TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us

Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us

now this shit is just plain scary. normally u'd read stuff like this on doomsday paranormal sites, but The Guardian definitely has more credibility so i think its worth a read.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/inte...1153513,00.html

� 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.

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.

The Guardian is sometimes like an excited little child that just got a nickel from grandpa.

First off, this was hardly a "secret" report. Just do a search - it's been all over the net since the beginning of the month.

And it just so happens that much of the "hype" behind the report was drummed up by Fortune magazine, already critiqued here.

you may be right in that the news may have been sensationalized, but i still agree with the basic premise of the article.

besides, most of the search results that i checked out were in support of the article.

Maybe this is pentagon's way of justifying the increased defense spending on mammoth sized submarines?


Come on.. global warming doomsayers have been around as long as someone thought of the idea - if they were right, we should be living now in a flooded surronded by radioactive energy left over from the nuclear wars.. just like in those bad 1980s science fiction movies...

I urge you all to read "The Skeptical Environmentalist," by Bjorn Lomborg. I think it will change the way you feel about many of our modern day "doomsday" situations. \

To me, hearing all of these "end of the world at the hands of the environment" scenarios sound like some nut job Christian spewing passages from Revelation. Lots of emotional charge with nothing behind it.

Flame away.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono To me, hearing all of these "end of the world at the hands of the environment" scenarios sound like some nut job Christian spewing passages from Revelation. Lots of emotional charge with nothing behind it.

I agree. We've been seriously observing global climate for maybe 150 years now, and only with serious scientific knowledge for 50-100. This report is talking about 15 years to make such drastic climate changes. 15 years is barely a geological nanosecond. It's like a perfectly healthy person growing a full blown brain tumor that kills him within 10-15 seconds.

Now I'm not so naive as to beleive we aren't fucking things up, but I beleive if such drastic changes were going to happen within 15 years, we'd have started to see some serious changes happening already.

So basically, same shit, different day. Environmentalists have been screaming doomsday for decades. Anyone here old enough to remember "global cooling?" Probably not (I'm not myself). Back in the 1960-1970's, temperatures were well below average and people were freaking out over global cooling. In the 90's and 00's, its global warming. These people love to ignore the fact that the sun has an 80 year cycle of luminosity and output, and the peaks and lows of that cycle perfectly coincide with both global cooling, and global warming scares. Convienent coincidence?

I still do beleive we seriously need to begin caring for the environment more, however.

quote:

urge you all to read "The Skeptical Environmentalist," by Bjorn Lomborg. I think it will change the way you feel about many of our modern day "doomsday" situations.

Lomberg has been discredited. He has suffered from the same flaw as those who he is critical. Reaching a conclusion "a priori" and tailoring the facts to suit his conclusions. It is a common flaw in academics. Yes, I will admit that many environmentalist views are basically pie in sky stuff but to deny that their are no critically serious problems in the environment is to put your head in the sand.

This isnt a new phenomenon either, whenever humans have had control over the environment it very frequently meant climate change which has led to famines and genocide. I would recommend Civilizations by Filipe Armesto on this topic.

But is it possible to actually read the report that is talked about in the Observer article. It doesnt actually say what the report was called so a Google search is out. Does the Pentagon release reports like these to the public? If not where could I find a copy of it? I would really like to read the document please not a summary or commentary about it. Would anyone have any suggestions where to start?

quote:

Originally posted by rupert Lomberg has been discredited.

That's not really the case from the latest I've read.

LINK

Besides, much of his book talks about the rationale of environmental and political groups acting in the way they do, as well as their tactics. I recommend the book for this reason alone. I would venture to say there are just as many scientists out there that will recommend as condem what he is preaching. It is much easier for the pro-environment crowd to be heard because of so many environmental groups supporting them (along with media tendencies). To me it seems that most of the people that don't like what he has to say are the ones who find their work under his examination. After all, how would you feel if someone came along and tried to bash your life's work, you'd probably try to discredit them, I'd assume.

Regardless, I'd still say read the book. If you don't want to believe what he's saying (he's very convicing and thorough), then just read it to get another viewpoint.

