Migration Nightmares Hitting Europe

[tumscalcium]

Four-year-old girl among refugees raped in Greece as thousands of asylum seekers trapped in camps

So the moral of the story is that we should let the child rapist roam freely in the country so they won't rape children in camps

I liked only out of the retardedness you pointed out.

So disgusting.

 

[ShowSomePride]

Side note: one of the many reasons climate change is so important. Sea levels rise a tad and you'll have millions of displaced

 

[UT_Dutchman]

Side note: one of the many reasons climate change is so important. Sea levels rise a tad and you'll have millions of displaced

Or drowned.

 

[golfballs]

Side note: one of the many reasons climate change is so important. Sea levels rise a tad and you'll have millions of displaced

Even more reason we need extreme vetting

 

[LouderVol]

Side note: one of the many reasons climate change is so important. Sea levels rise a tad and you'll have millions of displaced

side note: don't live below or at sea level. because you know, the whole water thing.

 

[ShowSomePride]

side note: don't live below or at sea level. because you know, the whole water thing.

As of 2010, almost 40% of the United State's population lived in counties directly on the shoreline. Apply that on a global scale and the amount of people displaced by sea levels rising even 20 or 30 feet is enormous.

 

[Jxn Vol]

As of 2010, almost 40% of the United State's population lived in counties directly on the shoreline. Apply that on a global scale and the amount of people displaced by sea levels rising even 20 or 30 feet is enormous.

Tell Gore he should move from his shack he bought on the coast. Because he's put himself in danger and all.

 

[ShowSomePride]

Tell Gore he should move from his shack he bought on the coast. Because he's put himself in danger and all.

Not really sure what this comment means

 

[LouderVol]

As of 2010, almost 40% of the United State's population lived in counties directly on the shoreline. Apply that on a global scale and the amount of people displaced by sea levels rising even 20 or 30 feet is enormous.

funny enough coastal living has a lot more impact on the environment than living in a city. destruction of important ecosystems that actually handle the rising tide. further travel to get places, both in terms of directness and distance. plus you have all the considerations of what living near the coasts mean. storm damage, increased requirements for buildings (more materials). they are the fat guy eating at Mcdonalds complaining about fast food.

 

[ShowSomePride]

funny enough coastal living has a lot more impact on the environment than living in a city. destruction of important ecosystems that actually handle the rising tide. further travel to get places, both in terms of directness and distance. plus you have all the considerations of what living near the coasts mean. storm damage, increased requirements for buildings (more materials). they are the fat guy eating at Mcdonalds complaining about fast food.

I'm not really sure what your point is. The fact remains that many, many people do in fact live in coastal areas. Rising sea levels (and increased weather hazards) will displace these people in large numbers. That becomes a national security issue as immigrant #'s skyrocket.

 

[LouderVol]

I'm not really sure what your point is. The fact remains that many, many people do in fact live in coastal areas. Rising sea levels (and increased weather hazards) will displace these people in large numbers. That becomes a national security issue as immigrant #'s skyrocket.

so move them off the coast. its not going to be some drastic jump. instead of the usual situation of people building out to the ocean you will see people move away over time. at least here in the US.

and not sure how a natural phenomenon can be declared national security. what percentage of our population lives out in California around all the earth quakes? no national security issue there. just people being dumb.

 

[ShowSomePride]

so move them off the coast. its not going to be some drastic jump. instead of the usual situation of people building out to the ocean you will see people move away over time. at least here in the US.

and not sure how a natural phenomenon can be declared national security. what percentage of our population lives out in California around all the earth quakes? no national security issue there. just people being dumb.

Department of Defense considers climate change a security risk

https://www.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/612710/

So does the Navy, and they have for a long time

http://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/weather/climatechange/globalclimatechange-navy.pdf

Former Navy Secretary Mabus' farewell speech

http://navylive.dodlive.mil/2017/01/18/farewell-and-following-seas-secnav-ray-mabus/

"This is not just a national issue. It's a grave national security issue."

 

[LouderVol]

Department of Defense considers climate change a security risk

https://www.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/612710/

So does the Navy, and they have for a long time

http://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/weather/climatechange/globalclimatechange-navy.pdf

Former Navy Secretary Mabus' farewell speech

http://navylive.dodlive.mil/2017/01/18/farewell-and-following-seas-secnav-ray-mabus/

"This is not just a national issue. It's a grave national security issue."

thanks Obama.

what could we do as a nation to stop this? Even if we completely cut all of our emissions the sea levels will continue to rise. I believe the metric I saw is there would be a 5-10 year lull if we dropped everything and the world's pace kept going as it was. and that was taking into account some of the Paris agreements .

its not a national security threat if being smart fixes the issue. get off the coastline, you can see it rising. heck its not even being smart, just having common sense. don't build at or below sea level.

