Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pentagon tells Bush: Climate Change Will Destroy Us
The Observer (UK) ^ | Sunday February 22, 2004 | Mark Townsend and Paul Harris

Posted on 02/24/2004 10:46:21 AM PST by Jakenuts

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

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.


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: climatechange
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-28 next last
Dunno how anyone can prove the source of the report, but it isn't beyond believability that one day environmentalism would be a national security priority. ...and debate...
1 posted on 02/24/2004 10:46:26 AM PST by Jakenuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Jakenuts
The Observer completely misrepresents the study. It was done as a "what if? - worst case analysis." Forbes printed an article about it a month ago - here's the disclaimer:
"The result is an unclassified report, completed late last year, that the Pentagon has agreed to share with FORTUNE. It doesn't pretend to be a forecast. Rather, it sketches a dramatic but plausible scenario to help planners think about coping strategies."

http://www.fortune.com/fortune/technology/articles/0,15114,582584,00.html
2 posted on 02/24/2004 10:50:54 AM PST by CobaltBlue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jakenuts
Hi Jake I posted this yesterday.
3 posted on 02/24/2004 10:51:26 AM PST by reluctantwarrior (Strength and Honor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jakenuts
So let's see.... Global Warming will plunge Britain into a "Siberian" climate? Riiiiight.
4 posted on 02/24/2004 10:53:17 AM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reluctantwarrior
"Pentagon tells Bush: Climate Change Will Destroy Us"

This looks like of those headlines above the picture of the Martian shaking Bush's hand.

5 posted on 02/24/2004 10:55:15 AM PST by LibFreeUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue
That makes sense, I'm prolly a bit more on the lefty side of this whole global warming issue than most here, but 2020 sounded a bit alarmist.
6 posted on 02/24/2004 10:57:16 AM PST by Jakenuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jakenuts
BARF alert????
7 posted on 02/24/2004 10:57:52 AM PST by kt56
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
So let's see.... Global Warming will plunge Britain into a "Siberian" climate? Riiiiight.

Well, I'm sure that natural cycles will return Britain to Siberian climes, but in TWENTY YEARS?!?!?

8 posted on 02/24/2004 10:59:46 AM PST by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Jakenuts
Climate Wars!

Coming to a theater near you...

9 posted on 02/24/2004 11:00:44 AM PST by Experiment 6-2-6 (Meega, Nala Kweesta!!!! Support Congressman Billybob! Go to www.Armorforcongress.com!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Teacher317
I was chuckling about the use of "warming" and "Siberian" in the same sentence.

Perhaps, given the dire predictions, we should call it....

Global Warmongering

10 posted on 02/24/2004 11:03:45 AM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Jakenuts
Better Vote Nader! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Pentagon goes green. Sunshine and Moonbeam become NSA Director and Sec. of Defense (respectively of course, who can imagine Moonbeam in charge of the NSA).
11 posted on 02/24/2004 11:05:35 AM PST by sully777 (Our descendants will be enslaved by political expediency and expenditure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jakenuts
Just what is it that the press doesn't understand about contingency planning?

So, we had a plan to invade Iraq before 9/11. We probably also have a plan to invade England lying around somewhere, but hopefully we won't have to use it.
12 posted on 02/24/2004 11:07:49 AM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jakenuts
Here's the way I look at it:

1) I've never had the melting ice cubes in my tea cause my glass to overflow. So I'm not worried about all the ice in the Arctic and Anarctica that's already in the water. The melting of that ice will actually lower the ocean levels.

Ice floats precisely because water is one of those few odd compounds that is actually less dense in the solid state than in the liquid state.

2) Say there really is a slight increase in global temps -- that means what? Not deserts. More evaporation, more water vapor in the air. More rain, more snow. Cooler temperatures.

It's, uh, like a cycle, man.
13 posted on 02/24/2004 11:15:00 AM PST by old3030 ("Appearances are a glimpse of what is hidden." (Anaxagoras))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jakenuts
Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us

"The only question is whether the sun will go nova first or whether the sea level will rise an inch", the super-secret Pentagon source added.

14 posted on 02/24/2004 11:15:33 AM PST by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jakenuts
This whole thing is a load of crap. I used to do future scenarios at the Pentagon. Probable scenarios are labled simular to: "Large Regional Competitor". There are other scenarios that we called "Wild Cards". These were very low probabilty, high-impact scenarios. That is where all those movies about asteroids hitting the Earth came from. Because of the high-impact, some thought is put into the problem and sometimes a small amount of money so we are ready with a solution if it does happen. But because it is very low probability, there is no policy impact or serious money applied.

The left uses the idea that global warming will raise sea levels. That's because most of them and many with big bucks live along the coasts.

Here is an easy global warming experiment. Put some ice in a glass; fill it to the very tippy top. Watch the ice melt. Hint: there is no need for a napkin (except for condensation on the outside of the glass in humid climates). Try this with your liberal friends (if you have any).

The real scoop: The sun is going through one of its normal increased activity cycles. This causes a very slight increase in temps which is moderated by a self stabilizing environment. It is also the reason for the ozone hole. If you look at a picture of the magnetosphere you will begin to understand. A little warming is probably good based on history. If it looked like it was going to be a real problem, the solution would be easy and require no behavior changes by the population.
15 posted on 02/24/2004 11:17:01 AM PST by Revolutionary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jakenuts
And what IS the Rifkinite..Third Way...Sustainable Development crowd's answer to
Global Warming.........why Global Government of course......along with a Global Military...Global Currency...and Global Religion....of course...

Social Change through proper crisis management....
16 posted on 02/24/2004 11:38:45 AM PST by joesnuffy (Moderate Islam Is For Dilettantes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Revolutionary
First let me say I do not believe in global warming. Second let it be said only an axis shift could cause a natural global catastrophe excluding Yellowstone from blowing up. Thirdly, your anology of ice in a glass melting is BS. We have polar ice caps that are not in the water to start with but even if they melted I doubt it would cause a flood, it might cause the seas to rise an inch or two though.
17 posted on 02/24/2004 11:59:50 AM PST by eastforker (The color of justice is green,just ask Johny Cochran!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: old3030
That's an interesting point (the icecube metaphor). I tried searching around for some scientific discussion of the reasoning behind "melt=rise" and didn't find much. One of the things I noticed though was alot of discussion about Greenland and the fact that it is melting which makess me think that the flaw in the ice cube idea is that it assumes the ice cube is floating in the water and not resting on top of something. If the glacier is resting on land, then any melting would definitely add to the water in the seas and would account for sea-level rising, no?
18 posted on 02/24/2004 12:20:57 PM PST by Jakenuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Jakenuts
Not again, with this garbage, sheesh, it's only getting staler by the day.
19 posted on 02/24/2004 12:22:52 PM PST by Defender2 (Defending Our Bill of Rights, Our Constitution, Our Country and Our Freedom!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jakenuts
I wonder if Townsend and Harris would bet me $10,000 that Britain will have a Siberian climate within 20 years? There's not a chance in hell they would take that bet.
20 posted on 02/24/2004 12:23:46 PM PST by Steve_Seattle ("Above all, shake your bum at Burton.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-28 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson