Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Pentagon tells W: Climate change will destroy us
Outsports Discussion Board > Outsports > Politics & Religion
fantomas
This sounds almost like a hoax but it's not; it's from the Guardian UK and pretty scary.

It also ties into the recent article on comments of distinguished US scientists about the White House's distortion of science for political reasons.

Since it's from the Pentagon and Andrew Marshall is a venerable Pentagon figure and Republican, do you think W will pay attention, or will the energy lobby win out again?

Pentagon to W: Climate change will destroy us

QUOTE
Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters..

A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.

The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.
***
The report was commissioned by influential Pentagon defence adviser Andrew Marshall, who has held considerable sway on US military thinking over the past three decades. He was the man behind a sweeping recent review aimed at transforming the American military under Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Climate change 'should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern', say the authors, Peter Schwartz, CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of the California-based Global Business Network.

An imminent scenario of catastrophic climate change is 'plausible and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately', they conclude. As early as next year widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions.

Last week the Bush administration came under heavy fire from a large body of respected scientists who claimed that it cherry-picked science to suit its policy agenda and suppressed studies that it did not like. Jeremy Symons, a former whistleblower at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), said that suppression of the report for four months was a further example of the White House trying to bury the threat of climate change.
***
'Can Bush ignore the Pentagon? It's going be hard to blow off this sort of document. Its hugely embarrassing. After all, Bush's single highest priority is national defence. The Pentagon is no wacko, liberal group, generally speaking it is conservative. If climate change is a threat to national security and the economy, then he has to act. There are two groups the Bush Administration tend to listen to, the oil lobby and the Pentagon,' added Watson.

'You've got a President who says global warming is a hoax, and across the Potomac river you've got a Pentagon preparing for climate wars. It's pretty scary when Bush starts to ignore his own government on this issue,' said Rob Gueterbock of Greenpeace.

Already, according to Randall and Schwartz, the planet is carrying a higher population than it can sustain. By 2020 'catastrophic' shortages of water and energy supply will become increasingly harder to overcome, plunging the planet into war. They warn that 8,200 years ago climatic conditions brought widespread crop failure, famine, disease and mass migration of populations that could soon be repeated.
fantomas
Here's the thread on the scientists' concerns:

Outsports thread
JASooner
This is "close" to my field of study, so I'll try to provide a little background:

There is some evidence in the world's climate record in the past when the globe was undergoing a gradual warming in average temperature, as we are right now, there have been certain "breaking points" in the atmosphere when major changes in weather patterns and sensible weather begin to happen in a short period of time (over a few years).

Consider El Nino. It is triggered when there is a subtle decrease in the trade winds in the equatorial Pacific. In turn, that triggers a re-distribution of heat in the ocean, which triggers a major change in weather patterns all across the globe for a year or more. Likewise, the theory goes, a subtle year-to-year warming may start an acclerating chain reacton of permanent changes in weather patterns.

It's just a theory, and it's still being vetted. Plus, there's no way of knowing right now whether the "new" weather patterns will be necessarily more deadly/costly (in the long run) than the current weather patterns. For example, it's feasible the US may come out of a global weather pattern change with a much lower hurricane threat. What IS likely is that if this happens, it will be disruptive enough to the country and to the world such that governments would have to become heavily involved. For example, places that are now arid may become wet, requiring communities to move out of low lying areas to avoid being flooded.

Apparently, there is a group of scientists that believes we are nearing one of those breaking points now, and they have some ideas what might be the resulting change to weather patterns. I haven't read enough in the scientific literature
to have an educated response.
jqueer
QUOTE
JASooner:
There is some evidence in the world's climate record in the past when the globe was undergoing a gradual warming in average temperature, as we are right now,
I recently heard an expert on coral reef ecology (warning, I heard it on NPR, so some of you might want to stop reading now) state that the problem is that right now, we're not experiencing gradual climate change, but in the context of geological history, we're experiencing rapid warming. The reefs are unable to adapt and are dying.
Jim Allen
I read the blog Calpundit regularly. Here's an entry by the guy who runs the site, Kevin Drum and all the comments that he's received so far. There's some really good stuff in the comments section, if you have the patience to read 'em all.
sportinlife
I just read in the paper that the Australian Barrier Reef will inevitably die off by no later than 2100 - nothing like the time frame mentioned in the story sited above from the Pentagon. Even so, that will be a huge event in Australia where the Reef is a national treasure more important than Uluru (Ayre's Rock). The conclusion is supported by previous die-offs due to a 1 degree rise in ocean temperatures, not just theoretical speculation. This may have tremendous political significance in Australia where the Reef is an unequaled national treasure.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2012 Invision Power Services, Inc.