Pentagon: Secret Report on Climate - Bush lied again by Ghoulman

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Pentagon: Secret Report on Climate - Bush lied again

POSTED BY: GHOULMAN
UPDATED: Saturday, February 11, 2006 18:33
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2554
PAGE 1 of 1

Friday, September 10, 2004 3:52 AM

Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us

· Secret report warns of rioting and nuclear war
· Britain will be 'Siberian' in less than 20 years
· Threat to the world is greater than terrorism

Mark Townsend and Paul Harris in New York
Sunday February 22, 2004
The Observer
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.h
tml
-------------
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.

'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.'

The findings will prove humiliating to the Bush administration, which has repeatedly denied that climate change even exists. Experts said that they will also make unsettling reading for a President who has insisted national defence is a priority.

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.

Senior climatologists, however, believe that their verdicts could prove the catalyst in forcing Bush to accept climate change as a real and happening phenomenon. They also hope it will convince the United States to sign up to global treaties to reduce the rate of climatic change.

A group of eminent UK scientists recently visited the White House to voice their fears over global warming, part of an intensifying drive to get the US to treat the issue seriously. Sources have told The Observer that American officials appeared extremely sensitive about the issue when faced with complaints that America's public stance appeared increasingly out of touch.

One even alleged that the White House had written to complain about some of the comments attributed to Professor Sir David King, Tony Blair's chief scientific adviser, after he branded the President's position on the issue as indefensible.

Among those scientists present at the White House talks were Professor John Schellnhuber, former chief environmental adviser to the German government and head of the UK's leading group of climate scientists at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. He said that the Pentagon's internal fears should prove the 'tipping point' in persuading Bush to accept climatic change.

Sir John Houghton, former chief executive of the Meteorological Office - and the first senior figure to liken the threat of climate change to that of terrorism - said: 'If the Pentagon is sending out that sort of message, then this is an important document indeed.'

Bob Watson, chief scientist for the World Bank and former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, added that the Pentagon's dire warnings could no longer be ignored.

'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.

Randall told The Observer that the potential ramifications of rapid climate change would create global chaos. 'This is depressing stuff,' he said. 'It is a national security threat that is unique because there is no enemy to point your guns at and we have no control over the threat.'

Randall added that it was already possibly too late to prevent a disaster happening. 'We don't know exactly where we are in the process. It could start tomorrow and we would not know for another five years,' he said.

'The consequences for some nations of the climate change are unbelievable. It seems obvious that cutting the use of fossil fuels would be worthwhile.'

So dramatic are the report's scenarios, Watson said, that they may prove vital in the US elections. Democratic frontrunner John Kerry is known to accept climate change as a real problem. Scientists disillusioned with Bush's stance are threatening to make sure Kerry uses the Pentagon report in his campaign.

The fact that Marshall is behind its scathing findings will aid Kerry's cause. Marshall, 82, is a Pentagon legend who heads a secretive think-tank dedicated to weighing risks to national security called the Office of Net Assessment. Dubbed 'Yoda' by Pentagon insiders who respect his vast experience, he is credited with being behind the Department of Defence's push on ballistic-missile defence.

Symons, who left the EPA in protest at political interference, said that the suppression of the report was a further instance of the White House trying to bury evidence of climate change. 'It is yet another example of why this government should stop burying its head in the sand on this issue.'

Symons said the Bush administration's close links to high-powered energy and oil companies was vital in understanding why climate change was received sceptically in the Oval Office. 'This administration is ignoring the evidence in order to placate a handful of large energy and oil companies,' he added.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 10, 2004 4:57 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Just in case you want to get your info first hand and not just a few quotes, the actual report, "An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security" can be seen here:

http://www.ems.org/climate/pentagon_climatechange.pdf

Here's the introduction:

The purpose of this report is to imagine the unthinkable – to push the boundaries of current research on climate change so we may better understand the potential implications on United States national security.
We have interviewed leading climate change scientists, conducted additional research, and reviewed several iterations of the scenario with these experts. The scientists support this project, but caution that the scenario depicted is extreme in two fundamental ways. First, they suggest the occurrences we outline would most likely happen in a few regions, rather than on globally. Second, they say the magnitude of the event may be considerably smaller.
We have created a climate change scenario that although not the most likely, is plausible, and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately.

And a response to the "Hullabaloo":

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/02/25/MNG0O57
R4R1.DTL

Wednesday, February 25, 2004

San Francisco Chronicle

Pentagon-sponsored climate report sparks hullabaloo in Europe But new ice age unlikely, Bay Area authors of study say

Keay Davidson, Chronicle Science Writer
Wednesday, February 25, 2004

A Pentagon-commissioned report by two Bay Area futurologists has sparked an international brouhaha over possible climate change disasters. But both the authors and military officials say the study has been largely misconstrued by the media and environmentalists.

