I read the following atricle at the BBC web site. I was wondering what y’all think about it. Serious possibility? Chicken Little syndrome? Good reason to buy land in Iowa?
Inkleberry :dubious:
"Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us
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. …"
20 years is WAY too fast for that sort of catostrophic climate climate changes, unless you have something major like a large asteroid strike, or supervolcano explosion.
I don’t know what method Randall and Schwartz used to determine that climate change would lead to pandemic wars, but (unless they’ve perfected psychohistory) it wasn’t science.
So, this report has been put together by the Pentagon, yet none of the other climatological study groups throughout the world have come to the same conclusion?
I’m sure that Bush and company pick and choose the science they prefer to hear about and I am sure that they would prefer to suppress stories that do not support their preconceived notions. However, I am puzzled by the notion that the Pentagon can produce a groundbreaking study (using scientists whose positions are inimical to that of the White House) while no one else can reach the same conclusions.
The fact that this “secret” report just happened to be discovered by the Guardian, (a long-time critic of Bush), when no other journalists could discover it also tends to cast a shadow on the claims.
You can make your own judgements on the quality of the science, but scientific study has been done on what could occur should the Gulf Stream collapse because of an infuse of cooler, less salty waters at its Northern reaches due to melting ice. One of the theories bouncing around predicts a fairly sudden climate change.
The problem with doom scenarios, and with denials of doom scenarios with regard to climate change catastrophes is that both rely on an assumption that we are able to create accurately predictive models of the world’s weather. That happens to be a false assumption at the present time, aside from the usual level of reliability of the TV weatherman in telling me about tomorrow’s weather.
Global warming as a measured phenomenon has a total history of less than a century at its most extreme range, and a few decades at its median. It is a real, measured phenomenon. It is not a politically inspired fantasy. It is believed that it is probably at least partially caused by human actions during the last century, or perhaps longer. It is not known definitively whether this is part of the natural variation of climate over the world, or a change opposing the natural variation. Climate records of more than a hundred years ago are very rare, and mostly apocryphal. There was once a business in Baltimore that rented sleighs for use crossing the Chesapeake Bay. That business thrived for decades. Such a business depended on regular freezing of the Bay down below Baltimore sufficiently thick to bear horses and sleighs. No one alive today remembers such an occurrence, on even a single occasion. Clearly that specific example supports the idea that change is happening, and doesn’t seem to be cyclic on a multi-century scale. However none of the single cases provides us with data that make predictions about the future simpler, or more reliable.
Models of global warming done on computers produce results that are far more variable than predictive. The changes possible include dire consequences for the race. However, the reliability of any of those models is simply out of the range of our judgement. It would be imprudent for our government to totally ignore the consequences of rapid changes in the climate of the world. It would be imprudent for the military to ignore the national security implications of such possibilities. We even planned on what we should do if Canada invaded, and no one ever actually thought they would. Military thinking always includes the extremes. Basing our government’s plans entirely on the extreme case cited would be about as sensible as basing them on the Canadian invasion. But basing them on the denial of any possible consequences from global climate change would be just as senseless.
Making the nation’s plans for any eventuality based on the advice of energy producing corporations owners is one of those things which I think should be criminal, but is, in fact common, and accepted.
Science (the capitalized special interest group, as opposed to the method of study) is becoming the favorite lap dog of the party in power, and has shown a regrettable willingness to avoid wolf like behavior and risk loosing its favored position as a domesticated animal. Facts suffer from no such opportunistic tendency. In the end, real science will follow the facts. It may be too late for the rest of the world to benefit.
Tris
“As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand.” ~ Josh Billings ~
The thing about the pentagon is that they have to try and prepare for ALOT of eventualities. That’s why there existed plans to invade canada. There are probably plans and tactics for a situation where france is openly hostile, or if china decides to invade japan. It means that the pentagon is taking severe climate change seriously, but not that it’s about ot happen tomorrow.
Indeed, this is not necessarily a prediction of sea-level rise and more extreme weather any more than the Pentagon would predict a terrorist attack involving a nuclear device.
