Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Quixote1818 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-04 03:39 PM
Original message
Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us

Is this article ligit or not???? Please give me info that refutes this so I know my kids will have a world to live in in 30years.



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.

Please tell me this is a bunch of BS!

Article continues at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1153530,00.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-04 03:48 PM
Response to Original message
1. But the "secret study" was Commissioned by Rumsferatu's Right Hand Man??

So, can it be believable? That's what's odd about this. I don't think there's any doubt our climate is in trouble but why would Rummy's Pentagon Man be the person commissioned to do this?

How do we know this isn't some other dissinformation trick with the Bush'ies? I just don't think I could trust anyone who has worked with Rummy.

Quote from article:


"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. "
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-04 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. The so-called "secret study" is based on at least 40 years of study...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kiahzero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-04 03:51 PM
Response to Original message
2. It's not BS, but it's probably not going to happen.
This was a "worst case scenario" study - what's the worst possible thing that could happen. It's not bloody likely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Waverley_Hills_Hiker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-04 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Oh I dont know...
...that theory of an iflux of freshwater from melting arctic/greenland ice affecting salinity, disrupting the oceanic circulation system has been around for awhile. This study just extrapolates what could happen as a consequence.

This theory is pretty interesting as it sort of accounts for the onset of ice ages..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quixote1818 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-04 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. It sounds like the world is getting pissed off at the parasites living on
it and now it is going to kick our ass for a while. Perhaps we need our ass kicked to learn a lesson.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gristy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-04 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. It is already happening.
http://eces.org/articles/000346.php

Growing body of evidence suggests that the rapidly accelerating warming the world is now experiencing could trigger dramatic climatic changes across the entire planet, including, paradoxically, the onset of a new ice age in the U.K. and western Europe.

According to an excellent article in the U.K. Guardian by Bill McGuire, Benfield Professor of Geophysical Hazards and director of the Benfield Hazard Research Centre at University College London, a growing body of evidence is indicating that there is a serious risk that the rapidly accelerating warming the world is now experiencing could trigger dramatic climatic changes across the entire planet, including, paradoxically, the onset of a new ice age in the U.K. and western Europe.

The problem lies with the ocean current known as the Gulf Stream, which bathes the U.K. and north-west Europe in warm water carried northwards from the Caribbean. It is the Gulf Stream, and associated currents, that allow strawberries to thrive along the Norwegian coast, while at comparable latitudes in Greenland glaciers wind their way right down to sea level. The same currents permit palms to flourish in Cornwall and the Hebrides, whereas across the ocean in Labrador, even temperate vegetation struggles to survive. Without the Gulf Stream, temperatures in the U.K. and north-west Europe would be five degrees centigrade or so cooler, with bitter winters at least as fierce as those of the so-called Little Ice Age in the 17th to 19th centuries.

The Gulf Stream is part of a more complex system of currents known by a number of different names, of which the rather cumbersome North Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (NAMOC) is probably the most apt. The NAMOC incorporates not only the Gulf Stream but also the cold return currents that convey water southwards again. As it approaches the Arctic, the Gulf Stream loses heat and part of it heads back to warmer climes along the coast of Greenland and eastern Canada in the form of the cold, iceberg-laden current responsible for the loss of the Titanic. Much of the cold return current, however, overturns - cooling and sinking beneath the Nordic seas between Norway and Greenland, before heading south again deep below the surface.

In the past, the slowing of the Gulf Stream has been intimately linked with dramatic regional cooling. Just 10,000 years ago, during a climatic cold snap known as the Younger Dryas, the current was severely weakened, causing northern European temperatures to fall by as much as 10 degrees. Ten thousand years before that, at the height of the last ice age, when most of the U.K. was reduced to a frozen wasteland, the Gulf Stream had just two-thirds of the strength it has now.

What's worrying is that for some years now, global climate models have been predicting a future weakening of the Gulf Stream as a consequence of global warming. Such models visualize the disruption of the NAMOC, including the Gulf Stream, as a result of large-scale melting of Arctic ice and the consequent pouring of huge volumes of fresh water into the North Atlantic, in a century or two. New data suggest, however, that we may not have to wait centuries, and in fact the whole process may be happening already.

In order for the warm, saline surface waters of the Gulf Stream to continue to push northwards, there must be a comparable, deep return current of cold, dense water from the Nordic seas. Disturbingly, this return current seems to have been slowing since the middle of the last century. Bogi Hansen at the Faroese fisheries laboratory, and colleagues in Scotland and Norway, have been monitoring the deep outflow of cold water from the Nordic seas as it passes over the submarine Greenland-Scotland ridge that straddles the North Atlantic at this point. Their results show that the outflow has fallen by 20% since 1950, which suggests a comparable reduced inflow from the Gulf Stream. And although there is as yet no direct substantiation of this, Hansen and his colleagues point to reports of the cooling and freshening of the Norwegian Sea and to temperatures that are already falling in parts of the region as possible evidence of contemporary Gulf Stream weakening.