Sorry this is such a scatter-brained post. I just got home from work, and I'm tired as hell. Me brain no worky right.

As far as I know, the report was only a contingency plan. They don't actually expect any of those things to happen. And that's good, because if they did, they'd be dangerously underqualified. Oh, wait...

Sweet. Another doomsday report. There hasn't been one on this forum for quite a while. Actually, I've been waiting and waiting for somebody to bring up the Peak Oil doomsday theory but nobody's jumped on it yet. Where are all the tin foil hatters? You guys are slacking!

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter As far as I know, the report was only a contingency plan. They don't actually expect any of those things to happen. And that's good, because if they did, they'd be dangerously underqualified. Oh, wait...

Actually, you bring up an excellent point.

The U.S. makes contingency plans for EVERYTHING. People have seen well scripted senarios in which Mexico and Canada ally and invade the U.S. from both borders. There was even some uproar a few years ago when a contingency plan for invading China got leaked (apparantly it coincided with some little conflict they were having at the time that blew over - not the spyplane incident, it was before that).

I always knew those Canadians and Mexicans where up to something no good

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Sweet. Another doomsday report. There hasn't been one on this forum for quite a while. Actually, I've been waiting and waiting for somebody to bring up the Peak Oil doomsday theory but nobody's jumped on it yet. Where are all the tin foil hatters? You guys are slacking!

That is a very well-informed synopsis of our current energy situation. There is even more he could have added to create an even greater upheaval in the readers heart. This is something I have been contemplating since I was 15. My personal issues deal more with our ability to sustain our food source, which is essential (duh...) for survival on this planet. Ive experimented over the last three years on small plots of land trying to gain back all the knowledge that we have lost due to industrial revolution(s) and form more sustainable methods for growing food. It's not easy. I have to learn how to save seeds, till without the use of modern day (oil-dependant) equipment and come to the point where I could basically live off the land.

Fuck if I know whats going to happen, but atleast I'm going to try to live in the most sustainable ways that I can until our immenent (or so it seems) demise occurs. And then all you motherfucking crazy ******s are going to try to steal my goddamn carrots! haha... well see... I can see them now, running from the cities. I'll have to baracade my perimeters... You'll all look like you have the Rage or something... hehe.

But seriously, the greatest shortcoming that exists in modern day (industrialized) society is the lack of personal responsibility. Fuck... we all need to step up to the plate and start examing what the fuck we're doing, because the system is us, and we better be ready to face the consequences of our actions. There is a great gap between the reality of logic that foever exists in the minds of individuals (and collectively as well) and the deceptive nature of modern day media and cultural "norms"... in other words, dive into these complexities and discover their fundamental actualities on your own, for that will transport your mind into a simpler and more honest way of viewing reality, minus the shit you see and hear around you. The fears of man do not equal the innate abilities he posesses... to be impartially appreciative of each manifestation of his surrounding experience, leaving only an honest reflection of his original desire for tranquility and simplistic adoration for the world he indeed lives and breathes in. This of course is accomplished by any individual that chooses to live in such a manor... but this way of life is not experienced by those who fail to tend a well kept garden, but rather piss away their moment and live in the shadows of their own mind.

Many religions offer this noble advice.

"Become, as you once were, a child again."

trancedfarmer, I think you are on the right track. It's too bad you're only going to get ridiculed here with that kind of thinking.

quote:

Originally posted by trancedfarmer The fears of man do not equal the innate abilities he posesses... to be impartially appreciative of each manifestation of his surrounding experience, leaving only an honest reflection of his original desire for tranquility and simplistic adoration for the world he indeed lives and breathes in. This of course is accomplished by any individual that chooses to live in such a manor... but this way of life is not experienced by those who fail to tend a well kept garden, but rather piss away their moment and live in the shadows of their own mind. Many religions offer this noble advice. "Become, as you once were, a child again."

Well, here I don't agree. No matter how true this may be, who are you to judge people? What you are saying, is it your own experience or are you just repeating what others have said? Help yourself, before you can help others.

quote:

Originally posted by nrjizer People have seen well scripted senarios in which Mexico and Canada ally and invade the U.S. from both borders.