BTW, note the dates on these two articles. Both are from back in February, so not the latest stuff off the presses.

Edit: and if I were the paranoid type, I'd wonder why the Observer article never mentioned the name of the report, which would have made it a lot easier to find. Could it be that they didn't want folks reading the original source data and making up their own minds? Nah, that's just crazy talk.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 10, 2004 5:38 AM

GHOULMAN

^^^ that was fast. Yes, it's the "worst case scenario".

Funny, I can't dump on Geezers' comments (as much as I'd like too) as I too didn't like how this article was written.

However, I do believe that the fix is in.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 10, 2004 7:16 AM

CONNORFLYNN

Damn!!.. I got my hopes up, that the end of the world was at hand hehe. I was hoping New York may become Florida-like LOL.

"I actually voted for John Kerry, before I voted against him"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 1, 2004 11:27 AM

PIRATEJENNY

Thanks for the article its very interesting if nothing else..Global warming isn't a hoax..I don't know how soon we are going to start feeling the dire effects , or even if it will happen in my lifetime..but I do think its something that this courntry and the world should start taking very seriously and should start emplementing policies and such to combat it.

if the human race is going to surive we are going to start not only sharing our resources but we will have to Globalize..I know for some thats a hard concept but really the surival of the human race depends on it...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 2, 2004 8:35 AM

FIREFLEW

What I find astonishing is how the environmental minister doesn't even believe global warming exists... I mean, it's been all but proven to within 0.0000001% or somesuch degree of certainty... It's completely ridiculous.

However, that report looks on the whole slightly too doomsday-esque. Sure, global warming exists but it won't affect us that much, even if it is the worst case scenario...

Coincidentally, I'll be... 32 by the time it get chilly in England. Shall I just buy some big coats now whilst they're cheap

?

___________________________________
Jayne: "Know what the chain of command is? It's the chain I beat you with till you understand who's in command."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 4, 2004 7:04 AM

GHOULMAN

^^^ the report is a "worst case scenario" and slanted to wards security issues.

It's not a prediction but a "what if".

However, it's interesting this is the topic of discussion (in the Pentagon) from a nation that doesn't admit Global Warming even exists!

BTW, science isn't about "proving" things and, uh, it can't!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 4, 2004 9:12 AM

THEGREYJEDI

Well, to be fair, global warming and the greenhouse effect are natural occurances that keep our planet in liveable conditions(relatively). And even if there are climate shifts in the works, these things have a tendency towards cyclic behavior. Should the planet warm enough, nature kicks in with an ice age to reset things. About 500 years ago, Europe was assualted by decades of brutally cold winters, on top of constant war and plagues and the like. While pollution is a threat, true and mighty threat, over-reaction, like that article, aren't the answer. I disagree with a lot of the Bush Administration's environmental policies, and I hope the US hops on board with the Kyoto Treaty soon. But our modern era is producing far less pollutants than what was done 30, even 20 years ago. Our gasoline burns cleaner than the past, and we are, slowly, working towards alternatives. Rising gas prices will only increase the speed at which alternatives are found. There's still a lot of recycling, though only a few things can be recycled efficiently, namely aluminum (the most efficient by and far, at like 97%), tires, and paper. Is there global warming? Possibly, but here in NC, I've noticed that our summers are cooler than they were 10 years ago by an estimated average of about 10 degrees. This year, for example, our hottest days were in the mid 90's. Whereas the summer of '94 I know saw several days near 105. So what does that say?

All I'm saying is that our care of the environment isn't perfect but it's improving. You can weep and moan and gnash your teeth about the terrors of industries, but in order for this to work, you have to work at the individual level. Use premium gas, which burns the cleanest. Keep your car in tune, change the oil abnd sparkplugs and air filters, etc. Recycle everything you can. Use fans, don't turn the AC down or heat up so much and use the most energy efficient devices. Our pollution problem ultimately falls on our own shoulders, not the government's.

--------------------------------------------------
http://tomeofgrey.blogspot.com

http://www.jed-soft.com Gamer Rigs, Budget Prices

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 4, 2004 9:20 AM

COSMICFUGITIVE

Interesting stuff Ghoulman. I've been following this for a while now. It's good to see it being reported here.

Worst case scenario or not, time is running out. It's still worrying.

Random Thought: Don't hurricanes help cool global warming?

Keep up the good work.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 4, 2004 9:40 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
Should the planet warm enough, nature kicks in with an ice age to reset things.

I'm glad you have this figured out. Maybe you should tell all those scientists with their supercomputers they can go home now.

