Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Pentagon Tells Bush: Climate Change Will Destroy Us

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
paparush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 09:10 PM
Original message
Pentagon Tells Bush: Climate Change Will Destroy Us
Source: guardian.co.uk

· 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
* The Observer,
* Sunday February 22 2004

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.

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
sakabatou Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 09:11 PM
Response to Original message
1. "If I say it doesn't exist, IT DOESN'T EXIST!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 09:17 PM
Response to Original message
2. He doesn't care. Have we ever had a more disinterested person
at the helm, when lives could be hanging in the balance?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paparush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 09:20 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Babs..I couldn't agree more
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jackpine Radical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 10:05 PM
Response to Reply #2
12. WARNING***word usage Nazi approaching***WARNING
Maybe you mean to say "uninterested," "unconcerned," "apathetic," "uninvolved" or something like that, but I believe "disinterested" means "fair," "impartial," "neutral."

Other than that, I agree entirely. It is a well-documented characteristic of psychopaths that they don't worry about the consequences of their actions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 10:44 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. Hmmm. I didn't know that!
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/disinterested

Disinterested and uninterested share a confused and confusing history. Disinterested was originally used to mean “not interested, indifferent”; uninterested in its earliest use meant “impartial.” By various developmental twists, disinterested is now used in both senses. Uninterested is used mainly in the sense “not interested, indifferent.” It is occasionally used to mean “not having a personal or property interest.”
Many object to the use of disinterested to mean “not interested, indifferent.” They insist that disinterested can mean only “impartial”: A disinterested observer is the best judge of behavior. However, both senses are well established in all varieties of English, and the sense intended is almost always clear from the context.

Are we both right? :evilgrin:

And you're right, he's not worried about anything or anyone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 11:48 PM
Response to Reply #15
24. no, Jackpine is correct
the accepted definition of 'disinterested' is 'impartial'

in the vernacular, it may be the terms are being used interchangeably

but they mean different things
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lapfog_1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 09:20 PM
Response to Original message
4. I really don't envy our next president, whoever he or she may be.
As for me, well, 20 years is just about my life expectancy, so I probably won't be here for the worst of it. But I wouldn't want the responsibility of the world on my shoulders for the next CRITICAL 8 years. I don't care what the perks of the office are. It just won't be worth it. Mostly because we may not be able to muster the will to do enough to stop it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paparush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 09:38 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. I just think about the 8 years that this band of criminals has wasted..
utterly wasted.

We could be world leaders addressing GCC and a host of other pressing concerns.

Instead, we are a scourge upon the planet, led by a group of insane warmongers who's greed knows no bounds.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hay rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. exactly n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lint Head Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 09:26 PM
Response to Original message
5. Bush is not young. He does not care. He will not be alive
when this happens. His children may be alive but it's obvious he doesn't care about human life. He pretends to care for photo ops.
He believes in Armageddon and this may be the scenario he and his criminal ilk are hoping for. :dem:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BattyDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 09:29 PM
Response to Original message
6. Bush replies, "Who cares what you think?"
:eyes: :scared:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
opihimoimoi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 09:33 PM
Response to Original message
7. The Window to CONTEND with the Challenge is getting smaller by the day
Them MFs don't have any clue....do they????

They not only cannot figure out plausible solutions...they still think the Prob Don't exist....Damn...

Even tiny brains can see water rising

What are we when our LEADERS IGNORE WARNINGS on SUCH a LEVEL and in a CONSISTENT MODE? We are Fucked...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orleans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 09:46 PM
Response to Original message
9. i'm confused. why is the guardian running an article from 2004 from the observer? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PSPS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Yes, I noticed that too.
Apparently, bush had no difficulty with this "report" at all, since it was produced four years ago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
drm604 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 11:55 PM
Response to Reply #9
25. Look at the URL.
"/2004/feb/22/"

The Guardian ran that in 2004. This is old news (but still critically important).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
halobeam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 10:16 PM
Response to Original message
13. Hey, it was an election year. Can't have him looking bad, can we.
Did US papers carry this during that time period? I don't remember seeing it. Although I don't know how to research paper's archives, I'll give it a shot.

Let's take it further. What do our candidates say about this? Will we get to ask them for their response to this letter dated the same month, and the LAST ELECTION year????

This should be printed out and stapled to every open surface of our communities. I'm going to walk this into my reps and senator's offices.

When did Bush make that crazy ass statement, "We're all going to die anyway"..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 10:18 PM
Response to Original message
14. why is this in LBN?-- it happened in 2004....
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Baby Snooks Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 10:46 PM
Response to Original message
16. The reality
Nothing we do at this point can stop what is already happening. It took over a century of increasing pollution to bring us here. It would take us over a century to undo it. If we could. Nature balances itself. But over thousands of years and sometimes millions of years.

The reality is too many see only advantage in the opening of the Arctic each summer. All they see is the oil and gas which lies beneath. Not what a shrinking icecap represents in addition to shrinking glaciers and shifting icesheets in both Greenland and Antarctica.

