial period called the holocene

and yes, when you zoom out, we're in a long-term ice age; the interglacial periods where glaciers retreat and biodiversity flourishes are generally very short in geological terms.

A large misconception is that climate models that forecast the future are part & parcel with global warming. People who don't know much about the topic, including apparently yourself and definitely suzzer, conflate disbelief in climate models with disbelief in global warming.

The thread I quoted from. Sorry wasn't clear.