Quote:
But our modern era is producing far less pollutants than what was done 30, even 20 years ago.

Not true, either on a per capita or total measure.

Quote:
here in NC, I've noticed that our summers are cooler than they were 10 years ago by an estimated average of about 10 degrees. This year, for example, our hottest days were in the mid 90's. Whereas the summer of '94 I know saw several days near 105. So what does that say?

It says you haven't looked at any real research on global warming, and additionally commit the logical error of extending a severely limited observation (one minute locality over a mere 10 years) to a general (global century-long) one.

Quote:
you have to work at the individual level

Working at the local level is not how Japan and Europe managed to create powerhouse industrial economies at half the per-capital evergy consumption of the US.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 4, 2004 4:54 PM

THEGREYJEDI

ultimately, the only thing we'll destroy is ourselves. If it gets bad enough, the world itself will revolt against us. We are not Life, merely a part of it. Should humanity become extinct, life would continue.

However, if you wish to play Chicken Little and hide in your bunker and hiss at the governemt because it's their fault that the END IS NIGH, then go ahead. I'll continue to recycle, and keep my car in tune, and carpool as I can. And not cower in fear of impending doom. But then, what fear have I of death. I have a greater reward awaiting after my time here on Earth is finished.

--------------------------------------------------
http://tomeofgrey.blogspot.com

http://www.jed-soft.com Gamer Rigs, Budget Prices

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 8, 2006 1:33 PM

JAYNEZTOWN

Bush man resigns NASA post in scandal
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060208-104056-2785r
Several NASA scientists and public affairs officials said they had been pressured by Deutsch and other political appointees to limit or slant discussions of topics uncomfortable to the Bush administration.
Last month the information officers revealed they had been instructed to limit NASA climate scientist James Hansen's speaking and interviews concerning global warming.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 8, 2006 4:19 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Fireflew:
Coincidentally, I'll be... 32 by the time it get chilly in England. Shall I just buy some big coats now whilst they're cheap ?

Short answer: Yep.

Winterized Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 8, 2006 6:21 PM

DREAMTROVE

Bush ran on a platform in 2000 containing a lot of environmental points. The conservation portion of the platform was drawn up by Condi Rice and Christie Whittman. Since then, Bush has fired every underling, with the exception of Condi, who has ever said anything that would require him to take any environmental action.

I don't think the people he has now actually believe what they say, they're just doing what ever they think they have to in order not to get fired. If that means making moronic statements they'll do it.

I remember last year when Max Mayfield kept saying 'lot of hurricanes, looks like that global warming is kicking out ass' Bush and Co went right out and found someone to say the opposite, and Max dropped to the background.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 9, 2006 12:04 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by TheGreyJedi:
And even if there are climate shifts in the works, these things have a tendency towards cyclic behavior.

Although this is true to a degree in respect to the natural cycles, if you look at the climate temperature and CO2 figures for the last 400-600,000yrs it is quite apparent that what is happening now isn't exactly normal behaviour of the natural climate system.

Venus is getting warmer, when does it's balancing ice age happen?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 9, 2006 6:32 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:
Thanks for the article its very interesting if nothing else..Global warming isn't a hoax..I don't know how soon we are going to start feeling the dire effects

We're seeing it already. Last night, for example, it snowed in Cleveland. Snow, Cleveland, February...and now they're saying that sometime in the next three months its going to get warm and perhaps by July we will have regular alternating periods of rain and sun.

God help us all.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 11, 2006 4:49 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

I know, it's like talking to a brick wall, but here goes. Bush didn't lie. Not before, not again. Bush doesn't buy into global warming. Many people don't. Not agreeing w/ something is not the same as lying. (I'm astounded that some people still haven't learned such a simple thing) This report about so called 'scenarios' is just that, a report. It's not a crystal ball, not a view of things to come. Not by a long shot. What such reports DO is lay out worst case scenarios should such catastrophic events occur, and how that might impact the global community in such an event.

The late ( and in my mind, GREAT ) Carl Sagan was in the camp of those who predicted severe consequences as a result of the over 700 oil well fires which were set off by Saddam in the 1st Gulf war. Thick black smoke from those fires would block out the sunlight and result in a regional climate change and a overall global temperature drop. A mini nuclear winter The net result ? Next to nothing , as the fires were put out. Computer climate models and claims from 'experts' were dead wrong.

Quote:
Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020

Anyone want to make a bet that this won't happen? We've got 14 years for this to occur. *I'll put up 1k $$. Any takers ?

*( And just to clarify..are we talkin' Britain in 2020 will have the climate of Siberia circa 2006? Or that Britain and Siberia will both have the same climate in 2020? )

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 11, 2006 5:29 PM

DREAMTROVE

Auraptor, stop stomping for Al Qaeda Bush. Take an ideological position and fight for it. This "Bush is always right" is getting so old that it's age alone disproves creationism.

This isn't an attack, or hostile flaming troll post, it's serious advice. I suspect that while I disagree with Bush on an increasing number of points daily, I don't really find myself disagreeing with you on other points. Bush is right, or Bush didn't lie, is an absurd position. It's as absurd as the Soviet Union didn't kill people or China isn't an expansionist power. It's just beyond the point where it's even worth arguing. I'm not going to bother with the long list of things that everyone posted last time, as glaring examples of lies by Bush, what would be the point? But I feel I do have to remind you "why does it matter?" If your defense of Bush, the only logical thing that defends him, and it's what you've said before, is that Bush didn't know X or Y or Z, then the logical conclusion is what we already know, which is Bush is a moron. So Bush smarter than Kerry, so what, Kerry is also a moron. Bush isn't even as smart as Clinton, who iis really no genius. There's no comparison between Bush and his father, or even his brother. So maybe Bush simply doesn't know what he's talking about all of the time, why is that any better than if he were a liar? Quite frankly, there's very little that I wouldn't give to trade Bush in for Dick Nixon right now. My current position is Bush has been downgrade from bad for a republican to bad for a president to bad for a human to my new low level, bad for a random animal. No offense, I don't think you're a moron at all, I just think you're being loyal to a fault, and in this case, loyal to someone who is not in any way being loyal to you, as a republican voter, unless you're some Jack Abramoff waiting for kickbacks, because Bush has pretty much betrayed just about every platform point he ran on in 2000.

That said,

Citizen,

You're geologic reference makes an interesting point in the "so what" dept. You proved successfully that global warming is not natural. I most of us thought it was. But since what it is doing is rewinding time, what's wrong with that? I remember someone on the news saying 1-2 million years ago at present. But life on earth was doing just fine 100 million years ago, possibly better than it is today. So why is backwards the wrong direction for climate change to make? Would you prefer another ice age instead? I still can't see that global warming is a serious threat to life on earth, maybe to humans, but humans can move north, or stop polluting, or both.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 11, 2006 5:30 PM

DREAMTROVE

Auraptor,

My apologies for the rant, not directed at you, I'm very very angry at Bush at the moment, more than usual.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 11, 2006 5:48 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Auraptor,

My apologies for the rant, not directed at you, I'm very very angry at Bush at the moment, more than usual.

I've been skeptical of global warming long before Bush was in the White House. FYI.

Quote:
Bush isn't even as smart as Clinton, who iis really no genius.

I don't know about genius, but Clinton was a Rhodes scholar, was he not ? But so what ? I fail to see what this has to do w/ the false claims that Bush lied again My point of defending Bush on this point is simple. Promoting the view that someone lied when in fact they did NOT lie is akin to crying wolf. Don't like Bush's policies ? Fine, no skin off my nose, but don't vilify and slander someone for that which they're not guilty.

mini rant over.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 11, 2006 6:33 PM

DREAMTROVE

Auraptor,

Sure, I get this. I used to be skeptical of the science, I considered the solar cycle thing, etc., but now I've read enough of the science, I'm convinced. But I'm not convinces that it's this alarmist nonsense, or even really that bad. After studying the science enough I began to realize that the Earth was, long term, freezing to death, before man came along. Any correction against that is good for the Earth, from a long term perspective. If in a century we rewound one million years, and we can afford to rewind 100 million years before we reach the Earth's ecological peak, even with a drastic rate of increase, the earth can afford a lot more warming. I oppose oil dependence for other reasons. I don't like the danger of combustable fuel that can blow up a car or plane, I don't care for the localized carbon monoxide in cities, and I don't like the way it pushed us into mideast conflicts, increases our trade deficit and is generally bad for the economy. I think alternative energy, which is largely an American industry, more so than oil, would be a good place to invest.

On that note, I liked Bush's speech. I thought about it, and here's what I came up with:

1. I considered the possibility that Bush was sincere, but then he did the national forest thing, so I decided Bush is really the loser I think he is.

2. I am still considering that a lot of that was put in by the traditional repubclians.

3. I don't think that a healthcare solution is going to work that doesn't include some form of deregulation aimed at lowering costs.

4. I don't care for a hawkish Iran stance, I'm not a fan of war, and I think this will be a long and pointless one.

5. But overall, I liked it, there was a lot of good stuff in it. If the Bush crowd really wants to convince me that they should not be tried for treason the day after leaving office, they should get on that, do those things.

I don't think he really will. I think the only word he keeps is his secret word with his friends.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE