World's Farmers Feel The Effects Of A Hotter Planet

[DiscoBiscuit]

Floods, Droughts Are 'New Normal' Of Extreme U.S. Weather Fueled By Climate Change, Scientists Say


Posted: 05/19/11 09:34 AM ET



REUTERS - WASHINGTON (By Deborah Zabarenko) – Heavy rains, deep snowfalls, monster floods and killing droughts are signs of a "new normal" of extreme U.S. weather events fueled by climate change, scientists and government planners said on Wednesday.


"It's a new normal and I really do think that global weirding is the best way to describe what we're seeing," climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe of Texas Tech University told reporters.


"We are used to certain conditions and there's a lot going on these days that is not what we're used to, that is outside our current frame of reference," Hayhoe said on a conference call with other experts, organized by the non-profit Union of Concerned Scientists.


An upsurge in heavy rainstorms in the United States has coincided with prolonged drought, sometimes in the same location, she said, noting that west Texas has seen a record-length dry period over the last five years, even as there have been two 100-year rain events.


Hayhoe, other scientists, civic planners and a manager at the giant Swiss Re reinsurance firm all cited human-caused climate change as an factor pushing this shift toward more extreme weather.


While none would blame climate change for any specific weather event, Hayhoe said a background of climate change had an impact on every rainstorm, heat wave or cold snap.


"What we're seeing is the new normal is constantly evolving," said Nikhil da Victoria Lobo of Swiss Re's Global Partnerships team.



"Globally what we're seeing is more volatility ... there's certainly a lot more integrated risk exposure."


CHICAGO'S SEWERS


In addition to more extreme local weather events, he said, changes in demographics and how materials are supplied make them more vulnerable.


"In a more integrated economic system, a single shock to an isolated area can actually end up having broad-based and material implications," da Victoria Lobo said. For example, if a local storm knocks out transport and communications systems, "someone 1,000 miles away is not receiving their iPad or their car."


Aaron Durnbaugh, deputy commissioner for natural resources and water quality for Chicago, said adapting to climate change is a daunting task.


Citing the down-to-earth example of Chicago's 4,400 miles of sewer mains, which were installed over the last 150 years and will take decades to replace, Durnbaugh said accurate forecasting of future storms and floods is essential.


The city of Chicago's cost of dealing with extreme weather events through the end of this century has been conservatively estimated in a range from $690 million to $2.5 billion, Durnbaugh said, with the cost to homeowners and local businesses expected to be far higher.


Globally, da Victoria Lobo said the annual average economic losses from natural disasters have escalated from $25 billion in the 1980s to $130 billion in the first decade of the 21st century.


(Editing by Eric Walsh)


Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/19/floods-droughts-extreme-weather-us_n_864046.html

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

got religion?

got religion?

Global Warming and Religion

by Victor Stenger
Physicist, PhD, bestselling author

Posted: 05/19/11 08:24 AM ET

In a recent post The Folly of Faith I mentioned that a connection exists between global warming denialism and religion. Here I would like to provide more justification for this claim.

Evidence exists that many who deny the dangers of global warming do so out of religious conviction. A Pew survey asked the following question: "Is there solid evidence the earth is warming?" Let me just give the percentages who said yes and agreed that it is the result of human activity:

Total U.S. population 47 %; Unaffiliated with any church 58 %; White mainline Protestants 48 %; White, non-Hispanic Catholics 44 %; Black Protestants 39 %; White evangelical Protestants 34 %.​

Also interesting was the result that 21 percent of all Americans, 18 percent of the unaffiliated, and 31 percent of white evangelicals said there was no global warming at all. While mainline Protestants and Catholics are close to the national average, they still are below that of the unaffiliated. Surely the fact that 58 percent of the unaffiliated support the scientific consensus while less than 50 percent of believers do is evidence for a correlation between religion and global warming denialism.

The role of religion in global warming denialism can be seen in the political battles over the teaching of evolution. In 2010 the Kentucky Legislature introduced a bill encouraging teachers to discuss "the advantages and disadvantages of scientific theories," including "evolution, the origins of life, global warming and human cloning." A similar bill was passed in Louisiana in 2008 and in 2009 the Texas Board of Education required that teachers present all sides of the evidence on evolution and global warming (Leslie Kaufman, "Darwin Foes Add Warming to Targets," New York Times, March 3, 2010).

