09-01-2018, 12:15 PM
Conspiracy.
Flawed reasoning.
Manipulating climate data.
Let’s see what the US Navy with an extensive fleet presence at Pearl Harbor, and not known for a liberal stance or falling for half baked conspiracy theories, thinks about the prospect of climate change, whether it’s real, and if they find it necessary to account for it in their operations and mission preparedness. Here’s a link that discusses the Navy’s plans for the future, including mention of what they expect at their base in Pearl Harbor and other locations:
The Department of Defense is clear-eyed about the challenges climate change poses.
Like many other organizations, the navy cannot afford to treat climate change as a partisan issue. The Department of Defense knows that the mid-century world for which the admirals are now planning is likely to be warmer than today’s, with higher sea levels, new precipitation patterns, and more frequent and severe extreme weather events,
The navy predicts that climate change will lead to more—and more-prolonged—droughts, which in turn will raise the potential for more military interventions.
Especially vulnerable are the navy’s coastal infrastructure and the supply chains that furnish energy and materials to its bases and fleet, all of which are essential to mission readiness. Most of the navy’s land-based assets—shipyards, bases, and other installations—are on seacoasts. These assets were designed and built to be resilient to historic sea levels and storm intensity. But sea levels rose on average nearly half a foot over the 20th century, a rate faster than that in any century since at least 800 BC.
https://hbr.org/2017/07/managing-climate-change
At a White House meeting in June, President Trump reportedly told Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe that “I remember Pearl Harbor.”
Flawed reasoning.
Manipulating climate data.
Let’s see what the US Navy with an extensive fleet presence at Pearl Harbor, and not known for a liberal stance or falling for half baked conspiracy theories, thinks about the prospect of climate change, whether it’s real, and if they find it necessary to account for it in their operations and mission preparedness. Here’s a link that discusses the Navy’s plans for the future, including mention of what they expect at their base in Pearl Harbor and other locations:
The Department of Defense is clear-eyed about the challenges climate change poses.
Like many other organizations, the navy cannot afford to treat climate change as a partisan issue. The Department of Defense knows that the mid-century world for which the admirals are now planning is likely to be warmer than today’s, with higher sea levels, new precipitation patterns, and more frequent and severe extreme weather events,
The navy predicts that climate change will lead to more—and more-prolonged—droughts, which in turn will raise the potential for more military interventions.
Especially vulnerable are the navy’s coastal infrastructure and the supply chains that furnish energy and materials to its bases and fleet, all of which are essential to mission readiness. Most of the navy’s land-based assets—shipyards, bases, and other installations—are on seacoasts. These assets were designed and built to be resilient to historic sea levels and storm intensity. But sea levels rose on average nearly half a foot over the 20th century, a rate faster than that in any century since at least 800 BC.
https://hbr.org/2017/07/managing-climate-change
At a White House meeting in June, President Trump reportedly told Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe that “I remember Pearl Harbor.”
"I'm at that stage in life where I stay out of discussions. Even if you say 1+1=5, you're right - have fun." - Keanu Reeves