It also seems that it is not only the intensity of the outflow of cold water that is changing. Bob Dickson of the Centre for Environment, Fisheries, and Aquaculture Science at Lowestoft, and colleagues, have reported a sustained and widespread freshening of returning deep waters south of the Greenland-Scotland ridge, which appears to have been going on for the past three or four decades. Already the freshening is extending along the North American eastern seaboard towards the equator, in the so-called Deep Western Boundary current.

One of the scariest aspects of the current dramatic changes occurring in the system of North Atlantic currents is that the deep, southward-flowing limb of the NAMOC can be thought of as representing the headwaters of the worldwide system of ocean currents known as the Global Thermohaline Circulation. The possibility exists, therefore, that a disruption of the Atlantic currents might have implications far beyond a colder U.K. and north-west Europe, perhaps bringing dramatic climatic changes to the entire planet.

Yet again, this highlights the fact that global warming, for which we have only ourselves to thank, is nothing more nor less than a great planetary experiment, many of the outcomes of which we cannot predict. Wallace Broecker, an ocean circulation researcher at New York's Lamont-Doherty Earth observatory, described the situation perfectly when he pointed out that "climate is an angry beast and we are poking at it with sticks". Let's hope that when it truly turns on us, its teeth don't match its outrage.

* * * * *

The above U.K. Guardian article seems to have been prompted by the announcement by Australian scientists on the same day that Antarctic sea ice has declined 20% since the 1950s (see related ECES weblog entry ). Interestingly, although the BBC hasn't yet covered the Australian scientists' announcement, it also ran an article the same day as the Guardian about the increasing worry among scientists that global warming could trigger another ice age in Britain and Europe.

According to the BBC , Dr. Terry Joyce, an oceanographer from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute in the U.S., believes there is a 50% chance of a sudden climate change happening in the next 100 years. "It will be quick," he says. "Suddenly one decade we're warm, and the next decade we're in the coldest winter we've experienced in the last 100 years, but we're in it for a 100 years."

Dr. Bill Turrell, from the Marine Laboratory, Aberdeen, has measured a drop in the salinity, the first warning sign that the current might collapse. "These changes are fundamental. They are substantial. They are going to impact our climate and the climate our children have to live in," Turrell says.

In addition, the U.S. space agency NASA has measured large increases in the speed of some of Greenland's largest glaciers, and melt water on the Greenland ice sheet in 2001 was twice that recorded 10 years ago.

Scientists also predict that with an increase in global temperatures will come an increase in rain at northern latitudes. Indeed, huge Siberian rivers are discharging more water into the North Atlantic than ever before, and are predicted to increase their discharge by up to 50% in the next 100 years.

All of these factors combined could lead to a large amount of fresh water making its way into the geographical region of the North Atlantic ithat is the point at which the Gulf Stream current sinks and overturns to join the Atlantic Conveyer, a vast rotating belt that takes cold water back to the tropics on the floor of the ocean. That sinking of the Gulf Stream is vital for powering the Atlantic Conveyer and relies on a change in the density of water. As sea-ice forms at high northern latitudes, it leads to an increase in the salinity of the cold, dense salty water underneath, which sinks down into the depths.

The one thing that can stop that sinking is fresh water, which effectively dilutes the salty seawater to the point at which it cannot sink - thereby shutting down the Atlantic Conveyer. With no "conveyer belt", there is no Gulf Stream and western Europe's mild winters come to an end.

Most ocean scientists believe the conveyer has a crucial freshwater threshold level, at which it will shut off - like a light bulb. The trouble is no one really knows where that threshold level is. Joyce says: "The likelihood of having an abrupt change is increasing - global warming is moving us closer and closer to the brink. We don't know where it is, but we know one thing: we're moving closer to the edge."

And once the light bulb is turned off, no one knows how to turn it back on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Waverley_Hills_Hiker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-04 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. fascinating stuff...wouldnt this have occured anyway?
Note that this circulation system is affected by the position of the continents.

And, per plate tectonics theory, the continents have reached their present position during the Cenozoic era, which is the same time we start having this cycle of ice ages.

There wasnt just one ice age, there where several, with warm periods in between called interglacials. We are living in an interglacial right now.

