PDA

View Full Version : Even Pentagon Warns Bush On Climate Change


nicky g
02-22-2004, 09:24 AM
Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us (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.

PuppetMaster
02-22-2004, 10:23 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us (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.




[/ QUOTE ]
Why do people talk about Bush like he is the one making decisions. Man, if we have ever had a puppet for a president its definitely old George "I cant even tie my shoes because Im a dumb [censored] rich aristocrat tyrant sonofabitch" Bush jr.

Wake up CALL
02-22-2004, 12:54 PM
So now the Pentagon Generals are experts on weather? Heck Nicky, you won't even give them credit for being experts on warfare. I love it when The Observer quotes a "secret report". If it was so darn secret how did they get a copy?


My guess is it was one of the many "scenario reports" written by the pentagon on a regular basis. Heck if you look hard enough you will probably find one that says that in 20 years the French will take over the world! Now if that isn't speculative and far fetched I don't know what would qualify (perhaps this weather report?)!

Besides even if the report is correct; Who cares if Britain and the rest of Europe needs warm mittens and plenty of wood to survive? LOL /images/graemlins/smile.gif

adios
02-22-2004, 01:24 PM
So your position is that the Pentagon is a credible source of information (Sorry Wake I know I made the same point you did)? Will Kyoto fix this problem and if so could you elaborate on how it will?

nicky g
02-22-2004, 03:43 PM
To answer both your and WUC's points together - the report wasn't written by generals. As for whether the Pentagon is or is not a credible source of informationm I would have thought that at least you guys would have thought it is. Though now that Bush and Blair are attempting to blame the Iraq debacle on the Pent et al rather than on themselves, I suppose you'll be moving away from that. On this issue I can think of no reason why the Pentagon would want to skew or exaggerate the research = after all a non=military/non-terrorist threat is the sort of thing that would divert funds away from it. As for Kyoto, it was never going to be enough but it would have been a worthwhile start. There seems to be nothing on the table to replace it.

George Rice
02-22-2004, 03:53 PM
I don't know what all the fuss about global warming is. There are scientists on both sides of this issue.

Just because the vast majority of scientists believe in the global warming concept doesn't prove the small number of scientists who believe the other way wrong. And the fact that most scientists that don't agree with global warming are funded by the big energy companies (like oil) doesn't prove they're biased.

Why should we spend all our money on preventing things like global warming when we can better spend this money on the millitary and atomic weapons?

nicky g
02-22-2004, 06:26 PM
lol. Reminds me of an episode of Blackadder (a UK sitcom); he's on a boat with a captain who can't steer the ship, so he suggest asking the crew:
Captain: What crew?
B: I was under the impresion it was recommended practice to have a crew on a ship
Captain: Aaargh, well, opinion is divided on the subject
B: Is it
Captain: Yus = all the other captains say it is, I say it isn't.

Wake up CALL
02-22-2004, 07:23 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Just because the vast majority of scientists believe in the global warming concept doesn't prove the small number of scientists who believe the other way wrong. And the fact that most scientists that don't agree with global warming are funded by the big energy companies (like oil) doesn't prove they're biased.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you would take a little time to actually do some research on the subject you'd see how laughable your quote truly becomes! /images/graemlins/smile.gif You sure make me laugh!

Taxman
02-22-2004, 07:29 PM
Please explain why the quote is laughable. I too am much too lazy to do any research on the subject.

Taxman
02-22-2004, 07:33 PM
...nobody can deny that dumping pollutants into the atmosphere is not good for our health.

adios
02-22-2004, 07:51 PM
[ QUOTE ]
To answer both your and WUC's points together - the report wasn't written by generals.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok.

[ QUOTE ]
As for whether the Pentagon is or is not a credible source of informationm I would have thought that at least you guys would have thought it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

The question was do you find the Pentagon a credible source of information. I'll just take this as an evasion of the question on your part. It appears that you would like to have it both ways (don't we all). When the Pentagon provides a report or whatever that is opposed to your viewpoint you reject it as being not credible. When the Pentagon provides something similar that is inline with your viewpoint, you embrace it as being credible.

As far as what I think, I have no problem with what this report states about global warming. I would find it hard to believe that the problem is as acute as mentioned. However, I do think that global warming is a problem yes. My take is that the Pentagon solicits a wide range of opinions and analysis and this falls somewhere as an extreme point of view. But I'm certainly not dismissing it out of hand.

[ QUOTE ]
Though now that Bush and Blair are attempting to blame the Iraq debacle on the Pent et al rather than on themselves,

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you point me to one statement by Bush that he does as you say he's doing?

[ QUOTE ]
I suppose you'll be moving away from that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Moving away from what?

[ QUOTE ]
On this issue I can think of no reason why the Pentagon would want to skew or exaggerate the research = after all a non=military/non-terrorist threat is the sort of thing that would divert funds away from it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I addressed this above.

[ QUOTE ]
As for Kyoto, it was never going to be enough but it would have been a worthwhile start.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure why you'd say that. Perhaps I don't understand Kyoto well enough but I'm not certain as to how it would do anything to solve the global warming problem. Comments welcome.

[ QUOTE ]
There seems to be nothing on the table to replace it.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's nothing on the table that I know of.

Wake up CALL
02-22-2004, 08:00 PM
Adios,

The chart below demonstrates part of the problem with the Kyoto Treaty. You will notice the disparity in the number of emission units allocated to the different countries:

ENGLISH CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES Third session Kyoto, 1-10 December 1997
KYOTO PROTOCOL TO THE UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE
Quantified emission limitation or reduction commitment
(percentage of base year or period)

Australia 108
Austria 92
Belgium 92
Bulgaria* 92
Canada 94
Croatia* 95
Czech Republic* 92
Denmark 92
Estonia* 92
European Community 92
Finland 92
France 92
Germany 92
Greece 92
Hungary* 94
Iceland 110
Ireland 92
Italy 92
Japan 94
Latvia* 92
Liechtenstein 92
Lithuania* 92
Luxembourg 92
Monaco 92
Netherlands 92
New Zealand 100
Norway 101
Poland* 94
Portugal 92
Romania* 92
Russian Federation* 100
Slovakia* 92
Slovenia* 92
Spain 92
Sweden 92
Switzerland 92
Ukraine* 100
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 92
United States of America 93

Taxman
02-22-2004, 08:05 PM
I brought this up a while ago but I thought it was worth repeating. In 1992 the Rio Earth summit was held in which a large number of countries agreed to allot certain maximum amounts of industrial output allowed for each nation. I assume this is rather like the Kyoto agreement. While a worthwhile idea, it was ultimately a farse because of the practice of buying the quotas given to unindustrialized nations by the big countries like the US. Thus global pollution was not reduced in any respect. I bring this up mostly to note that something does need to be done about the pollution problem and that whatever it is, it will not be easy to impliment. I don't really care what the pentagon has come up with on global warming because the fact remains that poisoning our environment in any respect is undesireable. This isn't really a direct response to anyone's post. I just wanted to provide an example of how some have tried and failed in dealing with global envirnomental threats.

adios
02-22-2004, 08:07 PM
Thanks. The problem stands out like a sore thumb. Might have to explain it to George though and I doubt if Nicky sees any problem /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

George Rice
02-22-2004, 08:14 PM
I'm relying on reports I've read, or have seen on television. If you don't agree, then why don't you enlighten us with your research?

God forbid we should develop alternative energy sources before the oil companies can find a way to profit from it.

George Rice
02-22-2004, 08:18 PM
[ QUOTE ]
So now the Pentagon Generals are experts on weather?

[/ QUOTE ]

Who said the generals did the reasearch?

More misdirection.

Get a grip.