Ungh.
He strikes; again.
"What our task force is here to do is really to understand what the impacts of climate change, especially in the arctic, will have on Navy's operations, said Rear Adm. David Titley, Navy oceanographer and director of task force climate change.Where exactly have poorly researched, fraud infused, socio-religious, neo-paganism made its way in to the readiness matrix again?
"We look at climate change simply as changing geography, and we work on, above and under the water and the ocean every day, so we need to understand as that environment is changing, how that will impact our naval operations. So, really it's all about readiness for us."
The pathetic thing is - the climate has always been changing. Was, is, and will. What is different now? Simple; politics.
What a self-licking ice cream cone.
I guess when you are an O-8 doing an 0-6's job, you have to stir up something.
20 comments:
CDR Salamander: I work for RADM Titley and would like to address a few misperceptions your post may have implied. You stated that "the climate has always been changing. Was, is, and will." If you accept that the climate is changing, surely you think it is worthwhile to be prepared for any challenges that may impact the Fleet. That is the stated mission of the Navy's Task Force Climate Change. The Navy is not focused on the causes of climate change, nor how to mitigate it - it is concerned with how it may impact future readiness. That is why the former CNO assigned Titley to head the task force, and why the current CNO has asked him to continue in that capacity.
Titley was chosen to head the task force because he is a career Navy meteorologist and oceanographer with a Ph. D. in meteorology, and he is a fellow of the American Meteorological Society. Throughout his career he has worked to ensure that naval forces operate safely and effectively by providing an understanding of the physical environment. Operational readiness is the only lens through which he views his assignment, and he has no political agenda.
In addition to heading up the task force, Adm. Titley serves as the Oceanographer of the Navy, Navigator of the Navy, and is in charge of Oceanography, Space, and Maritime Domain Awareness on the OPNAV staff. For the task force, the Admiral is supported by a staff of three. Their primary focus is the Arctic, where the changing environment is allowing greater access for commercial shipping and oil and gas exploration. High level strategic documents like the National Security Presidential Directive - 66 (signed by President Bush), the National Maritime Strategy, and the Quadrennial Defense Review require Navy to be prepared to operate in the Arctic. The job of the task force is to determine the Navy's capability gaps for surface and air Arctic operations and to better understand the polar environment. The only money they have spent is on studies. The task force is also concerned about the vulnerability of naval coastal installations, again under the direction of strategic guidance documents.
I respectfully submit that you are more guided by politics than Adm. Titley. Your glib dismissal of climate science suggests that you are not well-informed on the status of serious climate research. You are correct that the climate has changed throughout Earth's history, but there was always a reason for it - it didn't happen by magic. Climate scientists are trying hard to understand what drives the changes that are being observed today.
When the Navy has credible evidence that the climate is not changing, or that the changes will not impact operational readiness, there will be no need for a task force. In the meantime, the Navy will assess the risk, regardless of the ebb and flow of political partisanship.
Robert Freeman (AGCS ret.)
Chief, you had me until "<span>Climate scientists are trying hard to understand what drives the changes that are being observed today."</span>
Show me where there is not a politically-driven set of conclusions that fit nicely into the anti-capitalism meme to 'climate scientists trying hard'. As I stated below, the same 'man-made climate disaster' horsesh*t was forced on us in public school back in the 1970s. Then, it was "a new ice age". Not twenty-five years later, we are headed for a giant cook-off.
And the solution to the global cooling and global warming catastrophes was precisely the same. It smacked of socialist-communist ant-capitalism in 1975, as it does now.
Senior,
Thanks for checking in. A reply to some of your comments:
1. I know, not believe but know as it is a fact, that the climate has, is and will change. Not weather, climate. Throughout our nations history it has changed and will through the life of our republic. With all the success that our nation's Navy has enjoyed over the centuries (including the end of the little ice age, natch) - why did it never need a "Task Force" to address the natural change in climate until now?
2. RADM Titly's education is not in question and really has nothing to do with the topic at hand. One assumes that a medical doctor has graduated from medical school. That is nice and proper - but does not make them either perfect in action and judgement or beyond challenge.
3. Me driven by politics? So, you agree then that to be on one side of this argument is political? Good, then you also admit that to be on the other is political as well. Thank you for on this point at least agreeing with me point.