The deal is that all these interglacials lasted more or less the same time, and we should be near or past the expected end of our interglacial, based on what we know of the previous ones.

So, if we take this global warming theory, perhaps, during an interglacial the earth warms over time...gets warmer, until it gets so warm that we sart seeing this melting, which disrupts the circulation system and kicks the climate back into an ice age.

I recall reading someplace that the theory is that cooling was abrupt at the close of previous interglacials, too, as the planetary climate flipped into an ice age state pretty quickly.

So, maybe this global warming has happened in the past, too...perhaps man made activity is helping this along, but maybe it was going to happen anyway.

In any case, if this IS happening, we are in for some interesting times.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quixote1818 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-04 06:30 PM
Response to Original message
8. Marshall wants more money for the Pentagon
Here is what my dad had to say about this:

First, I think that Marshall may be a brilliant guy, but I think he has been wrong on ABM (Star Wars). Second, playing up the catastrophic consequences certainly gets people's attention, but he's basically a military expert who wants more money for the Pentagon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quixote1818 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-04 11:24 PM
Response to Original message
9. kick
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quixote1818 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-04 11:27 PM
Response to Original message
10. It's mostly BS
Global Warming Hysteria

Is global warming an important problem that our society must deal with soon? Yes. Is England going to be an arctic tundra and the Netherlands and New Orleans underwater in the next 15 years? Nobody knows, but it's pretty far-fetched.

If you're on listservs stocked with progressive Sierra Club-types (or maybe you are one of those progressive Sierra Club-types) then you might have gotten an email today referring to an Observer of London story about a "secret" Pentagon report they had gotten their hands on which stated that global warming could result in:

- Britain having winters similar to those in current-day Siberia as European temperatures drop off radically by 2020.
- By 2007, violent storms will make large parts of the Netherlands uninhabitable and lead to a breach in the acqueduct system in California that supplies all water to densely populated southern California.
- Europe and the United States become "virtual fortresses" trying to keep out millions of migrants whose homelands have been wiped out by rising sea levels or made unfarmable by drought.
- "Catastrophic" shortages of potable water and energy will lead to widespread war by 2020.


Oh the humanity!!! The article, dated this past Sunday, says that the "secret report (was) suppressed by defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer." Thank heavens for the intrepid reporters of The Observer, uncovering this covert report for us... But wait a second, Fortune magazine discussed the same report last month, in an article posted January 26. Maybe the guys at The Observer could have saved their top-secret leaker the worry of possible exposure, and just called up David Sipp, author of the Fortune magazine article, to see if he still had a copy of the report, which according to Fortune was "unclassified" and which the Pentagon agreed to share with Fortune. But suddenly the report doesn't sound so cool, it's not super-secret and it wasn't suppressed by defense chiefs.

Of course, the scenarios painted in the report are horrific enough. The problem is, those scenarios are nothing more than the imaginings of Peter Schwartz, who is, according to one website, a renowned futurist and business strategist. I guess he didn't have any room in his portfolio to write climatologist.

In fact, the Pentagon report is nothing more than junk science. It's not even that, really, it's science fiction, which is fitting since Schwartz consulted with Steven Spielberg to create the futuristic world of Minority Report. Schwartz takes some basic scientific knowledge, that global warming will result in climate changes and sea levels rising, which will of course have negative impacts on certain regions of the world, and creates various doomsday scenarios from that general information. Schwartz's report, unlike anything published in scientific journals, did not have to go through any editing or peer review. It's a blog, essentially.
http://blogs.salon.com/0003403/2004/02/23.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RainDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-04 11:36 PM
Response to Original message
11. yes, Virginia, there is a global warming problem
the Pentagon's scenario of nuclear war as the outcome is, of course, the way certain people always seem to think we and others will deal with any problem, and not the only possible outcome.

so how do you want to deal with the issue so that nations do not resort to further destruction?

I can say without a doubt that making sure Bush is not in office is one way to stop the crazies from leading national policy (or not) about this issue.

the crazy thing is, while this knowledge is well known, Bush has still pushed through crap to make corporations less responsible for their part in poisoning this world, including making hummers cheaper to buy and run.

on top of the issue of global warming, btw, is the issue of peak oil, or the end of oil as a feasible (i.e. affordable) form of energy.

so the two problems are coming to a head at the same time.

if you notice in the Pentagon report, they dance around the issue of affordable energy...I think that's part of their thinking in their worst case scenario, but they pull their punches on that end of it.

the energy companies wouldn't like it if the Pentagon came right out and said they are also a problem...the Pentagon does say that energy conservation is something which should be implemented, though.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 07:36 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC