Bender_the_Offender
GOLD Member since Nov 2001

Bender_the_Offender

still can't believe it's not butter
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Total posts: 6979
Posted:looky what i found on the net today:



Below is the article in the Observer on the Report from the Pentagon.

Quote:


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

http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1153530,00.html




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.



the time for action is now.

peace

EDITED_BY: bender (1077861589)


Laugh Often, Smile Much, Post lolcats Always

Delete Topic

Rouge Dragon
BRONZE Member since Jul 2003

Rouge Dragon

Insert Champagne Here
Location: without class distinction, Aus...

Total posts: 13215
Posted:i'll be honest; i didnt read all of that. hell, i didnt even read half of it!

but i was thinking (and someone who is smarter than me can correct me if im wrong, but please break the news to me as nicely as possible!) that this is probably related to that whole reversal of the magnetic fiends thingo thats supposed to happen in around 2010. i know theres the ozone layer stuff as well but still...
and they're known about this for bloody long enough. but has anyone noticed lately all the 'shock horror omg' stuff in the media about how the world is so screwed with earthquakes and the like, when its all a part of that polar change thingo?

or am i rambling in yet ANOTHER thread. ok, dont answer...


i would have changed ***** to phallus, and claire to petey Petey

Rougie: but that's what I'm doing here
Arnwyn: what letting me adjust myself in your room?..don't you dare quote that on HoP...

Delete

Dunc
GOLD Member since Aug 2003

Dunc

playing the days away
Location: The Middle lands, United Kingd...

Total posts: 7263
Posted:sheesh...a little exagerated/scare mongerish writing I think but still a report packed full-o truth. The fact that Bush has been suppressing this report yet again proves that his interest is not in security for his nation from invasion, is not in protecting the rest of the globe from the most pullutant country on the plant, it's about lining his pockets. Profit all the way and stuff everything else regardless of the impact. Like it said there are more people alive in the world now than the planet can sustain. A little know fact is that there are more people alive right now than have even been born and died in the history of our species existance. We need to utilise natural energies, try to reduce our population (ie don't give birth...adopt one of the hundreds of thousands of kids out there who have no parents. I intend to in the future) and minimis our impact of this fair, and only, planet we have.

Oh yeah and DOWN WITH BUSHspank


Let's relight this forum ubblove

Delete

Eera
BRONZE Member since May 2003

old hand
Location: In a test pit, Mackay, Austral...

Total posts: 1107
Posted:Part of the major problem with all this climate change stuff is that no-one knows what's going to happen; three seperate studies recently predicted that (I think) Dakota would a) become desert, b) become swamp and c) stay pretty much as it is now over the next 20 years, depending on the parameters entered into their computers

Added onto that is the fact that the Earth is a dynamic system and the climate changes, always has done and always will do, something we seem to have problems accepting through our tiny little comprehension of geological time. Sea levels have been a lot lower, they've been a hell of a lot higher, the climate has been much colder and way hotter. Life goes on.

There is absolutely nothing we can do that will destroy the world. Nature takes care of that itself, figure that at the Permian -Traissic boundary 95% of known species were wiped out by an unknown cause. The remnants take over the niches left and diversity springs back.

We can, however, make it highly unpleasent to live here. "Saving the environment" is a fairly abstract concept that few people can relate to. Saying "the whole world will turn into an anarchic nuclear wasteland if we don't stop using our cars" is worse. Telling people to recycle more so that their local playing field isn't dug up and turned into a landfill is far more relevent and that's the direction we need to go.


There is a slight possibility that I am not actually right all of the time.

Delete

oli
SILVER Member since Jul 2003

not with cactus
Location: bristol/ southern eastern devo...

Total posts: 2052
Posted:
Non-Https Image Link


Me train running low on soul coal
They push+pull tactics are driving me loco
They shouldn't do that no no no

Delete

Dom
BRONZE Member since Dec 2001

Dom

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: Bristol, UK

Total posts: 3009
Posted:Eera, the problem with the "the climate changes, always has done and always will do" argument is that it's a bit too much of a coincidence that it's all happening now. It's a convenient get out clause for people not wanting to change their ways.

