well, well, well ...

[j_b]

link to story

 

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

 

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.

 

[go to link for rest of article]

[stinkyclimber]

Well, on the bright side, the ice climbing will be better. And no more dry, broken up glaciers. And good skiing...

 

For once, I may enjoy the outcomes of one of Bush's stupid decisions.

[Dru]

Bush presiding over "Sovietization" of science; climate change deniers to Bushadmin what Lysenko was in Russia

[j_b]

who needs science when one has direct, personal access to god

[Lars]

this planet has been experiencing global warming ever since the last ice age ended...its just a natural progression, but britain will turn into siberia in only 20 years??

 

and climate change is going to provoke nuclear war how??

 

 

what a crock o' shit

[AlpineK]

Didn't you read Dru's article Lars. Just admit it you're a commie. Go back to the USSR you unamerican fuck.

[cracked]

We need to reduce global warming to prevent global cooling in twenty years. So global cooling prevents global cooling?

[Dru]

this is why we call it "climate change". Warmer in some places and colder in others, wetter here and drier there. But if you talk Bushspeak, the climate change cannot be caused by humans therefore we don't need to do anything about it.

[Lars]

or...any change in the environment MUST be caused by humans, therefore, we must do something about it

 

 

go hug a tree, hippy

[richard_noggin]

Didn't you read Dru's article Lars. Just admit it you're a commie. Go back to the USSR you unamerican fuck.

 

Oh my GOD! TRASK has tak'n over alpinwankers body

DICK

[AlpineK]

or...any change in the environment MUST be caused by humans, therefore, we must do something about it

 

 

go hug a tree, hippy

 

I told you to go back to the USSR Take GW and his neo-conservatives. You're not fit to be an American.

[catbirdseat]

We need to reduce global warming to prevent global cooling in twenty years. So global cooling prevents global cooling?

This was all discussed here before. Remember the disruption of the Gulf Stream by melting glaciers on Greenland, etc.?

[JayB]

j_b is going to have to go cold Turkey and ditch his NASCAR habbit or we're all gonna die...........

 

Speaking of Kyoto, it would be interesting to take a survey of all of the people that cite the Kyoto accord and note how many of them have actually read the thing. At the time it was published I think the prediction was that if fully implemented it would reduced total global emissions by around 1%, and all developing nations like China and India are completely excempt from the treaty. Given their rates of population and economic growth, any attempt to reduce global CO2 emissions that excludes these two nations alone will not have much of an effect on global climate change. The most sensible and effective way to reduce emissions in practice would be to give consumers and corporations an economic incentive to reduce their output of CO2 through targeted tax credits for fuel efficient motor vehicles, the creation of a market for emissions credits, etc, etc, etc. Incremental change by means of small, practical measures that result from people acting in a manner that is consistent with what they perceive to be their best interest is almost always far more effective at changing the way society operates than abrupt, jarring changes brought about by coercive measures. If it were up to me I would have the US sign the thing and then ignore it like the rest of the world and be done with it, as doing so would be an easy way of forcing the anti-globalist, anti-capitalist, anti-american parlor-marxist crew to be a bit more creative when searching for fodder for their diatribes.

 

 

On a related note, raise your hand if you uncritically accepted all of Paul Ehrlich's (early 1970s) predictions about the catastrophic shortages of food, water, and natural resources that was supposed to wreak havoc on the world well before the end of the century.

[ILuvAliens]

or...any change in the environment MUST be caused by humans, therefore, we must do something about it

 

 

 

go hug a tree, hippy

 

 

It is obviously one or the other, right?

 

Take some responsibility.

 

And yes, I hug trees.

[j_b]

this planet has been experiencing global warming ever since the last ice age ended...its just a natural progression

 

we all know that climate has been warming since the last major glacial, but warming has not been uniform, it has not been warmer than today (global average) in 1000s of years, and warming has accelerated this century (especially the last 50 years). the evidence for it is mounting and overwhelming. this is underlined by changes in ice extent on land and the ocean (arctic), and extreme droughts a mid-latitude and increasing precip at high mid latitudes. do you have a reference (scientific, peer-reviewed) to back up your saying the observed warming is a "natural progression"?

 

but britain will turn into siberia in only 20 years??

 

i suspect nobody knows exactly the future extent of the weakening of the gulf stream toward western europe (warm ocean current) but data show it is already happening. paleoclimatic data in turn indicate that the gulf stream can shut off very rapidly (decades).

 

and climate change is going to provoke nuclear war how??

 

yeah right! since nobody would go to war to control oil resources, nobody would go to war to control food or water (or as it were, send someone else to do their dirty business)

[JayB]

Just admit that it's your fault for being a hopeless NASCAR junkie and move on....