Thats what I am saying.
This "Global Warming" crap is just that, crap! Science on the other hand has documented evidence that the earth goes through warmer and colder cycles.
Printable View
Here's some navy crap...
Navy Releases Roadmap for Global Climate Change
By Bob Freeman, Office of the Oceanographer of the Navy
WASHINGTON (NNS) -- The Vice Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert, released an overarching roadmap on May 21 that will guide Navy policy, strategy and investment plans related to a changing global climate.
Entitled the U.S. Navy Climate Change Roadmap, this guidance was developed by the Navy's Task Force Climate Change, a matrixed organization that includes representatives from various naval staff and program offices and the operational fleet, with the close collaboration of the U.S. Coast Guard and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
"We must ensure our Navy is fully mission-capable and ready to meet national requirements in the future. That responsibility includes anticipating the impact of changing climatic conditions on mission requirements, force structure and infrastructure," explained Rear Adm. Dave Titley, director of Task Force Climate Change and Oceanographer of the Navy.
The Climate Change Roadmap is intended to be a companion document to the Navy Arctic Roadmap, released in November 2009. While the Arctic Roadmap serves to promote maritime security and naval readiness in a changing Arctic, the new Climate Change Roadmap examines the broader issues of global climate change impacts on Navy missions and capabilities.
"We issued the Arctic Roadmap first because that is where the most significant evidence of climate change is occurring," Titley remarked, "but the Arctic is not a vacuum. The changes that are occurring there, from both an environmental and political standpoint, reflect changes that will occur in the rest of the world."
The roadmap lays out a chronological approach divided into three phases.
Phase 1, focusing on near-term goals, includes defining the requirements for improved operational and climatic prediction capabilities through cooperative efforts within the U.S. government and scientific and academic communities.
Phase 1 also calls for inclusion of climate change impacts on national security in Naval War College coursework and in strategic "table top" exercises.
Phase 2, which is targeted for fiscal years 2011 and 2012, identifies as a priority the development of recommendations for Navy investments to meet climate change challenges. These challenges include protecting coastal installations vulnerable to rising sea levels and water resource challenges and being prepared to respond to regions of the world destabilized by changing climatic conditions.
Phase 2 also calls for the formalization of the cooperative relationships defined in Phase 1, and targets incorporation of climate change considerations in strategic guidance documents and fleet training and planning.
Phase 3, looking out through fiscal year 2014, addresses the execution of investment decisions and the initiation of intergovernmental, multilateral and bilateral activities with various partners to better assess and predict climate change, and respond to the military impacts of climate change.
"Climate change will affect the type, scope, and location of future Navy missions, so it's essential that naval force structure and infrastructure are delivered at the right time and at the right cost," Titley explained. "That will depend upon a rigorous assessment of future requirements and capabilities, and an understanding of the timing, severity, and impact of the changing climate, based on the best available science," he added.
The Roadmap, which incorporates guidance from national maritime and defense strategies, will be updated to reflect future guidance after the next Quadrennial Defense Review.
http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=53562
Here's some stuff from some guys almost as smart as you...
Hey maybe they are just crazy...
March 29, 2012
Lee Gunn -- "Lee" is how he introduces himself, although most people call him Admiral Gunn, in deference to his 35 years as a U.S. Naval officer -- does not look like a Prius driver, much less a tree-hugger.
Which is why many people do a double take when the Pontiac-born Gunn tells them that global warming is the most serious national security issue confronting the U.S. -- or, as he puts it, " the existential threat to America and its influence in the world" as humanity's appetite for energy mushrooms.
You just don't expect a self-described ship driver who spent his career on vessels that average "about 12 inches to the gallon" to be obsessed with fuel economy -- or U.S. dependency on foreign oil, or public-private initiatives to develop renewable energy.
But the 70-year-old Gunn is deeply concerned about all these things -- which is why he is touring the country with another retired admiral from Britain's Royal Navy, telling governors, state legislators and editorial boards that they'd better get busy about developing new sources of energy or resign themselves to the end of America's economic and military supremacy.
Gunn is the president of the Institute for Public Research at CNA, a 70-year-old Virginia-based research organization that also includes the Center for Naval Analyses.
CNA began staking out a prominent role in the renewable energy debate five years ago, when its Military Advisory Board ("mostly retired three- and four-stars or flag officers") issued a widely circulated report called "National Security and the Threat of Climate Change."
The report, which described climate change as a threat multiplier in some of the world's most politically volatile regions, startled official Washington with its assertion that global warming had important military ramifications as well as environmental ones.
Since then, Gunn and his colleagues have published additional research reports asserting that reducing consumption of fossil fuels is critical to U.S. military security, and that the Department of Defense (which accounts for 2% of the nation's energy consumption) should be a leader in developing a clean-energy economy.
Now they're telling state policy-makers they cannot wait for the federal government to articulate a national energy policy before launching their own renewable energy initiatives.
"There needs to be urgency about finding new ways to satisfy our energy needs," Gunn said. "If they're paralyzed in Washington, then states like Michigan and California need to lead the way."
Gunn and his retired naval colleagues have spent much of this week talking to Republicans in the state Legislature and the Snyder administration, whom they describe as genuinely interested in pushing beyond the partisan gridlock between drill-baby-drill Republicans and tree-hugging Democrats.
Many have expressed particular interest in hyper-local initiatives that use anticipated savings to finance capital-intensive conservation projects in municipalities, central business districts, or even a single manufacturing plant.
Jeremy Kalin, a "recovering state legislator" from Minnesota who accompanied Gunn on his mission to Lansing, said the pair has eschewed diversionary arguments about the causes of climate change or which energy technologies are the most promising to emphasize that Michigan should be aggressively making use of all energy sources, with an eye to reducing environmental and national security risk and averting "bad consequences" in the future.
When I asked them their posture toward a nascent public initiative to mandate that Michigan derive 25% of its energy needs from renewable sources by 2025, they declined to endorse the initiative but commended its organizers for pushing the energy discussion to the front burner.
Above all, Gunn and his fellow retired officers want to convince Americans who have not been energized by environmentalists or rising energy costs that they, too, have an urgent stake in the clean-energy revolution -- a revolution they are convinced will either catapult Michigan and other manufacturing states to new economic heights, or trample them underfoot.
http://www.freep.com/article/2012032...d-officer-says
I remember sitting in on an intel briefing clear back in 1995 and the military was worried about global warming. The biggest issue was water and how it would affect nations with limited resources. They saw wars developing over water and mass migrations of people to other nations that had water. The military felt that the lack of water would be incredibly destabilizing in Africa. Ironically, they were also worried about AID's and its affects during the same time frame.
She is an Obama blogger - leftists, progressive pusher of their dogma. So, whatever she writes is part of that stream of scat.
She is an insecure person if she feels the need to apologize because Oklahoma has politicians that are not liberal. There are conservatives even in Jon Stewart's New York. I don't see Jon apologizing for them.
The waitress asked what I wanted. I said, "bacon, egg and cheese on toast."
About twenty minutes later, she brought my order. I looked down to find that I'd be dining on bacon and eggs...and cheese on toast.
I figured, oh well, it's still breakfast.
Naw... they just want to subject the Churches to the same labor rules and regulations as other employers. What they believe is their business. Whether they are going to comply with an even-handed law whose purpose isn't to discriminate against religion is another thing entirely.
Yeah, I feel for the Catholic Church. It's so persecuted.
Why the broader society even wants the priests to stop raping children! (And generations of boys school grads will tell you that there's no big deal out of being sodomized in your teens by men in their sixties. Hey! It's an old tradition!)
The sheer gall of those radical secularists stuns me.
Please correct me if I'm wrong. I don't think we are talking about churches but church businesses and some of them are very big businesses, like universities and hospitals, with employees and students/patients with a broad cross of religious backgrounds. They all get state/federal funding either directly or indirectly. I would hate to see Baylor University start firing gay employees or expelling gay students.
As a funny aside, do you remember when Playboy was doing their spread of girls from the now defunct Southwest conference? The Baylor president at that time was quoted as saying that if there are any bare Bears, they wouldn't be a Baylor Bear any longer.
We have come a long way from that and I hope we don't return.
I think this is a wrong interpretation. A woman can destroy every egg in her body. She can masturbate 24 hours a day like a man if she likes. She only loses some control when she is carrying another human life.
Most people outside the Catholic church don't think a sperm or egg are sacred or represent a living person.
I'm not saying this to change anyone's mind on abortion. I'm just pointing out that I don't think this argument is valid.
Not much. Go check out Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The only time the states can impact a woman's right to control her own body is if the child is capable of surviving outside the womb--and that's only when the health of the mother isn't at risk, which is really an exception that eats the rule.
Shortey wants to pass obviously unconstitutional laws in order to make a point. He will potentially cost the state hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars to score political points with his knuckle dragging constituency who also is unconcerned with the state wasting its time passing unconstitutional legislation. More than likely, this, like all of the other bills will be struck down at the District Court level and the AG will have the good sense not to pursue it beyond that point.Quote:
Most people outside the Catholic church don't think a sperm or egg are sacred or represent a living person.
I'm not saying this to change anyone's mind on abortion. I'm just pointing out that I don't think this argument is valid.
Eh, I know the rationale. I use hyperbolic statements from time to time to get in the spirit of ObamaFest.
But again, there's a long history in the country of conscientious objectors being allowed to abstain from certain activities, such as the draft. The Church isn't asking to be relieved for observing anti-discrimination laws. They just don't want to be forced to pay for something they have a moral objection to. If the Gubment wants to tie its financing to observance of this rule, then that's fine. But that would be defined by Congress, not the Administration.
BTW, Catholic hospitals are non-profits. In the health care debate thread all I hear is now profit in health care is so bad. So why do you want to drive out non-profits?
Ehh.. not really. The administration does have a lot of discretion in some areas.
Is it cheaper to go to a Catholic Hospital as opposed to a for-profit one? Not really. These are multi-billion dollar businesses. These are secular, not holy pursuits they're being asked to play by these rules in. Nuns are not being forced to take birth control. I don't really buy the church's argument.Quote:
BTW, Catholic hospitals are non-profits. In the health care debate thread all I hear is now profit in health care is so bad. So why do you want to drive out non-profits?