Just because the climate has been radically different and the Earth will survive in some form doesn't give us permission to be an incredibly selfish species and rape the planet.

The report itself does sound like one of the more drastic scenarios, more of a worst case. But as we don't know enough about the planet's systems we can't predict what is actually going to happen. However water is already a problem in a lot of the world's countries. At the moment a country in Africa (I forget which) is facing a possible drought, even though it has a huge resovoir of water because they've sold all that water to South Africa to pay for the building of the dam. The dam itself was the idea of the World Bank, which has done reports that prove building dams is not a good idea, but still encourages countries to build them!


Delete

Eera
BRONZE Member since May 2003

old hand
Location: In a test pit, Mackay, Austral...

Total posts: 1107
Posted:Quote:
it's a bit too much of a coincidence that it's all happening now



Or maybe that with modern monitoring techniques we can be a bit more precise. Not necessarily accurate.


There is a slight possibility that I am not actually right all of the time.

Delete

Dom
BRONZE Member since Dec 2001

Dom

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: Bristol, UK

Total posts: 3009
Posted:? I don't follow ?

A not so scientific, but accurate measure would be some of the low lying islands in the Pacific where people have lived for centuries. They're not there any more. I think that's pretty conclusive proof that something isn't right.


Delete

Dunc
GOLD Member since Aug 2003

Dunc

playing the days away
Location: The Middle lands, United Kingd...

Total posts: 7263
Posted:And the Great Coral Reef that took thousands and thousands of years to form but dissapearing almost completely over a few short decades

Let's relight this forum ubblove

Delete

- cat -


- cat -

member
Location: Perth

Total posts: 48
Posted:hmmm ...

I too still think we can save the world if we all back peddle like hell... including all governments of all major nations and I am so very anti-bush I don't think I'll even bother going into that rolleyes:

I would love to just kinda start again sometimes ya know? Before a big group of people decided to colonise other places, maybe we could've just stuck to what we knew or thought we knew and left it at that? Before big industrial revolutions etc etc.. maybe in tree houses in the forest or caves in the desert and dolphins swimming up our rivers. mmmm... I guess we are where we are supposed to be though, right now, and there's no point in thinking like that.

I've had lots of dreams connecting me to one particular year.... 2012 the year that is supposed to have meaning for lots of other groups etc. I think my first dream was when I was 13? or so... before I was actually exposed to anything other than sheltered private girls schools etc and before I gravitated into being a dirty hippy biggrin Anyone else had this?

Thanks for the article bender.... peace









Delete

Kat
BRONZE Member since Dec 2000

Kat

Pooh-Bah
Location: London, Wales (UK)

Total posts: 2211
Posted:Quote:
Just because the climate has been radically different and the Earth will survive in some form doesn't give us permission to be an incredibly selfish species and rape the planet



Hear, hear!!


Come faeries, take me out of this dull world, for I would ride with you upon the wind and dance upon the mountains like a flame.

- W B Yeats

Delete

simian


simian

110% MONKEY EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME JUST CANT STOP THE MONKEY
Location: London

Total posts: 3149
Posted:i agree with Eera, and disagree with mr Dom and ms Kat

(sorry)



One of my pet hates: Talking about the 'rape of the planet'



The planet is a great big non-sentient lump of stuff. You can't rape it any more than you can rape a brick.



What you're talking about is making life on earth less comfortable for ourselves and some other creatures that are currently around. Other lifeforms would benefit from pretty much any environmental changes. That's just how the whole darwinian shebang works.



Basically i consider turning environmental issues into some quasi-religious thing about peace hurting mother nature peace to be really unhelpful and somewhat missing the issue.



Totally different thing i'm wondering about: Have humans really had a much more dramatic effect of the climate than other animals? What about the enormous amounts of methane being put out by the giant grazing sauropods that used to be everywhere? Is it still true that the largest contributor to greenhouse gases is livestock? hmm dodgy statistic, but it's not entirely clear cut... umm


"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."

Delete

Doc Lightning
GOLD Member since May 2001

Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA

Total posts: 13920
Posted:Actually, I think the Bush Administration acknowledge that climate change exists and is a problem. So their solution is to increase the use of fossil fuels.

I'm not even being sarcastic.