 

[Grand Vol]

Department of Defense considers climate change a security risk

https://www.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/612710/

So does the Navy, and they have for a long time

http://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/weather/climatechange/globalclimatechange-navy.pdf

Former Navy Secretary Mabus' farewell speech

http://navylive.dodlive.mil/2017/01/18/farewell-and-following-seas-secnav-ray-mabus/

"This is not just a national issue. It's a grave national security issue."

lol

Same DoD under Obama that equated climate change on the same level as terrorism as a "threat"?

And the same US Army under Obama's DoD that neutered the small arms rounds used by our conventional forces, making them lead free and damn near overpressuring rifles in the process?

And the same DoD that implemented an EO that says they have to go to alternate fuels like E-85, even though costing nearly the same and getting up to 40% less MPG making them buy more fuel in the long run?

Be careful about the stance you are taking...

 

[ShowSomePride]

lol

Same DoD under Obama that equated climate change on the same level as terrorism as a "threat"?

And the same US Army under Obama's DoD that neutered the small arms rounds used by our conventional forces, making them lead free and damn near overpressuring rifles in the process?

And the same DoD that implemented an EO that says they have to go to alternate fuels like E-85, even though costing nearly the same and getting up to 40% less MPG making them buy more fuel in the long run?

Be careful about the stance you are taking...

I am not arguing for particular actions that have been taken. I am pointing out the fact that the DoD and armed forces take climate change very seriously.

Even if the cost/emissions aspects of E-85 are negligible compared to gasoline fuels, it at least subsidizes the corn industry here in the United States. I fail to see the problem with that. I'd be interested to read some sources on your claims.

 

[ShowSomePride]

thanks Obama.

what could we do as a nation to stop this? Even if we completely cut all of our emissions the sea levels will continue to rise. I believe the metric I saw is there would be a 5-10 year lull if we dropped everything and the world's pace kept going as it was. and that was taking into account some of the Paris agreements .

its not a national security threat if being smart fixes the issue. get off the coastline, you can see it rising. heck its not even being smart, just having common sense. don't build at or below sea level.

You can argue all you want about it not being a security risk. The fact remains the DoD does indeed see it as such. It's also a fact that many people live in coastal areas, including many of the world's largest economic hubs

 

[Grand Vol]

I am not arguing for particular actions that have been taken. I am pointing out the fact that the DoD and armed forces take climate change very seriously.

Even if the cost/emissions aspects of E-85 are negligible compared to gasoline fuels, it at least subsidizes the corn industry here in the United States. I fail to see the problem with that. I'd be interested to read some sources on your claims.

And you miss the point of the post. Point being is the military didn't suddenly become eco friendly overnight. They play to the political winds of the party in the White House.

You want sources? Google "M885A1" and "EO concerning alternative fuels in government use"

And check out the speech at the Coast Guard Academy graduation a couple of years ago for the terrorism quip.

 

[hog88]

As of 2010, almost 40% of the United State's population lived in counties directly on the shoreline. Apply that on a global scale and the amount of people displaced by sea levels rising even 20 or 30 feet is enormous.

Wow, a what a coincidence that those same areas also vote Dem? A good flood and a lot of our problems are solved.

 

[VolStrom]

There is no doubt that we are seeing the climate change. In my lifetime of 60 years I've seen warmer summers and cooler winters. The argument seems to be what is causing it. Years ago it was refrigerant damaging the ozone layer and we were going to see a new ice age. Now it's the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and we have to eliminate CO2 emissions.
We're not smart enough to know if we can change the climate. Mother nature will do what mother nature wants. It hasn't been that long, in relation to earths history, that the south pole was a tropical paradise.

 

[Carl Pickens]

The earth had ice ages that thawed. . Long before the internal combustible engine.... I want someone to explain how that happened before I **** my pants over 35 years of questionable data

 

[LouderVol]

You can argue all you want about it not being a security risk. The fact remains the DoD does indeed see it as such. It's also a fact that many people live in coastal areas, including many of the world's largest economic hubs

i guess i want someone to define what entitles a security risk.

 

[hog88]

I am not arguing for particular actions that have been taken. I am pointing out the fact that the DoD and armed forces take climate change very seriously.

Even if the cost/emissions aspects of E-85 are negligible compared to gasoline fuels, it at least subsidizes the corn industry here in the United States. I fail to see the problem with that. I'd be interested to read some sources on your claims.

E-85 takes more energy to produce and its production causes more greenhouse gases than pure gasoline. Take 5 minutes and look it up.

 

[tumscalcium]

E-85 takes more energy to produce and its production causes more greenhouse gases than pure gasoline. Take 5 minutes and look it up.

But, but corn.

 

[hog88]

But, but corn.

Which is taken out of the food supply and causes the prices of several commodities to rise. There is no rational defense of the ethanol mandates.

 

[Obsessed]

E-85 takes more energy to produce and its production causes more greenhouse gases than pure gasoline. Take 5 minutes and look it up.

Not to mention mpg suck. It's great in boosted race applications but that's it.