It is a warning about the likely consequences of a polaristion of global weather: ie. either very cold or very hot with violent storms, with far fewer “temperate” regions. Should deserts spread to where they currently are not, it is entirely reasonable to expect regional squabbles over decreased water resources.
I agree that this is merely a bad case scenario which may not come to pass (incidentally, the worst case is a temperature rise large enough to release all of the methane on the ocean floors: Google “Permian Mass Extinction”).
But when near a steep precipice, surely it might be prudent not to keep walking towards the edge?
Even as I was doing time at Leavenworth (at the Staff College) ‘environmental ruin’ was mentioned in some document or another as a potential spark to future unrest.
There are two separate issues, here.
On the one hand is the issue of global warming (which, IMO, is a reality) and the possibility that it could have a much shorter trigger than we earlier believed (which I belive requires serious consideration).
On the other hand is the Guardian’s claim that this is some “secret” knowledge that is known as fact but that is being suppressed by the evil forces of the Pentagon in the U.S. I consider the Guardian story, as presented, so much alarmist/conspiratorial garbage. (Note that the Fortune article to which II Gyan II linked lays out the entire “secret” discussions, both among the scientists and among the Pentagon wanks.)
Maybe now the Bush administration will start taking climate change seriously. But i’m not hopeful. If they find it easy to ignore the majority of the worlds climate scientists, and then i don’t think ignoring a few officials at the Pentagon would pose too many problems. The best thing to hope for IMO is that this leads to a change in US public opinion that makes the current policy of ignoring climate change a potential election loser. Maybe then Bush will be forced to do something about it. It all depends on whether this is being reported widely in US media though…
Whilst there is considerable consensus that human-caused climate change is real, there is much that is unknown. We know enough to be pretty concerned - and you would think, enough to know that moderating our influence is a better idea than rolling the dice for what may well be huge stakes. But we don’t know how big the effects will be and we don’t know the costs. We’re not even sure about how the effects will manifest themselves.
I can buy that it might turn out that climate change has discontinuous effects. But if someone reckons given the current state of knowledge that they can model how and when a tipping point will occur (rather than that there could be one) to the point of British Siberia, I’m not inclined to take them seriously.
Its a no-brainer that climate change is way more dangerous to humanity than terrorism ever was… and how much attention did Bush give it ? -20 ? Actually Bush is all for drilling more oil… and anti-environment. F*ck the planet.
The major problem with Climate Change is that subtle weather variations can make grain belts areas in the US and Argentina for example into desertic climates whilst possibly improving the weather in remote de-populated areas.
I doubt we can transplant millions and millions of people and their farm machinery in time... starvation and chaos especially when country boundaries are in the way ?
Of course the report in that link seems a bit dramatic... but I doubt Bush would give it attention unless its put in a versus Terrorism context and if wasn't super dramatic.
[QUOTE=Rashak Mani]
Its a no-brainer that climate change is way more dangerous to humanity than terrorism ever was
[QUOTE]
Yeah…that is a no-brainer.
First of all no one knows but I’m putting my money on gradual climatic change, not catastrophic. Certainly not over the course of 20 years.
Second, how gradual these changes are will determine how much of an effect they will have and how quickly we adapt. Does Baltimore still bare the scars from the economic scars of the collapse of Triskadecamus’s Chesepeak Bay Sleigh Co?
Third, a great deal of ‘environmental activists’ understand very little about meteorology, economics, and other actual sciences beyond general concepts like destroying trees and spitting chemicals into the air is bad (which it is).
Finally, predicting apocalyptic battles for resources does not lend credibility to ones argument.
This report was just another exercise in worst case scenario planning. I bet there were thousands of these discussed during the cold war, but THEY WERENT PREDICTIONS either.
The planet’s climate is and has always been changing. I dont think we should panic because its changing some more, OR because a bunch of people whose job is to come up with emergency plans, came up with one.
I bet they even have a plan for how to manufacture millions of tinfoil hats …
sin
