Xtratime Community banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 62 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,415 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
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
By Mark Townsend and Paul Harris in New York
The Observer - UK
2-22-4

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.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004
source
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,106 Posts
OK

Now, here is a look at the source report, removing the filters:

http://www.gbn.org/GBNDocumentDisplayServlet.srv?aid=26231&url=/UploadDocumentDisplayServlet.srv?id=28566

And here is a foreword by the authors:

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 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."

This public report, prepared by GBN for the Department of Defense, has been the subject of several news stories. Fortune magazine excerpted the report in its Feb. 9, 2004, issue ("The Pentagon's Weather Nightmare," by David Stipp). The actual report, titled "An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security," was written by Peter Schwartz (GBN chairman) and Doug Randall (co-head of GBN's consulting practice) and is attached here in its PDF version. Contrary to some recent media coverage, the report was not secret, suppressed, or predictive
.... I bolded the sections above. Sounds a little less urgent now, doesn't it. But I don't want to spoil the serious fun here with facts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,106 Posts
Note where the say that they weren't predicting anything.

And I like this from the Observer story...

Scientists disillusioned with Bush's stance are threatening to make sure Kerry uses the Pentagon report in his campaign.
Scientists are threatening something. Wow.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,672 Posts

·
Community Analyst
Joined
·
32,844 Posts
Freddie said:
Note where the say that they weren't predicting anything.

And I like this from the Observer story...



Scientists are threatening something. Wow.
Worse case scenarios ebing reported as fact by Pravda Lite. Who'da thunk it?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,106 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,672 Posts
My post was a reply on your "scientist threatening..." remark. I just can belief such quot'es when I read them. you have an administration that the last 3 years has made (enviromental) policy that in no other way can be described as criminal. An administration that twists scientif facts without any scrupeles and still the ones that get the heath are the scientists.
 

·
International
Joined
·
5,629 Posts
Oh great...now Bush is single handedly responsible for Europeans freezing their asses off this past week.

I hope he keeps it up.


4 more years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,672 Posts
Soo you'll vote Bush because his completely irresponsible policies worry people pisses of people who do care, and that is something you like? :rollani:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,672 Posts
Freddie said:
... and the poor downtrodden scientists could have fixed everything if only we'd listen.
What kind of argument is that. Not everything could be fixed for 100% soo it's ok to just throw it down the drain?

The current administration's policy have been and are irresponisble beyond believe. The reason for that is greed of an elite that already is incredibly rich. Those are the facts. The question now is what will you do with it.
 

·
Community Analyst
Joined
·
32,844 Posts
gOD said:
What kind of argument is that. Not everything could be fixed for 100% soo it's ok to just throw it down the drain?

The current administration's policy have been and are irresponisble beyond believe. The reason for that is greed of an elite that already is incredibly rich. Those are the facts. The question now is what will you do with it.
You confuse facts for spin.

The facts are that man have polluted the waters and the air since ever. And the planet has been in constant climatic change since ever. How much of the climatic changes is due to man's work is seriously inconclusive. To blame such things on greed of one administration that's been in power for three years is either the product of seriously deranged individuals or merely that of an agenda of a Pravda lackey.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,672 Posts
Pila said:
You confuse facts for spin.

The facts are that man have polluted the waters and the air since ever. And the planet has been in constant climatic change since ever. How much of the climatic changes is due to man's work is seriously inconclusive. To blame such things on greed of one administration that's been in power for three years is either the product of seriously deranged individuals or merely that of an agenda of a Pravda lackey.
You very well know that I'm not attributing the entire ciimate change problem to this administration. My point is that they have refused to take any measures to solve it and on the contrary took several decisions that worsen the situation.

Defending Bush enviromental policy is like defending Saddam Hussein's human rights record.
 

·
World Class Player
Joined
·
7,673 Posts
Freddie said:
He was being sarcastic. It is a literary device.
As per my reputation in the field, I feel it to be my responsibility to point out that sarcasm must be verbal. Consequently, it can be, in no way, a literary device. Irony, granted, but not sarcasm.

That is all.
 

·
Community Analyst
Joined
·
32,844 Posts
gOD said:
You very well know that I'm not attributing the entire ciimate change problem to this administration. My point is that they have refused to take any measures to solve it and on the contrary took several decisions that worsen the situation.

Defending Bush enviromental policy is like defending Saddam Hussein's human rights record.
Everyday a man clears an inch of natural landscape to farm it too contributes to whatever global ill the globe finds itself in.

I'm not defending Bush' Environmental policy - I'm exposing your Pravda lackey spin on the situation as a whole.

 
1 - 20 of 62 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top