Demanding equal time for opposing views on evolution and global warming is like demanding equal time for phlogiston and flat-Earth theories.

Those for whom the Bible is the literal world of God take seriously the last book of the New Testament, Revelation, which describes the end of times. What's more, the Jesus of the Gospels predicted that the Son of Man would return in a generation to set up the Kingdom of God on Earth (Matt 16:28; Matt 24:34; Mark 9:1; Mark 13.30; Luke 9:27). Of course he didn't, but for two thousand years Christians have always thought the end was right around the corner. Why worry about global warming if the kingdom of God is at hand?

If you read this after 6 p.m. Saturday, May 21 you know that the latest prediction of Jesus' coming has failed.

John Shimkus, Republican of Illinois, is a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives. He has argued that climate change is a myth because God told Noah he would never again destroy Earth by flood (Gen 8:21-22). He is seen on a video as saying, "The earth will end only when God declares it's time to be over. Man will not destroy this earth. This earth will not be destroyed by a flood. . . . I do believe God's word is infallible, unchanging, perfect."

In 2009 Representative "Smokey Joe" Barton (Republican from Texas) told C-Span:

I would also point out that CO2, carbon dioxide, is not a pollutant in any normal definition of the term . . . I am creating it as I talk to you. It's in your Coca-Cola, your Dr. Pepper, your Perrier water. It is necessary for human life. It is odorless, colorless, tasteless, does not cause cancer, does not cause asthma.
A lot of the CO2 that is created in the United States is naturally created. You can't regulate God. Not even the Democratic majority in the US Congress can regulate God.
If you think greenhouse gases are bad, life couldn't exist without greenhouse gases. . . . So, there is a, there is a climate theory--and it's a theory, it's not a fact, it's never been proven--that increasing concentrations of CO2 in the upper atmosphere somehow interact to trap more heat than the atmosphere would otherwise.
​

Personally, I can't see how in a pumping back into the atmosphere in a century or two carbon that took millions of years to accumulate in Earth can be harmless.

Perhaps the most vocal denier of global warming is Republican Senator James Inhofe. In a speech on the Senate floor on July 28, 2003 he called catastrophic global warming "a hoax." He referred to "satellite data, confirmed by NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) balloon data, confirms that no meaningful warming has occurred over the last century." This is false. The satellite data in fact corroborated the warming trend reported from surface measurements.

Inhofe is one of the most conservative members of the Senate and, characteristically, also promotes evangelical causes. He has used government funds to travel at last twenty times to Africa on missions that he himself has referred to publically as "Jesus things." There he has "played an active role in the faith-based aspect of our anti-AIDS campaign," according to a Ugandan diplomat.

The Cornwall Alliance for The Stewardship of Creation has issued what it calls "An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming." Here's what it says"

WHAT WE BELIEVE
1. We believe Earth and its ecosystems--created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence --are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.

2. We believe abundant, affordable energy is indispensable to human flourishing, particularly to societies which are rising out of abject poverty and the high rates of disease and premature death that accompany it. With present technologies, fossil and nuclear fuels are indispensable if energy is to be abundant and affordable.

3. We believe mandatory reductions in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, achievable mainly by greatly reduced use of fossil fuels, will greatly increase the price of energy and harm economies.
4. We believe such policies will harm the poor more than others because the poor spend a higher percentage of their income on energy and desperately need economic growth to rise out of poverty and overcome its miseries.

WHAT WE DENY
1. We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth's climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry. Recent warming was neither abnormally large nor abnormally rapid. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming.

2. We deny that alternative, renewable fuels can, with present or near-term technology, replace fossil and nuclear fuels, either wholly or in significant part, to provide the abundant, affordable energy necessary to sustain prosperous economies or overcome poverty.

3. We deny that carbon dioxide--essential to all plant growth--is a pollutant. Reducing greenhouse gases cannot achieve significant reductions in future global temperatures, and the costs of the policies would far exceed the benefits.

4. We deny that such policies, which amount to a regressive tax, comply with the Biblical requirement of protecting the poor from harm and oppression.
​

However, it must be said that many believers, including some prominent evangelical Christians, see their "stewardship" of Earth, ordained by God, as requiring that they pay attention to the warnings of climate scientists. In 2006 some eighty-six evangelical leaders signed a statement saying, "Millions of people could die in this century because of climate change, most of them our poorest global neighbors." The list included Rick Warren, author of the blockbuster bestseller The Purpose-Driven Life. However, other leaders including Watergate felon Charles Colson, founder of the Prison Fellowship Ministries, and James C. Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, objected to the move (Laurie Goodstein, "Evangelical Leaders Join Global Warming Initiative," New York Times, February 8, 2006).

