The Observer: Pentagon report claims climate change could result in a catastrophe.

Karl Lenin

Prince
Joined
Sep 10, 2003
Messages
463
Location
Wish I were in S****horpe
http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1153530,00.html

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.

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.
 
A much better article on this subject here. More info, less sensationalism. Doesn't make it any less scary, of course. ;)

The good news is, most models have the US faring pretty well. Things get tough, but we can probably weather the storm. We have a huge number of resources at our disposal and the military might to capture any that we might need. There's a good chance that Canada can join up with us and ride things out in relative comfort.

The bad news is, things pretty much suck for everyone else. Australia does ok, just because its so big and sparsely populated. Europe gets very cold and very dry; particularly Britain, and food production becomes a definite problem. Scandinavia probably becomes uninhabitable. Africa gets worse, but things are pretty bad in Africa already, (sad to say) so most of the world can probably ignore that. And Asia....well, yuck. Asia probably becomes Hell on Earth until the population reaches more manageable levels.

Let's hope the models are wrong.
 
Hubert Reeves a well know astrophysicien already warn us about that. He wrote a few book in french which have been surely translated.


2100, if temperature rise another 10 degree, then most of earth will be desert.

After that, a few scenario may occur, the extrem case is a venus like scenario where all methane and carbon dioxyde are realease from underground, ocean are vaporise and temperature is well above 100 degree celsius.

We must stop the ridiculous keep growing capitalist mentality or earth will suffocate.
 
one question- if the north is supposed to get colder- which of course will result in the freezing of the icecaps, how dose that lead to the sea leval riseing? (I need to know these thing to know if I'm good staying in florida, or weather I should move in my adult hood to my future beachfront property ;) (not that I have beach front property now, though i wish i did, but i only live a block away from the beach, which is pretty sweet :D)
 
Originally posted by Xen
one question- if the north is supposed to get colder- which of course will result in the freezing of the icecaps, how dose that lead to the sea leval riseing? (I need to know these thing to know if I'm good staying in florida, or weather I should move in my adult hood to my future beachfront property ;) (not that I have beach front property now, though i wish i did, but i only live a block away from the beach, which is pretty sweet :D)

The north pole already lost something like 40-50 % of its ice, so the pole will melt. This will change the ocean's current like gulf stream, which keep some country hoter like britain IIRC. So on a short period of time some country will get colder while at the same time inner continent will toast and became desert.
 
On the other hand, if the models are true, the Sahara desert will blossom, and might turn into the breadbasket of the world. 8000 years ago the area that is now Sahara was very fertile. The same thing might be true for the Rub-al-Khali desert in Saudi Arabia.

So the immigration will go from north to south, that is in the opposite direction that it is now.
 
Well I think they said it is one possibility. We dont know natures mechanisms so well. No one really knows what happens if temperature rises even 2-3 degrees...
 
Originally posted by Tassadar


The north pole already lost something like 40-50 % of its ice, so the pole will melt. This will change the ocean's current like gulf stream, which keep some country hoter like britain IIRC. So on a short period of time some country will get colder while at the same time inner continent will toast and became desert.

no, it hasnt, although I lack any refernce to a specific report, the FACT that yearlly, the ice caps are GROWING[/g] has been mention a great deal, on this website, and by others, and while I dont liek pollution, that dosent stop the fact that yearlly, the icecaps grow by about two inches
 
Originally posted by Xen
one question- if the north is supposed to get colder- which of course will result in the freezing of the icecaps, how dose that lead to the sea leval riseing?
It's not rising sea levels you have to worry about. By the time sea levels change very noticeably, the human race is in dire straights.

The biggest threat from climate changes like the ones suggested in this report is the loss of food production capacity and the sudden spike in energy needs. The temperate zones shrink as huge storms rip through the tropics and the North freezes solid. Long droughts occur in some areas, while massive rainfall causes severe flooding in others. Everyone produces less food, while energy needs are higher due to extreme temperatures.

And now the part the Pentagon is worried about. When people start to starve, they start to kill each other. We have 6 billion people on the planet. Right now, that's ok, we can provide enough for them. (barely) If these climate changes come to pass, it is easy to imagine an Earth that could only sustain 2 billion, maybe less. Everyone is going to want to be part of that 2 billion, and they'll happily kill anyone who gets in their way. War, massive, massive war, is probably unavoidable. Hence the need for some preparation on the part of the Pentagon.
 
Originally posted by Daniel Khan
Ever since the Creation, climate has been changing. No reason to for it to stop now.
I am afraid this is exactly what Bush is thinking.
 