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete

Tao Star


Tao Star

Pooh-Bah
Location: Bristol

Total posts: 1662
Posted:Quote:
Actually, I think the Bush Administration acknowledge that climate change exists and is a problem. So their solution is to increase the use of fossil fuels.



translates as

'Bush doesn't give a toss as long as him and his friends are rich.'


I had a dream that my friend had a
strong-bad pop up book,
it was the book of my dreams.

Delete

simian


simian

110% MONKEY EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME JUST CANT STOP THE MONKEY
Location: London

Total posts: 3149
Posted:Aren't General Motors meant to be instrumental in shaping the US policies on fossil fuels, or something like that?

It's so difficult to balance between being an easily-led-naive-sheep or a crazy-conspiracy-theorist.

just thought i'd add that despite my rant above, i do think that keeping the planet green and lovely is a good idea. You'd have to be a bit dim not to.

But that doesn't mean always siding with Greenpeace on every issue they mention.

So much ecological rhetoric i hear is reactionary, shortsighted, badly researched and occasionally damaging.

See the devastation of the inuit settlements whose economies were based on hunting seals (aka baby seal clubbing). Not a pleasant image perhaps. But a gross hypocrisy for society as carnivorous as us to condemn another culture for killing animals for their meat and pelt. Particularly when the main justification was "ahh look how cute they are". See also lamb chops rolleyes

Both sides of ecological debates have been lying through their teeth, using ambiguous data, for so long that i just don't know what to make of anything i hear any more.

i do not beleive that ecological organisations such as Greenpeace are there to "save the planet" any more than McDonalds is there to "feed the hungry".

But like any sane person, i agree we're polluting our environment, and should take steps to stop it and repair the damage.

Scrapping the outdated and crappy internal combustion engine might be a nice starter. Oh gosh, now we're back to the sinister General Motors conspiracy again aren't we?


"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."

Delete

DeepSoulSheep
GOLD Member since Sep 2002

DeepSoulSheep

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: Berlin, Ireland

Total posts: 2617
Posted:A friend said to me the other day that if he get's re-elected they will never go to America again.... I know I will be really upset if he does...

I think it's pretty obvious we are causing climate change.....I was going to say playing with fire but I don't suppose that'll get my point across to a bunch of fire twirlers....

I know it can't be proved conclusively right now but I believe that in years to come we'll look back on the doubting scientist the same way we currently look at the tobacco lobby.


I live in a world of infinite possibilities.

Delete

Doc Lightning
GOLD Member since May 2001

Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA

Total posts: 13920
Posted:As I said, if he gets re-elected, I'm finishing my training and moving. Even if the President after him is a Democrat, I think the damage he'd do in the next four years would be so profound and lasting that the country would be way too toxic a place for me to live.

-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete

Ria


member
Location: Essex, England

Total posts: 114
Posted:Quote:
'The planet is a great big non-sentient lump of stuff. You can't rape it any more than you can rape a brick.'

You can however take advantage of its weath and totally upset the natural equilibrium by being compleatly selfish! Which is if i'm not mistaken the reason we're in this mess frown
I'm afraid of all this stuff ubbcrying


Delete

simian


simian

110% MONKEY EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME JUST CANT STOP THE MONKEY
Location: London

Total posts: 3149
Posted:Oi, don't be dissing doubting scientists!

Sceptics are a valuable resource biggrin

Speaking of doubting environmental issues:

Quote:
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



i remember reading about a well respected and much quoted study from the early seventies stating that by the mid-80s the USA would be severely affected by exponential population growth. There would be shortages of food, water, power and oil. There would be riots and people living in tiny cramped spaces.

But populations don't grow exponentially, there are limiting factors.

and anyway, the unsustainable population levels they said the USA was going to reach already existed in the UK at the time the report was written (judged by population per square km).


"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."

Delete

simian


simian

110% MONKEY EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME JUST CANT STOP THE MONKEY
Location: London

Total posts: 3149
Posted:Quote:
You can however take advantage of its weath and totally upset the natural equilibrium by being compleatly selfish!



yes smile i was just objecting to introducing romantic imagery into a scientific issue.

i dunno about using the word selfish too confused

If a load of people waste all their money, then starve to death, were they selfish?

i'd say they were just stupid frown


"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."