The Rev. Jim Ball, senior director for climate programs at the Evangelical Environmental Network that accepts the science of global warming, as saying that many of global warming deniers feel that "scientists are attacking their faith and calling them idiots so they are likely to be skeptical" about global warming (as quoted by Goodstein).

Nevertheless, as we saw above, two-thirds of white evangelicals do not believe in anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

The Catholic Church is becoming increasingly green. In 2007 Pope Benedict told a Vatican conference on climate change to "respect creation" while "focusing on the needs of sustainable development" (John Vidal, and Tom Kington, "Protect God's Creation: Vatican Issues New Green Message for World's Catholics," The Guardian, April 27, 2007) Still, over 50 percent of white, non-Hispanic Catholics do not believe in AGW.

Corporate greed is the primary motivation for global warming denial. However, the antiscientific attitudes of the Christian right are being exploited to prevent the government of the United States from taking actions that might be essential for everyone's welfare, including the grandchildren of those industrialists, preachers, politicians, and scientists who now so vehemently oppose any action.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/global-warming-and-religi_b_864014.html

 

[grapeman]

Lord Monkton (sp?)

??? Coleman Weather Channel

The add sales guy you referenced earlier

etc

Plain and simple, celeb deniers aren't scientists.

Those are pretty weak arguments.

Why put all your eggs in a rogue basket? I get the impression you never consider the idea that mean temp is increasing. IMO, you think it's all a scam because you can't get past the impulse that somebody's gonna try to tell you what to do.

I've read the denier stuff for years, grapeman. There's probably no single denier tactic I haven't seen dispelled by the folks that comprise peer review. You've been here long enough to see your links countered by h3ad's. (Those threads are still here.) No need to reinvent the wheel in this one.

Here's a tip. Instead of leaving just the link, excerpt the onus that compels your reasoning for posting the link.

LOL - that's the best you can do? That's your reply to the positioning for the money gravy train by the GW crowd?

LOL

Your response to Hal Lewis, a preeminent scientist and physicist is lacking disco man. This man has far more credentials then any on the GW side and he is pointing out, in clear detail, how the science (LOL) of GW works.

And of course, you cannot think for yourself.

 

[grapeman]

Floods, Droughts Are 'New Normal' Of Extreme U.S. Weather Fueled By Climate Change, Scientists Say


Posted: 05/19/11 09:34 AM ET



REUTERS - WASHINGTON (By Deborah Zabarenko) – Heavy rains, deep snowfalls, monster floods and killing droughts are signs of a "new normal" of extreme U.S. weather events fueled by climate change, scientists and government planners said on Wednesday.


"It's a new normal and I really do think that global weirding is the best way to describe what we're seeing," climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe of Texas Tech University told reporters.


"We are used to certain conditions and there's a lot going on these days that is not what we're used to, that is outside our current frame of reference," Hayhoe said on a conference call with other experts, organized by the non-profit Union of Concerned Scientists.


An upsurge in heavy rainstorms in the United States has coincided with prolonged drought, sometimes in the same location, she said, noting that west Texas has seen a record-length dry period over the last five years, even as there have been two 100-year rain events.


Hayhoe, other scientists, civic planners and a manager at the giant Swiss Re reinsurance firm all cited human-caused climate change as an factor pushing this shift toward more extreme weather.


While none would blame climate change for any specific weather event, Hayhoe said a background of climate change had an impact on every rainstorm, heat wave or cold snap.


"What we're seeing is the new normal is constantly evolving," said Nikhil da Victoria Lobo of Swiss Re's Global Partnerships team.



"Globally what we're seeing is more volatility ... there's certainly a lot more integrated risk exposure."


CHICAGO'S SEWERS


In addition to more extreme local weather events, he said, changes in demographics and how materials are supplied make them more vulnerable.


"In a more integrated economic system, a single shock to an isolated area can actually end up having broad-based and material implications," da Victoria Lobo said. For example, if a local storm knocks out transport and communications systems, "someone 1,000 miles away is not receiving their iPad or their car."


Aaron Durnbaugh, deputy commissioner for natural resources and water quality for Chicago, said adapting to climate change is a daunting task.