There may be a natural cycle involved. If so, that may only guarantee the end of civilization as we know it. The coming summers may indicate how bad it will be. As sea levels rise. Either insignificantly. Or very significantly. There probably will be no "middle ground" in this.

"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."

That is the reality. Although what they are not considering are the oil wars. Which may turn into nuclear wars.

All the oil companies see is the increasing demand in India and China. And enormous profit. And so they blind themselves to the reality of what is coming. As do we.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SammyWinstonJack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #16
32. Reality sucks!
:-(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrScorpio Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 11:08 PM
Response to Original message
17. On one hand, he says it's not a problem...
Edited on Sat Feb-23-08 11:31 PM by MrScorpio
But on the other, his policies help the rich become so much richer.

Feathering his people's collective nest for the coming change, so to speak.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Double T Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 11:13 PM
Response to Original message
18. Looks like the Mayans were EXACTLY right.
ONLY a massive worldwide revolution can save this planet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
electron_blue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 11:21 PM
Response to Original message
19. This report is 4 years old. Any updates?
Edited on Sat Feb-23-08 11:22 PM by electron_blue
I know nothing in the big picture has changed - it's still bleak, but all the predictions of "a year from now" didn't come to pass. I was wondering if there was a more updated study from this group.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SmellsLikeDeanSpirit Donating Member (471 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 11:37 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. Update: We're still fucked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zephyrbird Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 11:44 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. hhhmmm. Pithy comment.
Kinda sums it up in a nutshell, tho.

Zephyr
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Croquist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #19
30. Climate Change updates:
In 2004 it was 16 years to 2020. We are now about a third of the way there.
In the last 4 years sea level has risen about 12.4 mm. That's almost 1/2 an inch. At that rate sea level will rise another 1 1/2 inches by 2020 for a total gain of 2 inches.

The temperature of the earth was 0.086 degrees C. warmer in 2007 then it was in 2004. At that rate it will be a total of 0.346 degrees C. warmer in 2020 then it was in 2004.

The temperature specifically to Britain is more complicated. It is closely tied to the North Atlantic Drift that is feared will shut down due to melting fresh water ice in Greenland and the Arctic. To date there is mixed evidence regarding what is happening to the North Atlantic Drift with some scientists claiming it is slowing down and others claim that any changes are within the range of seasonal variability.

It's alarmist claims like this that undermine the fight against global warming. We aren't doomed but the world could be a much less friendly place in 100 or 500 years. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything about it. Large scale problems won't be evident by 2020 and to predict that they will be is going to undermine the cause in the longterm.

Were not seeing the effects of global warming yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davepc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 11:29 PM
Response to Original message
20. this item puts the "late" in late breaking news
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluesmail Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 11:42 PM
Response to Original message
22. so it comes full circle
destroying the planet, oh shit oh shit. Kick & Recommend.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Contrary1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 12:20 AM
Response to Original message
26. Well, if there is nothing done
most of the deniers will still be around to suffer with the rest of us. Their money will only matter for just so long.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beam Me Up Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 04:51 AM
Response to Original message
27. "climate wars"
Yeah, that will solve EVERYTHING.

You know, my old man used to say, "if it ain't one god damned thing its another." He was the kind of man who thought the best way to solve a problem was to shoot it -- or at least shoot at it.

The question is, who are the stupid mother fuckers who LED US STEP BY STEP INTO THIS GOD DAMNED MESS? It isn't as if there haven't been people saying, for quite some time now, that you can't go on applying to the present archaic capitalist militaristic principals to the inevitable problems of industrialization and technology without decreasing your survival potential to that of a snowball in hell. You can't shoot your way out of a global ecological crisis. If we had been creating TRUE -- and largely self-sufficient -- democracies around the world for the past century or so instead of waisting immense wealth establishing an empire of economic (and militaristic) tyranny -- maybe we would have been able to avoid this historical moment. It isn't as if there haven't been visionaries who tried to persuade us that our true purpose here on earth is to build a global community of mutual respect and interdependence. Instead, for generations now, we've been DRIVEN by first one "terror" and then another -- pumping trillions of dollars, countless millions of man hours, tons of ink and everything else into perpetuating, sustaining and expanding a world view that isolates, opposes and dominates rather than exchanges with, embraces and mutually benefits all who partake of it.

It is dominator culture that brought us here and it is dominator culture that will die here on the pyre of their own making.

God help us all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
file83 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #27
31. Add to that: WAR pumps vast amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.
So, humanity's answer to a CO2 problem results in more CO2 creation.

We are fucked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paparush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 10:13 AM
Response to Original message
28. Sorry For Posting this in LBN, rather than GD. BoingBoing.net had it on their homepage today
and i guess I failed due diligence.

On the other hand, I'm glad the story is still making the rounds.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluesmail Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 10:30 AM
Response to Original message
29. it's what they want
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalFighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 01:06 PM
Response to Original message
33. Looks like my 401k will be enough to live on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 08:01 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC