PDA

View Full Version : Pentagon Report on Climate Change



Cat
23-02-2004, 11:51 PM
Last year on the old BB I suggested there were elements in the PentAgon who believed that human population growth was out of control, that any attempts to relieve poverty were not only futile, but were potentially dangerous in that it empowered individuals to react to social injustice, and that America should shield their interest from outside chaos and hostility brought on by poverty and injustice.

This weekend it emerged that a Pentagon report warning of looming catastrophe resulting from climate change was suppressed from publication by George Bush. The report warns that by 2025, climate change leading to food, water and resources shortages would lead to global anarchy. It warned of nuclear arsenal proliferation, endless cycles of war and famine and asked how America could protect her interest in the face of global chaos.

It suggested that Europe and America would become fortresses faced with massive migration from impoverished states. It suggested the population was already greater than the planet could sustain and that war and famine would kill millions leaving a more sustainable population.

Crop yeilds would fall significantly leaving the worlds breadbasket regions arid dustbowls. 400 million people in subtropical regions would face severe hardship. Battles would be over water and food shortages rather than ideology or religion and that mankind would once again be faced with endless cycles of war.

At this stage the Bush administration do not officially accept that climate change is real. Similarly the British chief scientific officer has suggested the effect of climate are grossly exaggerated. What makes this report so shocking is that the commisoners and authors of the report are arch-conservatives with a long history in the CIA, Pentagon and oil industry.

"Only the dead will see the end of war." PLATO

Kevin Bonham
24-02-2004, 12:46 AM
This weekend it emerged that a Pentagon report warning of looming catastrophe resulting from climate change was suppressed from publication by George Bush. The report warns that by 2025, climate change leading to food, water and resources shortages would lead to global anarchy. It warned of nuclear arsenal proliferation, endless cycles of war and famine and asked how America could protect her interest in the face of global chaos.

I've found details of this. The mechanism is interesting - apparently in past climate change events global warming similar in degree to that occurring now has caused the collapse of the Gulf Stream ocean current that keeps the European west coast temperate, hence (paradoxically) leading to massive cooling across Europe. What's novel about it is that it doesn't necessarily require a huge temperature rise for this to happen, it could happen fairly suddenly at any stage. However the climate change primer at the New Scientist website (http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/climate/climatefaq.jsp) notes: "But most models suggest that the Gulf Stream won't turn off for at least another century."

The exact extrapolation to politics seems pretty shaky anyway, at least in some of the finer details. Unless you model these things in the very immediate future there are always going to be a lot of historical factors in the meantime that you simply won't see coming. All the same, climate change of the sort suggested would be bound to have massive and very unpleasant outcomes for a lot of people.

It's worth noting that even the report in question (despite some of the sensationalist rubbish being spread about it already) didn't find that this would happen, or that it was even likely to happen - only that it was a realistic possibility that needed to be considered as a national security risk to the USA in future planning.

Any climatologists on board?

Cat
24-02-2004, 06:38 PM
The question is why is the Pentagon furthering these issues? With credibility about looming terrorist threats waning, is this a way of getting homeland security issues and SDI back to the top of the political agenda? And is this rhetoric going to lead to western countries jettisoning their development and aid programs and lead to further tightening of border control. Issues of national security may also be used as a mechanism to garner support for more autocratic government, that in a climate of fear its citizens may permit its government license which it would otherwise resist.

PHAT
24-02-2004, 09:28 PM
Any climatologists on board?

"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows."

For 10 pts, name the artist and the song.

Seriously though, if the western nations do not mend their ways, 90% of the worlds population will be as dead as disco before they get to breed. ... Not such a bad outcome for the other 10% :uhoh:

Cat
24-02-2004, 09:37 PM
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows."

For 10 pts, name the artist and the song.

Seriously though, if the western nations do not mend their ways, 90% of the worlds population will be as dead as disco before they get to breed. ... Not such a bad outcome for the other 10% :uhoh:

Bob Dylan Subterranean Homesick Blues

Rincewind
24-02-2004, 10:42 PM
Bob Dylan Subterranean Homesick Blues

:rolleyes:

Talk about a gimme!

Kevin Bonham
24-02-2004, 11:46 PM
The question is why is the Pentagon furthering these issues? With credibility about looming terrorist threats waning, is this a way of getting homeland security issues and SDI back to the top of the political agenda?

Possibly. Or it could simply be that the Pentagon are doing their job - to make risks known however small the potential.


And is this rhetoric going to lead to western countries jettisoning their development and aid programs and lead to further tightening of border control.

I doubt that will happen right away, whether groundwork would be laid in case the event in question came to pass is a more interesting question.


Issues of national security may also be used as a mechanism to garner support for more autocratic government, that in a climate of fear its citizens may permit its government license which it would otherwise resist.

Yep. Standard political practice.

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed [and hence clamorous to be led to safety] by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." - H.L. Mencken.

arosar
21-06-2004, 05:11 PM
Seen Day After Tomorrow yet fellas? What a flick? My first reaction was, OK - here we go, Holywood's run out of villains - now even Mother Nature's a bad a guy (not the first time, though. See 'Twister'). But I quite liked it! Pretty scary and suspenseful.

AR

Alan Shore
21-06-2004, 10:50 PM
*Minor Spoilers*



I thought it was one of the better 'disaster' movies.. the same director did 'Independence Day'. Really cool effects with the tornadoes and the oceans rising. It still had that ridiculous sappy American ending and the pointlessness of Dennis Quaid's little venture but still worth a watch, all good entertainment.