Citing the down-to-earth example of Chicago's 4,400 miles of sewer mains, which were installed over the last 150 years and will take decades to replace, Durnbaugh said accurate forecasting of future storms and floods is essential.


The city of Chicago's cost of dealing with extreme weather events through the end of this century has been conservatively estimated in a range from $690 million to $2.5 billion, Durnbaugh said, with the cost to homeowners and local businesses expected to be far higher.


Globally, da Victoria Lobo said the annual average economic losses from natural disasters have escalated from $25 billion in the 1980s to $130 billion in the first decade of the 21st century.


(Editing by Eric Walsh)


Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/19/floods-droughts-extreme-weather-us_n_864046.html

A regurgitation of nothing new but the same old non-scientific garbage. Step it up.

Huffington Post? LOLOLOL
Now there's an independent source. LOL

Everything you posted above is he said she said. Not science, just for your information.
Anyway, now that less then 40% of the American public believe in this nonsense anymore, your hill got higher. It's hard to convince folks that GW is occuring when we have record cold everywhere. It's like gas prices and unemployment. Hard for the president to keep saying that the economy is recovering when people go to the pump and pay over $4/gallon for gas with their dwindling income when the true unemployment rate is over 15%. People know the truth when it comes to their pocket book. They also know the truth when they can walk outside and it's no hotter, nay cooler, then it was last decade. This crisis mentality of liberals is running out of gas, when us common folk can walk outside and see there is no crisis.
Yawn.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

grapeman, you don't subscribe to Lewis any more than you dismiss the scientists and statisticians comprising 97% of climate-data research community.

Here's a tip. You actually have to embrace science before you use science to refute the fact that mean temp is rising. We know how much, we know where the data is recorded and how it's obtained. We see visual signs of polar melt to compare with the math. We have severe weather anomalies that have been predicted for years. We know that C02 is a warming gas (among others) and we can calculate how much we add as compared to nature's own warming (and cooling) processes. We don't have all the answers but those who say climate scientists are on the wrong track aren't digesting the facts we already know.

You initially substituted poly-economics instead of science. Now you're grasping at a lone, contrary hypothesis that ignores or discounts peer reviewed data. Pretty lame.

It doesn't matter to me whether you deny practical science or not. One thing I find interesting is how folks discount the community only to grasp a lone naysayer. IMO, the mind was made up before the Lewis' came along. There's no room to compute Lewis' science if you refute what peer review already knows.

 

[CLOWD11]

Hey Disco, dont worry about feeding the cockhead trolls. CC will be on their doorstep before they know it. Even then they will scream government hoax. lol fkn fools

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

IMO, they'll react more like Orly Taitz and Donald Trump. You know, after the president broke out the long-form b/c. Each responded as if they'd never been birthers to begin with. They neither accepted nor rejected the document. Nothing else to do but shut up about it.

 

[Nor'Easter]

you have that right Clowd, they are fucking fools. Yeah scientists are part of some grand money gravy-train conspiracy to rule the world! HAHAHA Grow a brain for the love of God!
Real scientists are far less numerous and far less funded than those on the opposing side. They barely have enough funding to do their science, let alone hatch some illuminati conspiracy plan. These ding-dongs probably believe we are ruled by Martians too right? They are the ones giving the illuminati their marching orders!

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Looks like the US Army acknowledges climate change...

Looks like the US Army acknowledges climate change...

A New Military-Industrial Collaboration - Good News for Clean Energy and Security

Nicole Lederer
Posted: 05/19/11 05:54 PM ET

Co-authored by Lt. Gen. Norman R. Seip (USAF-RET.)
Osama bin Laden is gone, but in the nearly 10 years since his attack on our country, the primary threat to our economic and national security -- our dependence on foreign fuel -- remains.


Rather than embracing rational energy policy to advance innovative solutions to our energy vulnerability, we're still fueling both sides of a war: fighting terrorists who are funded partly from profits from the oil we purchase. And how are we getting our troops to the battle? Using even more oil.


Recently, we met with Pentagon officials in our role as members of Environmental Entrepreneurs, an environmentally-minded group of business leaders. Like the rest of our organization, we come from different backgrounds -- one of us is a retired three-star Air Force general who has witnessed first-hand the human and financial costs of our fossil fuel addiction; the other a policy advocate who works with some of the country's most innovative business leaders in clean, renewable energy.


The military realizes the irony and the futility of relying on fossil fuels, we heard during our Pentagon visit. Every branch of the service told us they desperately desire more of the energy efficiency and clean energy technologies being developed in the private sector.


Unfortunately, many of the innovations they want and need are stuck in limbo while companies search for financing to expand beyond the research and development phase.


What the clean energy sector needs is a reliable investor and a strong market signal for their products. The Department of Defense could be an ideal fit for that role. Congress and the Obama administration should do whatever it can to encourage a new partnership between the military and private industry to advance clean energy initiatives -- just as past partnerships between business and the military advanced other technologies ranging from space travel to the Internet.


Plans are already underway that could make this a reality.


The Navy, for example, plans to get half of its energy from alternative sources by the year 2020.


The Air Force plans to get 25 percent of the energy it uses at its bases from renewable energy sources by 2025. It also wants to get half of its aviation fuels from bio-fuel blends by 2016.


The Army plans to reduce greenhouse gases by 34 percent by 2020 and cut energy usage at contingency bases by 30-60 percent. That's on top of its visionary NetZero strategy under which bases will consume only as much energy and water as they produce.


And finally the Marine Corps by 2020 will increase its use of alternative energy by 50 percent and meet 40 percent of its deployed operational demands with renewable energy. It also plans to reduce its non-tactical petroleum use by 50 percent by 2015.
The military and the private sector need to work together to break our fossil fuel dependence and develop a new, clean energy future.


Doing so will mean America will have less reason to go to war and more resources to foster peace -- and along the way honor the outstanding performance by our armed forces since 9-11.
__________

Nicole Lederer is co-founder of Environmental Entrepreneurs
Lt. Gen. Norman R. Seip was Commander, 12th Air Force (Air Forces Southern), Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Ariz.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nicole-lederer/the-militaryindustrial-co_b_864395.html

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

The Koch brothers: all the influence money can buy


Not just liberals but conservatives should be deeply worried by a revelatory investigation of the libertarian billionaires' lobbying


Paul Harris
guardian.co.uk, Friday 8 April 2011 16.30 BST

When fighting government regulation helps them maximise profits – even by putting the rest of us at risk from cancer-causing chemicals – they are all about libertarianism. Yet when government rules or subsidies provide an opportunity to make some money, that free-market ideology is quietly shelved.

The idea that Charles and David Koch are liberal bêtes noires is not new. Over the past year, the elderly brothers, head of the vast Koch Industries business empire, have occupied top spot in the demonology of the left.


Across a range of activities – from the birth of the Tea Party to undermining unions in Wisconsin, to opposing efforts to curb global warming – they have been believed by many Democrats to be forever lurking behind the headlines. Now, a brilliant piece of investigative reporting by the Washington-based watchdog Centre for Public Integrity has detailed the Kochs' vast political and lobbying operations. It makes sobering and deeply disturbing reading. After all, it is one thing to believe that out there somewhere the devil exists, but reading the CPI report feels a little like being given his phone number.


The sums of money spent in furthering Koch (pronounced like the drink coke, no matter how tempting it is to rhyme it with rock) interests and power are staggering. But what is most disturbing is how rapidly they are growing. In 2004, the CPI found, the Kochs spent a "mere" $857,000 on lobbying. In 2008, that had grown to $20m dollars. Over the next two years, they then spent a further $20.5m.


The causes are varied but self-centred around the vital interests of Koch Industries such as oil, energy, chemicals and financial products. Employing no less than 30 lobbyists in Washington, Koch Industries has lobbied to change more than 100 pieces of federal legislation. They included trying to loosen regulations on potentially poisonous substances like dioxins, benzene and asbestos. They have pushed back against restrictions on carbon emissions and funded thinktanks and groups that promote efforts to discredit climate change science. They tried to soften attempts at financial reform where the Kochs operate in the derivatives market. Wherever a law touched on a Koch corporate interests, there were the company's lobbyists trying to gut, deaden or defeat any attempt at regulation.


The Kochs defenders argue that none of this should be surprising. The Kochs are fiercely political libertarians and thus believe much of government is wrong and that companies should be freed from the shackles of regulation. They openly fund libertarian organisations and, surely, have every right to promote their political ideology in any (legal) way they can. Just as every other American does.