Delete

Eera
BRONZE Member since May 2003

old hand
Location: In a test pit, Mackay, Austral...

Total posts: 1107
Posted:I want to state that in no way to I support the reckless endangerment of life, limb or property, but I'm going to play devil's advocate.

The main problem we seem to have is that the majority of people can't distinguish between something that is inherently bad for the planet and something that incoveniences humans. OK, if low lying islands are not able to support human life they become the start for a reef and the home to a brand new ecosystem. Why is that a bad thing?

Loads of money is thrown at strengthening sea defences each year because we don't want our homes to be flooded. The wading birds don't give a damn if they have to fly an extra mile to the salt marsh. Simplistically, as one part of a reef dies through the water becoming too cold another bit starts to grow where it's warmer. If latitude 45 turns Siberian then 40 becomes slightly more temperate. Aside from the irritation getting extra insulation fitted will cause, why would a man-made accelleration of a regular and quite natural phenomenon be so bad?

A plain (and mostly ignored) fact is that we simply do not know what causes climate change. We've been on a gradually increasing global temperature since the retreat of the glaciers, and know one quite knows what caused that in the first place. Most of the time it's a case of Who Needs Research When You've Got A Great Conclusion To Leap To?

The highest recorded sea levels were in the Jurassic-Cretaceous where they were over 100m higher than at present. There are numerous theories bandied around as to why: it was a period of supercontinent break-up and one theory says that the high numbers of mid-ocean ridges caused thermal expansion of sea water. There is even a theory that gaseous sauropods were to blame - Simian's farting dinosaur hypothosis. We just don't know.

There was a significant dip in global temperature in 1991 as a direct result of one eruptive period of Pinatubo. The climate change after the fissure eruption of Hekla in the late 18th century caused a famine that killed a good percentage of the population of northern Europe. Imagine what a period of flood volcanism could do through sulphur dioxide injection of the atmosphere. The earth doesn't need the internal combustion engine to screw it up, that's for sure.

I'm talking purely about climate change here, not wholly unnatural man-made things like ozone holes and toxic waste. If we end up as slaves to six foot ants because of these then we can't blame anyone but ourselves


There is a slight possibility that I am not actually right all of the time.

Delete

TheBovrilMonkey
SILVER Member since Sep 2001

TheBovrilMonkey

Liquid Cow
Location: High Wycombe, England

Total posts: 2629
Posted:Quote:
If latitude 45 turns Siberian then 40 becomes slightly more temperate



In the case of Britain's climate turning Siberian, I'd say that more than 5 degrees of latitude should be worried.
The main reason I've read that's thrown around for the climate changing around Britain so much is because of a reversal of the gulf stream, so we'd end up with arctic water flowing down one side of Europe.
Chuck in the changes in air flow that'd create across at least two continents, then add in the changes in water flow around the atlantic and you've got some rather serious problems.
Not just to us, but anything that spawns in regular areas that are suddenly the wrong temperature, or anything that wants to migrate to an area to overwinter but it doesn't suit them anymore.
Major climate change on that scale has much larger influences than most people realise.

Quote:

why would a man-made accelleration of a regular and quite natural phenomenon be so bad?



Because it's not just an acceleration, it's an amplification.
True, volcanoes and the like are quite capable of changing things themselves, but when there's a huge amount of man made things doing it too, it all adds up.

You're right when you say that no-one knows just what causes climate change Eera, but we also don't know if what man's doing is merely an acceleration of a natural process. What if it's all part of a cycle but we've killed off/disrupted whatever mechanism should be starting to cool the planet down?

In my opinion, it's worth playing it safe, but it seems that not everyone wants to go to the effort of changing to less polluting engines etc...


But there's no sense crying over every mistake. You just keep on trying till you run out of cake.

Delete


Similar Topics

Using the keywords [hope] we found the following similar topics.
1. Forums > Is there any hope left? [12 replies]
2. Forums > meeting up in w. europe, my hope to see poi internationally [2 replies]
3. Forums > There is always hope [21 replies]
4. Forums > hope for/from younger christians [2 replies]
5. Forums > Beginners Hope [10 replies]

     Show more..