Got to be kidding

[Dave Saxton]

It's not April 1st yet, so I guess not. Once again I'm just speechless at this president's stupidity. Maybe we should make fighting Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy priorities too?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... climate-c/

[Steve-M]

I would suggest that the climate change aspect is more PR than anything else. More efficient equipment, so long as it doesn't compromise performance, is always desirable as fuel may not always be plentiful, particularly at a local level. It's also good in that it reduces logistical requirements, which is a crucial consideration in any conflict far away from home. Now if they start saying we can't bomb ISIS because the carbon emissions would be too great, that's another story.

[Dave Saxton]

I would suggest that the climate change aspect is more PR than anything else. More efficient equipment, so long as it doesn't compromise performance, is always desirable as fuel may not always be plentiful, particularly at a local level. It's also good in that it reduces logistical requirements, which is a crucial consideration in any conflict far away from home. Now if they start saying we can't bomb ISIS because the carbon emissions would be too great, that's another story.

It's already happened in some ways:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- ... -oil-wells


It's just idiotic, and goes to Obama's nonsense about climate change being the biggest threat ever faced by mankind.

Let us hope this doesn't mean the military will need to start utilizing so called renewable energy. These are very inefficient and very unreliable sources of energy.

Or let us hope there's no curtailing operations or readiness to limit harmless c02 emissions.

[Byron Angel]

I have it on very good authority that future "Obama" class warships now in the design process will feature a return to a square-rigged wind-powered sail-based propulsion system which takes advantage of numerous state of the art technical advances. Great improvements in operating economy are promised.

B

[Steve-M]

It's already happened in some ways:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- ... -oil-wells

I'd consider that a matter of long term strategic planning. We can bomb the wells, but whose going to foot the bill to clean everything up after the fact? How many more refugees do you create, both due to the economics of eliminating the wells in addition to the environmental consequences? It's cool to say we have to bomb the crap out of ISIS, but we have to be ready for what happens when ISIS is defeated. It's more or less similar to what happened with the Iraq occupation. We knocked out much of their infrastructure, which massively degraded the Iraqi capability to wage war. OTOH, it's made post-war Iraq a gigantic mess, and that has certainly contributed to the woes currently afflicting the region.

[Dave Saxton]

I would not give Obama that much credit for war planning:

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavli ... e-n2144666

He is fighting the wrong war. He's fighting an unneeded, futile, and very expensive war, against a very minor, if that, threat, while not taking Islamic Terrorism seriously.

[RF]

Give it another nine months..... and Obama is history.

Lets see what President Trump would do with these orders......

[Dave Saxton]

There has been a return to sanity:

https://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Docum ... ummary.pdf

It's like it never happened. Some comments by Anthony Watts:

The new National Defense Strategy makes no mention of “global warming” or “climate change”. The document makes no mention of “climate,” “warming,” “planet,” “sea levels” or even “temperature.” ..........

The National Defense Strategy, signed by Defense Secretary James Mattis, doesn’t have much to say about energy issues, except that the U.S. would “foster a stable and secure Middle East” and “contributes to stable global energy markets and secure trade routes.”
......

The Trump administration released its “America First” security strategy in December, which called for “unleashing these abundant energy resources— coal, natural gas, petroleum, renewables, and nuclear” to boost the economy and aid U.S. allies.

That plan de-emphasized policies aimed at fighting manmade global warming, a complete u-turn from national security under the Obama administration.

And just recently:

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/ ... o-hybrids/

From the article

As the program began to materialize and development progressed, a number of problems began to materialize, according to a former Navy official who spoke on background. Foremost among them was the intense electrical load that running the drive system on the ship’s two running generators was putting on the ship.
Destroyers have three generators, two of which run while a third remains in standby, which rotates through while generators are down for maintenance or in case of an emergency. Running the electrical motor that turned the shaft while also running the ship’s power-hungry radars and related systems maxed out the capacity of those generators.

“At that point you are a light switch flipping on away from winking out the whole ship,” the official said…
Furthermore running the generators at that load wasn’t exactly as fuel efficient as they had hoped it would be…

[frontkampfer]

Time to stop using the military as a laboratory for social experiments including this green crap. I don't care if it was done in the past for other issues. Time to train sailors to stand watches so the ship doesn't collide with other vessels & to have the ability to trouble shoot and fix the equipment without having to call on civilian contractors. The Navy used to have personnel onboard who knew their systems like the back of thier hands. They don't now & that's a big effin problem. A lot of kids are going to be casualties if they don't return to being a military service instead of a business. That's my story & I'm sticking to it!

[OpanaPointer]

"America First" was so very effective back in 1941. They represent a whopping 5.5% of the country.

[Kev D]

It's just idiotic, and goes to Obama's nonsense about climate change being the biggest threat ever faced by mankind.

Well Dave, with ALL due respect, and I don't mean to be rude, you must live a very sheltered / closeted life if you think climate change ain't the elephant in the room.

Not sure where you live, but have you been looking at world weather reports / scenes of devastation caused / effected by the 'climate' of late? Lets see, pick anywhere you like but lets start with, in no particular order of importance; Cal fires, Jap floods / typhoons, earth quakes in Indo, worst drought on record in NSW, Australia, record heat throughout Europe and above the Arctic Circle even, and on and on. Need I say more?

Now I am not advocating the lessening of an efficient military by any means, but you can't tell me climate change ain't go'na kick us right in the arse. And way sooner than predicted IMO.

Anyway each to his own, but although only a young fella in my midish 60's, am certainly glad (in most respects, save a few, shall we say, earthly pleasures) that I ain't a kid facing the uncertain weather (or more accurately, certain weather) changes the future holds, as of today.

But like I said, each to their own, one my ignore anything they like (that isn't directly affecting them on a day to day basis) but doing so will be shown - when it's is too late, if it's not already - to their own, and the planets, long term detriment.

After all, many if not most of the worlds 'other' problems could be well on their way to being resolved if the major players around the world could talk sense to each other, not PR BS, but Mr Climate is deaf, and besides, were already on that roller coaster whether (no pun intended) we like it or not my friend, and the brakes are very bad, maybe even shot, the track is twisted up ahead and it ain't stopping at any station in the near future.

An no, I am not a negativist, just a well worn long term extensively world traveled - for 47 of my 67 years - realist, still having fun mind you, but well aware from seeing first hand, evidenced based facts as it were, of the dire state the planet is in.

And that gents, ends the gospel (rant even?) for today!

[Byron Angel]

Civilization was originally doomed by an impending "Ice Age", according to claims which date back to the 70s. When that became too difficult to sell to the public, "Global Warming" became the new agent of the impending extinction of civilization. When the bald-faced and ubiquitous data-fiddling of the "academic climate science" junta was publicly revealed, the campaign was yet again re-packaged by enlisting the more conveniently generic "Climate Change" as the existential threat to planet Earth - wherein any change whatsoever in seasonal weather, any unusual weather event anywhere on the planet can be waved about as "proof" of the coming apocalypse.

In my opinion, the key to understanding the true threat posed by "Climate Change" is to follow the money. This entire campaign is IMHO simply a cynical effort by certain interested factions to achieve economic and political control of the global energy and natural resource sectors.

B

[OpanaPointer]

While resistance to the obvious is from those who want their 82" TV and are afraid cleaning up the mess that makes might cost them some money.

[Dave Saxton]

One must be cautious to not assume that normal, or abnormal, weather events are indicators of long term climate trends. For example, the northern European heat wave this summer was caused by unusually cold ocean waters in the Atlantic off Africa. From an article at Wattsupwiththat by Joe D’Aleo CCM, AMS, Fellow:

The driver for the warmth was the cold tripole in the Atlantic sea surface temperature anomalies. Off Africa, water was coldest in the entire record back to 1950.

The TNA (Tropical Northern Atlantic) Index will update for July in a few days but June was a record negative (cold) in sharp contrast to 2017.

Wildfires in California are completely normal given California’s climate history going back several millennia’s.
I do understand people who lived through the 50s, 60s, and 70s, thinking what we are experiencing today is unprecedented. Long term climate trends and cycles typically develop over longer periods than people’s life spans. The 50s, 60, and 70s were a period of a cooling trend. It was proceeded by a warming trend from 1910 through the 1930s. Longer term we are still recovering from the Little Ice Age of several hundred years ago. We should see a longer term warming trend because of that. We still have quite some ways to go to match the warmth of the Medieval Warm Period of 800 years ago. Through it all there have been droughts (in California sometimes lasting centuries not just decades), hurricanes, heat waves, cold snaps, blizzards, floods, wild fires….

All despite differential carbon dioxide concentrations. That is not to say that co2 concentration has no effect, but its effect is so small that it is completely over shadowed by natural variation. There has always been weather chaos, and the climate has always changed, and always will.

What we have seen in recent decades in popular culture is a faulty assumption that climate is relatively stable and steady unless something (read mankind) comes along to upset the delicate balance. From that faulty assumption it follows that if man can change the climate he can also reverse change the climate. Futile climate action policies by military organizations are folly.

[Dave Saxton]

Civilization was originally doomed by an impending "Ice Age", according to claims which date back to the 70s. When that became too difficult to sell to the public, "Global Warming" became the new agent of the impending extinction of civilization. When the bald-faced and ubiquitous data-fiddling of the "academic climate science" junta was publicly revealed, the campaign was yet again re-packaged by enlisting the more conveniently generic "Climate Change" as the existential threat to planet Earth - wherein any change whatsoever in seasonal weather, any unusual weather event anywhere on the planet can be waved about as "proof" of the coming apocalypse.

In my opinion, the key to understanding the true threat posed by "Climate Change" is to follow the money. This entire campaign is IMHO simply a cynical effort by certain interested factions to achieve economic and political control of the global energy and natural resource sectors.

B

Quite right Byron. All one has to do is study the origins of the IPCC and its history written into its malleable and contradictory scientific and political reports. Not to mention the quotes of it founders to find motive. It is plain to see. Unfortunately, the leaked emails of Climategate in 2009 exposing the science malpractice and the data tampering did not stop the science malpractice and data tampering rife throughout climate science. Witness the revelations by Dr. Bates last year exposing that the Karl "pause buster" paper prepared for the Paris Climate Summit was bogus. Unfortunately, Bates deemed it wise to wait until he retired to blow the whistle. That speaks for Orwellian environment that exists in academia regarding this issue.