That is true. Or at least it would be if the Kochs' activities were consistent with their proclaimed ideology. But the genius of the CPI's work is exposing that it is not. The Kochs (who, remember, oppose government intervention as anti-capitalist) should have nothing to do with the heavily subsidised ethanol industry. Yet, in fact, the Kochs are responsible for buying and marketing about one tenth of all ethanol produced in the US, effectively cashing in on government largesse. Likewise, the Kochs have vociferously opposed a cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions in the US.

Yet, in Europe, the Kochs make millions from trading in emissions credits.


When fighting government regulation helps them maximise profits – even by putting the rest of us at risk from cancer-causing chemicals – they are all about libertarianism. Yet when government rules or subsidies provide an opportunity to make some money, that free-market ideology is quietly shelved.


No wonder Koch lobbyists also fought for the recent tax breaks for the rich. For the Kochs (tied at 18th place in Forbes' latest rich list) are worth $22bn apiece. The brothers must have been laughing all the way to the bank when those tax breaks got passed. Reading the CPI report, it becomes clear that the Kochs are not really ideological at all: what really motivates them is simply cold, hard cash.


So when it comes to worrying about the Kochs' influence on the political system in the US, conservatives should really be joining liberals in getting nervous.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/apr/08/koch-brothers-lobbying

 

[grapeman]

A New Military-Industrial Collaboration - Good News for Clean Energy and Security

Nicole Lederer
Posted: 05/19/11 05:54 PM ET

Co-authored by Lt. Gen. Norman R. Seip (USAF-RET.)
Osama bin Laden is gone, but in the nearly 10 years since his attack on our country, the primary threat to our economic and national security -- our dependence on foreign fuel -- remains.


Rather than embracing rational energy policy to advance innovative solutions to our energy vulnerability, we're still fueling both sides of a war: fighting terrorists who are funded partly from profits from the oil we purchase. And how are we getting our troops to the battle? Using even more oil.


Recently, we met with Pentagon officials in our role as members of Environmental Entrepreneurs, an environmentally-minded group of business leaders. Like the rest of our organization, we come from different backgrounds -- one of us is a retired three-star Air Force general who has witnessed first-hand the human and financial costs of our fossil fuel addiction; the other a policy advocate who works with some of the country's most innovative business leaders in clean, renewable energy.


The military realizes the irony and the futility of relying on fossil fuels, we heard during our Pentagon visit. Every branch of the service told us they desperately desire more of the energy efficiency and clean energy technologies being developed in the private sector.


Unfortunately, many of the innovations they want and need are stuck in limbo while companies search for financing to expand beyond the research and development phase.


What the clean energy sector needs is a reliable investor and a strong market signal for their products. The Department of Defense could be an ideal fit for that role. Congress and the Obama administration should do whatever it can to encourage a new partnership between the military and private industry to advance clean energy initiatives -- just as past partnerships between business and the military advanced other technologies ranging from space travel to the Internet.


Plans are already underway that could make this a reality.


The Navy, for example, plans to get half of its energy from alternative sources by the year 2020.


The Air Force plans to get 25 percent of the energy it uses at its bases from renewable energy sources by 2025. It also wants to get half of its aviation fuels from bio-fuel blends by 2016.


The Army plans to reduce greenhouse gases by 34 percent by 2020 and cut energy usage at contingency bases by 30-60 percent. That's on top of its visionary NetZero strategy under which bases will consume only as much energy and water as they produce.


And finally the Marine Corps by 2020 will increase its use of alternative energy by 50 percent and meet 40 percent of its deployed operational demands with renewable energy. It also plans to reduce its non-tactical petroleum use by 50 percent by 2015.
The military and the private sector need to work together to break our fossil fuel dependence and develop a new, clean energy future.


Doing so will mean America will have less reason to go to war and more resources to foster peace -- and along the way honor the outstanding performance by our armed forces since 9-11.
__________

Nicole Lederer is co-founder of Environmental Entrepreneurs
Lt. Gen. Norman R. Seip was Commander, 12th Air Force (Air Forces Southern), Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Ariz.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nicole-lederer/the-militaryindustrial-co_b_864395.html

This is a sad post. The military seeks to use renewable energy for 2 reasons.
1. They can afford to as they are the government and cost means nothing. Just like the only efficient solar panels are on satellites powering our communications and such. You or i could never afford this solar panels.... yet. AS costs come down, they will become widely used.... someday.

2. We use imported oil. The more they conserve, the less dependent the military is on foreign supply, which means a lot in times of war. Since we are populated by girly men who think drilling for oil is a bad bad thing, we look for alternative energy sources. Tis always a joke to hear idiots say for 20 years "you cannot drill your way out of this problem", while if they were able to start drilling 20 years ago, we would not have $4 a gallon gas today. It's called "supply & demand", and i understand it better then most.

You couldn't figure that one out? LOL
The huffington has it's own take on this strategy and makes believe that they are doing so due to your concern over the scam that is GW. I see that it makes you feel good, as you post up the article as some proof or something, but sadly, it is proof of nothing other then the desire to operate freely in times of war.

Anyway, I can't change your mind, you'll never change mine. In 20 years, we'll know for sure. Bring a jacket.

So let's get back to the OP. How will a bit of warming and a bit more CO2 be bad for farmers?

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

This is a sad post. The military seeks to use renewable energy for 2 reasons.
1. They can afford to as they are the government and cost means nothing.

So you accept the earth is warming... it's just too expensive for the rest of us to do anything about it.

Did you read the post about business and environmental activists working together for the same cause. I bet you had to take a seltzer after that one. lol, Just kidding grapeman, I'm a kidder.

Just like the only efficient solar panels are on satellites powering our communications and such. You or i could never afford this solar panels.... yet. AS costs come down, they will become widely used.... someday.

I just read an article about a new idea to market residential solar-panels. An upstart in Cali didn't raise the $100 to $200 million necessary to get product to market. So they partnered with Lowes to sell their panels.

Their web site calculates your solar coordinates and recommends placement of panel(s). The web site even renders an image of your house with the panels installed. If you provide electricity consumption data, they give you an estimate of how much you save and or sell back to the grid.

2. We use imported oil. The more they conserve, the less dependent the military is on foreign supply, which means a lot in times of war. Since we are populated by girly men who think drilling for oil is a bad bad thing, we look for alternative energy sources. Tis always a joke to hear idiots say for 20 years "you cannot drill your way out of this problem", while if they were able to start drilling 20 years ago, we would not have $4 a gallon gas today. It's called "supply & demand", and i understand it better then most.

You couldn't figure that one out? LOL
The huffington has it's own take on this strategy and makes believe that they are doing so due to your concern over the scam that is GW. I see that it makes you feel good, as you post up the article as some proof or something, but sadly, it is proof of nothing other then the desire to operate freely in times of war.

You're undulating between, They can afford to [thwart global warmimg] as they are the government and cost means nothing -and- the scam that is GW.

HP cites their sources. If you've got the time and the interest, it can be traced back to the scientific source and published in scientific journals (much of it peer reviewed) and often linked directly to the article.

If an article is speculation based, it's noted as such. Scientists are learning more as they compile and analyses more data. But as in most sciences, technology and methods only improve.

Anyway, I can't change your mind, you'll never change mine. In 20 years, we'll know for sure. Bring a jacket.

I'll settle for that. But I think you'll be seeing more and more businesses with greener drawing boards. After all, the Koch brothers are making a bundle on European emissions caps. Can't be that bad. Unless of course they stand to make more in areas w/o carbon laws. Like third-world countries (and the freakin' United States, lol).

So let's get back to the OP. How will a bit of warming and a bit more CO2 be bad for farmers?

A simple google would tell you that:

for example:

how does climate change affect farming?

among the 147,000,000 responses...

This site provides a unique and comprehensive set of resource materials to help farmers make practical and profitable responses to climate changes. Subjects include:

• Greenhouse Gases & Climate Change, including and overview of climate science and indicators of climate change in the Northeast.
• Climate Change Impacts on Agriculture, including effects on crops, livestock, weeds, pests and pathogens.
• Energy, Greenhouse Gases & Farming, including cost-effective strategies for farmers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and enter the renewable energy marketplace.

We developed the downloadable factsheets, annotated PowerPoint presentations, case studies, and other resources specifically for educators working with farmers and other audiences. Use them to pull together your own package of materials or develop your own presentations for specific purposes.

This site was initiated by a grant from the USDA Northeast Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (NE-SARE) program awarded to a collaborative group of experts from University of Vermont, Cornell University, and Clean Air-Cool Planet.
http://www.climateandfarming.org/

 

[CLOWD11]

So let's get back to the OP. How will a bit of warming and a bit more CO2 be bad for farmers?

With all the evidence based modelling and scenarios put forth by the scientific community, you rebuke the scientific findings, then come to IC and ask for opinions. I think people can see your just a troll or incredibly dumb to be sucked in by the false data within the tinfoil hat blogs you subscribe to.
Can you spell *gullible fool*?

As if thats not bad enough, you preach fucking rubbish about a cooling earth and cant backit up and wonder why your seen as a joke.

Here! have another negative reputation. *click*

 

[grapeman]

No, I'm not a troll. I'm just a guy with more experience growing crops then you will ever have in your lifetime..... or several of your lifetimes.

So I can say with certainty, contrary to your ignorance, that another degree or so of heat and a bit more CO2 will never reduce a farmer's crop. Ever. The exception being trees & vines needing chilling hours during winter, which if we ever experience GW would mean that certain crops may need to move to a higher elevation. I grow those types of crops. Over the last 40 years, we have NOT experienced any drop in the required chilling hours.

I'm seen as a joke? Ha.

Aside from the fact that I know more about this then you ever will, you and your ilk have been demoted over the last several years into the minority of clear thinking americans.

How does that sit with you? LOL

BTW Disco, I am not admitting that there is GW, I'm just addressing fallacy of the OP's premise and trying to stay on topic.

 

[grapeman]

With all the evidence based modelling and scenarios put forth by the scientific community, you rebuke the scientific findings, then come to IC and ask for opinions. I think people can see your just a troll or incredibly dumb to be sucked in by the false data within the tinfoil hat blogs you subscribe to.
Can you spell *gullible fool*?

As if thats not bad enough, you preach fucking rubbish about a cooling earth and cant backit up and wonder why your seen as a joke.

Here! have another negative reputation. *click*

Not to burst your intellectual bubble, but you do know that "modeling and scenarios" are only as good as the assumptions and constants used. I now point you to the emails from M. Mann, admitting to the need to change the constants because the models did not show the warming desired.

But that might just be over your head.

 

[s13sr20det]

i can agree with that!!!

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Not to burst your intellectual bubble, but you do know that "modeling and scenarios" are only as good as the assumptions and constants used. I now point you to the emails from M. Mann, admitting to the need to change the constants because the models did not show the warming desired.

But that might just be over your head.

Selective info. Five investigations uncovered no basis for the accusations. The peeps that made the false accusations never got past it either. Misinterpreted reads of e-mails, nothing more.

IMO, you'd do better attempting to discount the investigations that exonerated the accused, not the stale accusations that were rebuked.

Your arguments are cyclical. When you run out of excuses they come back around a second and third time. In the old days, h3ad led your and others' every post to water but you're convinced a sidewalk perspective rules.

90% of your arguments discount science but you'll throw out a layman pretending to use science to discount science even further.

I'm sure you're a great grape grower and I hope your micro climate doesn't suffer. IMO, your perspective is just as micro.

 

[M.J. Budsworth]

Thanks for that floored bit of info, it fits in well with a lot of other stuff in this thread.


http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090113_ncdcstats.html




You sucked up that rubbish info pretty fast!

So how does that work?

well cloud(that's how you spell it properly by the way)
i didnt suck up anything, or talk about it, or say i believed in it. just simply posted it for people to read and it for some reason cut it off i think...it doesnt matter anyways so stop attacking me for it

clearly you know little of how models and scenarios work for this science and i will not repeat grapeman....stop riding discos pole and mind your manners...

you contribute nothing more than biased info from biased sources

i have not linked to any blogger named anybody or any source of my info so stop assuming you know everything about me

you are no scientist you are just going along with the hype and thats all it is

 

[mad librettist]

you are no scientist you are just going along with the hype and thats all it is

never understood this type of comment.

Do you mean he's not a researcher, or not a scientist?


I am not a researcher, but I am an amateur scientist. I don't expect to contribute any new ideas to the field, but I still love science. The beauty of science is that anyone can make a point and it lives or dies on its virtues.

Enough of this "you aren't a scientist" garbage. What you mean to say is that the person is not a researcher or professional analyst. Totally irrelevant on icmag.

 

[grapeman]

never understood this type of comment.

Do you mean he's not a researcher, or not a scientist?


I am not a researcher, but I am an amateur scientist. I don't expect to contribute any new ideas to the field, but I still love science. The beauty of science is that anyone can make a point and it lives or dies on its virtues.

Enough of this "you aren't a scientist" garbage. What you mean to say is that the person is not a researcher or professional analyst. Totally irrelevant on icmag.

Keyword "amateur"