Nooo our precious plan utterly ruined...

Re: Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us

quote:

Originally posted by AnotherWay83 now this shit is just plain scary. normally u'd read stuff like this on doomsday paranormal sites, but The Guardian definitely has more credibility so i think its worth a read. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/inte...1153513,00.html � 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

This just reeks of National Enquirer, as in oh look, lets SHOCK the public to GET attention.

Britain, Siberian in 20 years, I'll remember that in 2024, not, cause it aint gonna happen. And if it does, well I'll be a monkey's uncle.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono That's not really the case from the latest I've read. LINK Besides, much of his book talks about the rationale of environmental and political groups acting in the way they do, as well as their tactics. I recommend the book for this reason alone. I would venture to say there are just as many scientists out there that will recommend as condem what he is preaching. It is much easier for the pro-environment crowd to be heard because of so many environmental groups supporting them (along with media tendencies). To me it seems that most of the people that don't like what he has to say are the ones who find their work under his examination. After all, how would you feel if someone came along and tried to bash your life's work, you'd probably try to discredit them, I'd assume. Regardless, I'd still say read the book. If you don't want to believe what he's saying (he's very convicing and thorough), then just read it to get another viewpoint. ...

Lomborg's book - and practically every other piece of research he has been doing - has been criticized not only by those whose hypothesises he refutes, but also by fully trained staticians (which Lomborg is not). The problem with his science is that he fails to define the classifications and utilities he uses. Things such as "vegetated areas" may include anything from brushland to rain forest in parts of his research, and in others it means something else. The monetary values of non-monetary substances (e.g. a squaremile of forest) which he uses are derived from subjective estimates or based on conditions which cannot be said to be universally satisfied.
If you are familiar with sensitivity analysis you know that even small variations in problem parameters can have drastic effects on the deduced conclusions. Therefore his conclusions shouldn't be taken as truth.

I agree with you that we shouldn't buy any doomsday theory coming our way as truth neither, but Lomborg's book is a bad counter argument - even if it might provide for a provocative and joyful read.

quote:

Sweet. Another doomsday report. There hasn't been one on this forum for quite a while. Actually, I've been waiting and waiting for somebody to bring up the Peak Oil doomsday theory but nobody's jumped on it yet. Where are all the tin foil hatters? You guys are slacking!

I dont mean to be argumentative, but the oil supply is going to run out. I dont know about it being a doomsday theory though.

The site linked to refers to Hubberts Peak. Its not some made up theory.

A few years ago I did a lot of research on what I should invest my money in, and I came up with three areas; energy generation, oil and health care.

The reason I chose Oil is because it is a straight out fact that the oil supply will run out sometime this century. The only thing in question is when which largely depends on the level of increase in pconsumption. So their will be a peak in production probably in the next 20 years and then its all downhill. A few short generalizations about oil as a commodity


1) there has been no major blockbuster oil field discovered since the 1970's

2) demand for oil, irrespective of improvements in technology which make vehicles more fuel efficient must increase as millions of Chinese and Indians will get motor vehicles.

3) oil substitutes are by and large rubbish, shale oil etc are not very productive compared to oil itself

4)there may well be vast supplies of oil still in the ground BUT the cost of extracting oil is not always the same. It is cheapest to get oil from the ground, in places like Arabia, more expensive to get it out of the permafrost of Siberia and even more expensive to get it from the ocean. It costs energy to extract the oil and many discoveries are not worthwhile to extract.

5) oil exploration is horendously expensive which means whichever company strikes oil in a sizeable quantity becomes an instant takeover target for the big fish in the oil industry Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon Mobil, Chevron Texaco etc. It is easier to buy a company that finds oil than to drill for it yourself. The big players all accept that oil is a finite resource which is why they merger and acquisition activity is constant in the oil industry. Also they all have alternative fuel research projects because they realize that oil is going to run out one day.

http://ogj.pennnet.com/forum/displa...685&SiteIDs=OGJ

This site has a good running argument about the peak oil theory, a lot of the geologists stuff is beyond me, but it gives a good indication that peak oil is a serious issue in the oil community.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter As far as I know, the report was only a contingency plan. They don't actually expect any of those things to happen. And that's good, because if they did, they'd be dangerously underqualified. Oh, wait...