Xen you are totally wrong... temperatures have been rising in North for a quite long time. Polar bears have even now big problems, becouse ice is melting.

Your reports are made by Mr. Bush, I suppose?
 
People reading this as a prediction of what's going to happen are interpreting it wrongly; the study is really a 'scenario' designed to give people some idea of what might happen (like Little Raven's link pointed out already) . Scenarios like this are routinely commissioned by big businesses (Royal Dutch/Shell is famous for it) and governments to help them in long-term planning; that doesn't mean that its writers necessarily feel that mayhem on this scale is probable, only that it's possible.

Which in itself is scary enough.
 
Originally posted by Little Raven
It's not rising sea levels you have to worry about. By the time sea levels change very noticeably, the human race is in dire straights.

The biggest threat from climate changes like the ones suggested in this report is the loss of food production capacity and the sudden spike in energy needs. The temperate zones shrink as huge storms rip through the tropics and the North freezes solid. Long droughts occur in some areas, while massive rainfall causes severe flooding in others. Everyone produces less food, while energy needs are higher due to extreme temperatures.

And now the part the Pentagon is worried about. When people start to starve, they start to kill each other. We have 6 billion people on the planet. Right now, that's ok, we can provide enough for them. (barely) If these climate changes come to pass, it is easy to imagine an Earth that could only sustain 2 billion, maybe less. Everyone is going to want to be part of that 2 billion, and they'll happily kill anyone who gets in their way. War, massive, massive war, is probably unavoidable. Hence the need for some preparation on the part of the Pentagon.

actually, food production is actually a non-issue- it known that the area fo northern california, if it were devote all farming to food production could completlyl fill in the national demand for wheat at least, and considering that the vast area of the US ensures that huge stretches of land will stay fertil, and the fact that, at that point in time, it seems to me the subsides, and getting farmers to not-produce food will seem insane at best, which, might I add, currentlly hampers optimum food production, i dont see there being any issue on food

its the sea leval which has me in the bind, as its simply not goint happen the near artic conditions can over take at elast all scandanavia, AND there be an increase in coastal waters
 
Originally posted by Inhalaattori
Xen you are totally wrong... temperatures have been rising in North for a quite long time. Polar bears have even now big problems, becouse ice is melting.

Your reports are made by Mr. Bush, I suppose?

herdley, i critiscize bush in real life at every oppertunity I get, but facts are fact, and these have been known since the 70's at least, but never get any attention as they would detract from the larger issue of global eco-preservation, somthing I avidlly support
 
Help out a confused European here: is the Pentagon a scientific institution? :confused:

edit: Jack, I only just now saw your comment. That makes sense, the Pentagon should be thinking what to do if such a scenario was to become an actuality.
 
Originally posted by Little Raven

And now the part the Pentagon is worried about. When people start to starve, they start to kill each other. We have 6 billion people on the planet.

That assertion has not been scientifically proven I think. On the contrary when people start to starve, well I think around one billion people or more are on a starvation diet as I write this, people tend to become morose and inactive. It is usually high levels of protein in food consumption that causes aggressive behavior -if ideed food supply is any determinant at all.
 
Originally posted by Xen


no, it hasnt, although I lack any refernce to a specific report, the FACT that yearlly, the ice caps are GROWING[/g] has been mention a great deal, on this website, and by others, and while I dont liek pollution, that dosent stop the fact that yearlly, the icecaps grow by about two inches



THE North Pole is melting for the first time in 55m years. Researchers have found that the icecap at the top of the world has turned into a mile-wide patch of open ocean.

The melting of the pole last happened on such a scale when the Earth was going through a period of rapid warming. This year's meltdown has been linked with the greenhouse effect, where gases released by burning fossil fuels are trapping ever more heat in the atmosphere and so warming the Earth.

The melting was discovered by James McCarthy, an oceanographer and member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is sponsored by the United Nations to advise governments on global warming. It coincides with official confirmation that the icecap covering Greenland is also disappearing.

Earlier research conducted by McCarthy has shown that the average summer thickness of ice at the North Pole was about 9ft. This year, however, he was able to take a ship directly to the pole and then had to float over it - because there was no ice to stand on. "It was totally unexpected," he said.

Researchers had warned that the polar icecap was shrinking by about 6% a year, but nobody had expected the North Pole to melt until global warming had become much more severe.

The meltdown could also counteract the Gulf Stream, which keeps Britain's climate two to three degrees warmer than countries at similar latitudes.




Link:http://www.climateark.org/articles/2000/3rd/npicecme.htm

I hope the IPCC is credible enough for you;)
 
Back
Top Bottom