A friend pointed me towards this British news story, which asserts that the Bush Administration had suppressed for four months a Pentagon climate analysis that asserts, among other things,
and
Grim stuff indeed. What do you all think? Real? Reasonable? What will government reaction be? Will there be any significant dissemnation of this by the mainstream media, which will be a big factor in any reaction (whether the report is accurate or not)? The article hints that this could benefit the Democratic candidate in 2004. Will it?
I didn’t realize the Bush administration had a time machine!! Wow!
Let me ask one reasonable question. Why would the Bush administrations report be critical one way or the other? Don’t the British have scientists that can study climate and such as well? Or are they in on it too??
My opinion is, this is further out there than the 5.5 billion scheduled for death because of the Peak Oil Crisis.
On the other hand…
puts on tinfoil hat and starts digging bomb shelter
That’s why we should all get down on our knees and thank the modern industrialized world for pollution and the global warming that’s holding back the next ice age.
Actually, the original (?) article was in Fortune magazine (or maybe the NY Times Sunday mag) two or three weeks ago. Not gonna look for it now, but I remember reading it. Basically, it was simply a worst-case scenario done by the Pentagon. I’m sure they do these types of things all the time.
As far as being “suppressed”, who knows? I mean, it was in the magazine I mentioned. I’m sure that the current (or, to be honest, even the previous) administration would come out and trumpet it.
Well both the Pentagon and the authors of the study say that it’s being taken way out of context - they were specifically looking into worst-case scenarios; things that are “highly unlikely” to happen.
I very much tire of the Sunday newspapers culture of must-have-a-big-scoop (in order to sell all that reams of advertising). It’s done everywhere there’s a Sunday paper reading culture to maintain but it really is a pain when papers know they have a particular socio-political demographic within their readership and they try to pander to it with ‘manipulated’ so-called stories.
And what’s more, the papers with a particular demagraphic actually undermine the credibility of the real agenda with these false lead stories – they’re actuallly undermining the credibility of the issues that concern their particular readership . . . crazy.
I hate to give up the Sundays because I like the Review and Sports sections, but the News section headline stories seem to be getting more desperate for a ‘scoop’ every month. Maybe I’m getting old.
There are very great concerns about climate change but this kind of malarkey doesn’t help address the key issues at all.
Valgard and London_Calling: Thanks for the link/perspective. It really sheds light on the whole thing.
I was a little dubious about the article myself, but it seemed to be a reputable source… I guess I was mistaken. Other European Dopers: has this story really got the legs over there that Valgard’s linked article implies?
No worries, Leaper - Fwiw, I still have a lot of regard for The Observer as a paper, especially for it’s investigative journalism. It’s just that you know some stories are poorly based (no direct quotes from key players, etc) and are there to pander to the audience.
To be fair, The Observer does it less than most, imho.
The Pentagon report is merely contingency plans for a bad case scenario, not a prediction. (Note that the worst case is a temperature rise large enough to release ocean-floor methane, as in the Permian Mass Extinction).
Scylla, actually the extreme cold climate would be the result of anthropocentric global warming.
The only reason the UK doesn’t have similar weather to regions on the same latitude is because of the Jet Stream. Warming melts polar ice, causing colder water to encroach into ever more southerly latitudes.
We do not know the effect of this on the Jet Stream, but if it moved south, the UK might become one big reindeer farm.
Not to nitpick but I believe you might mean the Gulf Stream, but you’re right about the rest of it… global warming MAY change patterns in the Gulf Stream and with it weather patterns in Europe.
The Gulf Stream is the ocean current, the Jet Stream the air current. The two are interlinked, but we don’t know the effect of the encroaching cold water.
I don’t know about the rest, but global warming will plunge the UK in a very Siberian climate. That’s because the North Atlantic Conveyer Belt will be foobared and stop working.
Some scientists are saying that we should not be calling it global warming but *climate change * instead. This is because , as shown with the Siberia predictions for the UK , some places will get hotter and others colder.
Oh, yes, and Celyn would die cold and miserable. Hmm - I agree with **Lndon Calling[;’/b], I think, about hiso article. The “Oberserver” is a pretty fine paper, but this item just has to be the worst and fastest possible scenario.
Oh, yes, and Celyn would die cold and miserable. Hmm - I agree with Lndon Calling, I think, about hiso article. The “Oberserver” is a pretty fine paper, but this item just has to be the worst and fastest possible scenario.
IANA climatologist, but I find it difficult to believe that the UK will have a “Siberian climate” even if the Gulf stream is somehow “turned off.” Firstly, the UK is not on the same latitude as Siberia. The largest cities in Siberia, Tura and Yakutsk, are at 64 and 63 degrees north respectively, and the bulk of what we consider Siberia is further north than that. By comparison, London is at 51 degrees north, and even Inverness is only at 57.5 degrees north.
More importantly, though, Siberia is land-locked. Any land-locked area is bound to experience greater extremes of temperature, both hot and cold, than an island nation like the UK. For an example, compare Winnipeg in Canada (50 degrees north, average January high of -13, low -23) with Vancouver, also in Canada (49.5 degrees north, average January high of 6, low 0). True, Vancouver experiences some warming currents from the ocean, but to one extent or another, so do all coastal areas.
In short, the idea that the UK would become a barren, Siberian wasteland if the Gulf stream is somehow diverted seems ludicrous on its face.
[sup]Why would Bush hide it? It won’t happen during his administration.[/sup][/indent]
Then Scotland could no longer surprise people by boasting about having palm trees!