4. "... <span>glib dismissal of climate science</span> ..." Really Senior? Shipmate, don't be silly. I only dismiss fraud. Please review both first and second installment of this politically based power grab. No need to set up silly straw men to knock down. I wallow in facts - what I cannot stand is bad science. What is worse is people who ignore bad science and create "Task Forces" for good PR and political reasons.
5. The Navy will never find evidence that the climate is not changing no more than it will find evidence that the earth has stopped revolving around the sun. So, are you saying that the Navy will need this "Task Force" forever? Always spending money on unending studies? Who gets that money? How much will that be per FY? Per decade? By your own definition, it will never reach a point where it can stop. So again, how did our Navy survive over two centuries of climate change - change greater than what it has seen recently - without a "Task Force?" A Task Force designed to never end?
The lack of integrity in the climate change community is obvious from the release of the UEA e-mails, both from a few years ago, and more this week. See here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/ Until that is adequately addressed, there isn't much credability in alleged "climate change" (remember how it was "global warming" until is wasn't warming?)
Your glib dismissal of climate science suggests that you are not well-informed on the status of serious climate research.
The course of "Climate Research" is the biggest goof in science since Ptolemey came up with his scientific "certainty"...
Might add too that there was broad consensus that his "Research" was considered irrefutable by the learned of the day.
And, now we have yet more evidence that the scions of "Climate Research" is are outright charlatans...
The real peril of "Climate Change" is not the increasingly shaky theory of anthropogenic global warming but the sweeping, eye-wateringly expensive, economically catastrophic policies being introduced on the basis of little more than junk science. On the eve of the U.N.'s Durban climate summit, just as he did two years ago before Copenhagen, the anonymous leaker FOIA has done the causes of truth, rationalism and global justice an enormous favor.
Their imperious certitude reminds me of this...
Oh, and BTW, I've had direct dealings with the folks from East Anglia...and their arrogance...when they foisted one of the biggest -DIDN'T NEED TO HAPPEN- economic crises to happen in modern times.
Hey, sid, I was doing some serious climate research of my own on Wednesday. Shoveling almost a foot of Global Warming out of my driveway. The third significant snowfall of the season, and it isn't even December yet.
Ha!...
I was out sailing yesterday afternoon after work...
Sucks to be you! :-D
Yep. Neither Al Gore nor any of the East Anglia (West Moscow?) "serious climate science" bolshies was here to help me.
They were too busy crafting more fabricated fodder for budget-crushing and industry-stifling legislation.
Neither Al Gore nor any of the East Anglia (West Moscow?) "serious climate science" bolshies was here to help me.
I hear that fuzzy cute sex poodles don't like the cold and snow that much...
Yeeeh. The only things worse than imagining Al Gore getting a massage are imagining Bill Clinton getting one, or worse, Hillary getting one!!!!
Senior Chief...
I -climate skeptic that I am- can't agree more that the USN needs to redevelop the ability to wage war in the Arctic...
Its a skill we've lost since the Cold War...
Used to be a time that it was a priority.
(Might add that your's truly is a Bluenose ...)
But the USN needs to remain rigidly agnostic on the whole topic of "Climate Change" or its efforts will inevitably get torpedoed as the flaws in the science become more and more exposed and rejected.
Anyway...
The point is moot for now as its definitely all frozen up there....
Sid,
Better than being a BROWN NOSE! :)
It's unfortunate that a real strategic capability gap, that is the ability to operate in arctic or near-arctic regions has to be supported with the AGW tent pole. You can't just take a Tico and send it up north, ice free summers or not it will always be a harsh environment. Not sure what a TF climate change that has no authority over NAVAIR/NAVSEA/OPNAV will be able to do about that strategic capability gap.
<p><span><span>CDR, there is at least a possibility that the Earth is experiencing the most rapid climate change in the last two million years, and may have consequences when combined with rising populations, decreasing resources, and globalized economies. You can always find reasons to disagree with that, but you seem to think that the Navy should not even consider it. Come on - a three-person team to consider what this may mean for future operations, and you think it is political? Militaries do risk assessment on every potential threat. Why not this one, especially in light of the potential challenges of the Arctic?</span></span>
</p><p><span><span>I mentioned Adm. Titley’s credentials because it means he has the educational and professional background to evaluate the science behind climate research. Since he is not a receiver of grant money, he is not a political activist, and was not focused on climate change until the CNO charged him with the job, his opinion on the debate should be respected, even if you don't accept it. My opinion is that he is man of more sober judgment than most of the members of this forum.</span></span>
</p><p>
</p><p><span><span>If you maintain any respect for the major scientific institutions of the United States, then you should consider that human activities as a contributing factor to climate change has been formerly acknowledged by such institutions as the National Academy of Science, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Society, the National Science Foundation, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the American Society of Agronomy, the Geological Society of America….well, the list is too long to continue. Do you really believe they are all in on the “conspiracy?”</span></span>
</p><p>
</p><p><span><span>I’m not a scientist, and I’m definitely not an activist, but I try to follow the current research and I find the evidence pretty compelling. Honestly, how big a leap is it to imagine that seven billion people and the rapid spread of industrialized processes could produce enough carbon waste to affect the atmosphere?</span></span>
</p><p><span><span>V/r AGCS</span></span>
</p><p> </p>
"<span><span><span>If you maintain any respect for the major scientific institutions of the United States, then you should consider that human activities as a contributing factor to climate change has been formerly acknowledged by such institutions as the National Academy of Science, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Society, the National Science Foundation, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the American Society of Agronomy, the Geological Society of America"</span></span></span>
YGTBSM
Take a survey of those people who populate those institutions, and what their voting records are in the last four national elections, where their campaign contributions go, where they consider themselves to be on the political spectrum. How many of them have friends in, or belong to organizations like this one? Or this one? Or this? How many contribute financially or in other ways to those groups and ones like them?
They are well left of center, and many are idealogues who are deliberately manipulating scientific data in pursuit of either grant money or of the goal of stifling industrial growth.
Global warming is a SCAM. The same as it was in the 1970s, by many of the same people, for many of the same reasons. Anti-capitalist socialism-communism disguised thinly as environmental concern. The greatest amount of "greenhouse gases" from man's activity was in the heyday of unregulated coal-burning heavy manufacturing in the 1950s and 60s. Yet, that was precisely the time when we were being encouraged to strangle US industry with excessive regulation and give huge subsidies to Third World countries, to prevent the next ICE AGE.
So answer this one, Chief. Let's say for argument's sake the measured world temperature record goes back 135 years of a total of 4.6 billion years. That represents a 0.00000003% sample of the earth's history. Yes, 2.9 to the -8th power. Yet, since 1998, world temperatures have stabilized. That is 13 years out of 135. How is it that 0.00000003% of the total as a sample size is legitimate to extrapolate from, when that sample is no more statistically significant than the 13 years between 1998-2011, when the world has cooled ever so slightly?
I think the e-mails coming from East Anglia can shed some light on the answer....
Senior,
"... <span> </span><span>there is at least a possibility that the Earth is experiencing the most rapid climate change in the last two million years</span>"
Could you please provide a reference that supports your above statement. Please don't past the "hocky-stick" graph. That was debunked over a year ago. A well footnoted document for you to review is here. http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm
Facts are difficult things Senior.
I can tell you, when I worked in academia, all the rage was research on the "missing" carbon in the carbon cycle. When I asked the bio/phys modeler why everybody was looking at that, he said, "That's where the money is." The funding is finite, NSF controls an awful lot of that funding and well, take a look at their leanings and politics. Additionally, even IF it is man made climate change, you have to counter China (not likely) and India (also not likely). To completely take your country out of the economic competition to please the drum circle seems a bit craven. We need to survey up there, no doubt, we need to survey a LOT of places, but knowing the SLOCs up there is a great thing. Furthermore, knowing the resource pool up there and planning on how to compete for the resources up there is also a positive thing. The environmentalists need to understand that the Chinese and Russians will exploit the environment and do FAR more damage than the US companys will. They are fools to shut down the US industry.
The sky is clear and full of stars here at the Badger's Burrow, and it is in the mid 20's.
Ahhhh, climate change.
"UN Draft Text Demands: The West will pay 'climate debt' because of its 'historical responsibility' for causing 'global warming' -- UN seeks end to wars to 'protect the climate system'"
Precisely the cure for global cooling circa 1975. Good thing this isn't crap scientific smoke to cover wealth redistribution, or anything.
Someone here mentioned "serious climate science". Ain't seen any yet.
Post a Comment