Hosted by: Eyo Technologies Pty Ltd. Sponsored by: Actiontec Pty Ltd
Climate Change and Global Conflict [Archive] - Aussie Phorums

PDA

View Full Version : Climate Change and Global Conflict



Pages : [1] 2 3

Hallma704
12-03-2005, 04:10 PM
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.

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.

cam86
12-03-2005, 11:26 PM
Ofcourse there is climate change... and there has been for THOUSANDS of years. Why would it affect us now and not before? Climate change is endless and will continue. They didnt worry about it 500 years ago, why should we worry now?

We shouldnt. It's just another scare tactic thrown at us by the environmentalist. And another way for Governments to waste money :rolling:

footer
13-03-2005, 10:29 AM
Ofcourse there is climate change... and there has been for THOUSANDS of years. Why would it affect us now and not before? Climate change is endless and will continue. They didnt worry about it 500 years ago, why should we worry now?

We shouldnt. It's just another scare tactic thrown at us by the environmentalist. And another way for Governments to waste money :rolling:
I agree, nothing that dramatic is going to happen in 20 years!

Matt89
13-03-2005, 03:15 PM
I agree. All this is like Y2K. It sounds kind of believable, but will probably never happen (at least not for a very long time)

Lizard Drinkin
13-03-2005, 03:24 PM
Regardless of cause, climate change has been scientifically recorded as an accellerating phenomenon. From what I've seen recently (http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2005/s1318065.htm), scientists seem divided on whether or not the cause is driven by industrialisation (and seemingly not down the centre; a very vocal minority seem to insist the change is entirely natural), it's clear that the beginnings of the rate of change we are experiencing coincides conveniently with the time of the Industrial Revolution in Europe.

Which is why we didn't worry about it 500 years ago: it quite simply wasn't happening. Many tests confirm how the environment has been behaving over the last 1000 years, and it was nothing like this.

While I take the report above with a grain of salt, you'd be fooling yourselves to think that we are not experiencing a very dramatic change by historical standards. And by that I mean the last 5000 years or so.

femme fatale
13-03-2005, 06:58 PM
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.'

If there were a real possibility of drastic climate change, then I would say that report probably accurately predicts what may follow. Scary stuff.
Even down to an individual level, people who have resources (independant water supply, food crops and livestock) will have to fiercely defend them against desperate raiders (think white farmers in Zimbabwe) and likely fail. That is if the government hasnt already forcibly acquired it.
As a mother, I am very concerned about what this may mean for my children and future generations. If I had any right to, I'd be advising them against having children because of the possibility of a bleak future for our existance.
On the other hand, looking on the bright side and living in hope that governments of the world wake up and make changes in time to save us all from the otherwise awfully inevitable is foolishly apathetic, because it wont happen in a way that suits us.There'd have to be drastic enforced lifestyle changes, I think. Communism or something akin to it. Not the kind of future I'd like to see for my offspring either. What would their roles be? Peasant worker or enforcer? Neither role preferable over the other in the end.

*Ok kids, dont - I say DON'T - have children!

/end ramble

dAvoZ
13-03-2005, 10:31 PM
An accelerating phenomenon? That doesnt mean anything, who is to say the Earth hasnt experienced rapid weather and climate change before? The sun and its cycles are probably the biggest factor in all of this, we just happen to live in a time of change.

We have no means of comparing the current situation with the past, the technology to map weather and temperature have been around for the smallest of times compared with the age of the earth. Scientists cannot come to any conclusions because there is nothing significant to compare current data against.

King Eric
13-03-2005, 10:39 PM
OK i'm convinced!I say let's all root like rabbits just in case it's the last one we ever have. :p Better to be safe than sorry. :D

femme fatale
13-03-2005, 10:44 PM
OK i'm convinced!I say let's all root like rabbits just in case it's the last one we ever have. :p Better to be safe than sorry. :D

So long as you use a condom ;)

King Eric
13-03-2005, 10:49 PM
So long as you use a condom ;)
No need to,the tide could be over our heads tomorrow.Of course if the tide dosen't come in that big then maybe forgetting the condom was a bit of a mistake :o

femme fatale
13-03-2005, 11:11 PM
who is to say the Earth hasnt experienced rapid weather and climate change before?

How about the great Ice Age? (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html)

Hermit
14-03-2005, 04:04 AM
How about the great Ice Age? (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html)
Thanks for that link. It really places the issue of climate change in a broader, more comprehensive perspective. Although it argues convincingly that the magnitude of human activity on climatic changes is insignificant in the long term, it still manages to quote Tim Worth saying that a possibly erroneous theory may have beneficial effects.

Has anybody read the report in its entirety? In its 22 pages it concentrates on the possible implications of abrupt climatic changes and why they may just come about. It does not try and argue whether those abrupt changes are a result of human activity, or not.

femme fatale
14-03-2005, 08:38 AM
Has anybody read the report in its entirety?

No. A link with the quoted report would have been handy. :rolleyes:

Lizard Drinkin
14-03-2005, 09:57 AM
We have no means of comparing the current situation with the past, the technology to map weather and temperature have been around for the smallest of times compared with the age of the earth. Scientists cannot come to any conclusions because there is nothing significant to compare current data against.
Complete hogwash.

drive_on
14-03-2005, 10:05 AM
Yes it is depressing if you think about it, lol, god has got a great sense of humor lol

Any way, I think we should stop worrying and just party on
so the world is coming to and end, the real problem is I’m out of beer and the bottle shop is closed lol

anyway
have fun

:)

Lizard Drinkin
14-03-2005, 10:10 AM
Not the kind of future I'd like to see for my offspring either. What would their roles be? Peasant worker or enforcer? Neither role preferable over the other in the end.

*Ok kids, dont - I say DON'T - have children!

Yeah, I'm scared for my kids too. Terrified, even. But I hope to raise individuals who will make a difference in whatever crappy future existence we've arranged for ourselves. Good people need to start breeding more good people in very large numbers...

dAvoZ
14-03-2005, 03:02 PM
Complete hogwash.

Elaborate please.


And femme fatale Im not sure what you were trying to say with your post.

femme fatale
14-03-2005, 03:53 PM
And femme fatale Im not sure what you were trying to say with your post.
Do you mean this post, dAvoZ:




who is to say the Earth hasnt experienced rapid weather and climate change before?


How about the great Ice Age? (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html)


If so, did you click on the words ice age? You may find it answers your question.

BiggyRat
14-03-2005, 03:53 PM
We have no means of comparing the current situation with the past, the technology to map weather and temperature have been around for the smallest of times compared with the age of the earth. Scientists cannot come to any conclusions because there is nothing significant to compare current data against.I beleive what Lizard means is that we do indeed have ways of telling weather patterns from millions of years ago - beginning of time in fact if they dig deep enough.

This is done quite easily nowadays by taking core samples of soil and investigating it's soil type, water content and other features. Using this method science can acurately determine what the climate was like at a given period in the past.

(This is over simplified of course, but that's the gist of it)

Lizard Drinkin
14-03-2005, 04:01 PM
Elaborate please.

Paleoclimatology (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/slides/slideset/index18.htm) which has lead to some interesting observations on the effects of volcanic activity (http://www.answers.com/topic/climate-changes-of-535-536) on climate.
Glaciology (http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/5200event.htm).