I think it's a military forecast not a contingency.

TrancedFarmer, Rupert:

Just to clarify, I don't doubt at all the validity of the long run theory of peak oil and Hubbert's peak. As abundant as oil may be, it IS a non-renewable fossil fuel. That entire part I don't disagree with at all. THe part I disagree with are the estimations of 5 billion dead, the collapse of society as we know it, blah blah blah ... esentially it's taking science in one dimension and attempting prophesize in a manner that is almost ludicrous.

That particular theory is grounded in the presumption that adaptation is impossible, trends are unstoppable/immovable, technology is stagnant, and ultimately, our reliance upon oil is soooo entrenched that the predicted chain of events is inevitable. In such a scenario then YES perhaps we would see the case for an apocalyptic society. However, using simple economics and fincance, we can see why this would never happen:

(By the way, I stole this graph from another forum)



Today, at quantity "Qa", the supply of oil is such that the price of oil, Poil is lower than the price of alternative fuels Pa. Obviously, this is why we use oil instead of the alternatives.

At some point in the (very distant, not in many generations) future, the remaining supply of oil will be such that, at the quantity demanded "Qb", the price of alternatives will be the same as the price of oil. At this point, the drive towards using alternatives would make sense.

At all quantites beyond that, the alternatives will be cheaper than oil. This includes other methods such as shale oil which rupert did mention, however, there are quite a number of alternatives as well. The primary reason WHY there has been no significant drive towards alternative fuels is because oil is SO cheap! There's no NEED to develop fully fucntioning alternatives. If anybody is old enough to remember the 70's oil shocks (i'm not one of them) the market adapted to accomadate the available resources. The population did not just die off in the event of cataclysmic fuel shortages ...

Just as we've not run out of wood or whale blubber for fuel, no reasonable person can seriously believe we will ever "run out" of oil since the prohibitive costs under a capitalistic system will FORCE the market to adopt cheaper, more efficient alternatives. And EVERYONE will see the oil shortage coming and the shortage will be extremely gradual. It's not like the Saudis are going to look down in their wells one day and panic as they have a gallon of oil left. As demand increases and reserves decrease, the futures market will accurately price the impending shortage of oil.
This is one simplistic argument out of many for why I consider the peak oil "doomsday" theory to be without proper merit but if anybody would like to discuss the issue further I would be happy to oblige .

Occrider,

Thanks for posting that, I was actually about to post something similar. The idea that we will simply run out of oil and be "screwed" is very pessimistic in my opinion because it totally disregaurds our ability to adapt and innovate. To think that, when and if the time comes our oil supply runs out, we would not be able to convert our energy needs before large scale die-offs occur is pretty silly. As you said, the reason we have not made a switch to renewable resources, or even much of a concerted effort is the cost factor. When it costs your average Joe more to fill up his tank then to buy and use an electric or similarly powered car, you'll see the change. Until then, oil is king.

well i'm glad that the climate change will destory us before the oil markets collapse and make us kill us all. Of course, scientist say in 4 more years a commet the size of California will crash into the ocean, and if that won't killed us the volcanos will all simotaneusly explode the world over for no reason, which they predict will happen for some reaon in 2021. Failing that of course, Jesus is supposed to come back to earth and bring armagedon with him (who said Jesus doesn't love you?!) around 2042. In 2034 of course all computers will go haywire as the timestamp code creates the real Y2k bug and government collapsed, followed by nuclear warhead launching as a new spectator sport where the better who predicts which nation can launch more nukes at the other doubles his money in 2065. Oh I forgot to mention that aliens al'a Independence Day have been tracked on a course towards earth and will arrive exactly January 27th, 2073 for harvet day. What fun!

I for one am glad to live in such a day in age, what an action packed future I have forward to look to. This is gonna be better then any movie!

lol@yoepus

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.