BS: The Pentagon on Global Warming

Subject: BS: The Pentagon on Global Warming
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Jun 04 - 01:07 AM

Has this one been done already? I searched and didn't find anything. They had a documenary on global warming on Link TV and I heard someone say that the Pentagon now considers global warming to be a major national security threat.

Here's an excerpt from an article I found on the subject:

· 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.

Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us

Here's a similar article in Fortune's website, but you have to subscribe to read the whole article:

CLIMATE COLLAPSE The Pentagon's Weather Nightmare

I don't know if I'm necessarily inclined to automatically attribute pure motives to the Pentagon on this matter (or any other matter, actually), but I find this development to be very interesting to say the least.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pentagon on Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Jun 04 - 10:35 AM

Yes, it's interesting, Carol. I don't have any final opinion on it, I'm just watching it with curiosity (have been for some time now) and wondering about it. One thing for sure, the human population has grown too large on this planet and it's leading to a reckoning, as is our reliance on fossil fuels and our reckless use of energy. I would be very surprised if we do not face major social disruptions in the next 20 years, even if the climate doesn't change radically. We are simply going to run short of arable land, fresh water, and energy....barring some extraordinary change in energy-providing technology in the last case.

People are going to find out that money doesn't solve everthing. They are also going to find out that "size does matter", in that Nature is bigger and stronger than human civilization and all its gadgets.

The planet has a way of restoring balance when things get out of hand.

I don't look forward to it, and I worry for the young people who are going to be here when it happens. If I turn out to be quite long-lived, I will be here too when it happens. Tough times.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pentagon on Global Warming
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Jun 04 - 01:42 PM

Here's the rest of the Fortune article archived on another site for anyone who wants to read it without subscribing to Fortune:

Fortune article

Subject: RE: BS: The Pentagon on Global Warming
From: Rapparee
Date: 19 Jun 04 - 01:50 PM

I read a critique of the movie "The Day After Tomorrow" at the Weather Underground. The critique was, well, critical of the science of the movie (e.g., a 300-foot high wave of water would require winds of 1,200 mph behind it, these winds would be twice the speed of sound). The report was NOT opposed to global warming as a threat, but to the ballyhoo and fear-mongering by the press.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pentagon on Global Warming
From: saulgoldie
Date: 19 Jun 04 - 03:42 PM

We are toast. It is only a matter of time and details. We--the human species--have sown the seeds of our own environmental destruction. Whether it is global warming and the resulting climatical changes, running out of oil/energy, or running out of potable water, it is just a matter of 100, 50, 20 years. The Earth will survive, and many species, including perhaps a few remnants of the human species will survive. But the planet will require tens of thousands of years, and maybe more to cleanse itself of the damage we have done.

Although much action by the US, the leading criminal in this process is unlikely given the two leading candidates for President and the entrenched habits of most of her citizens, even dramatic action would not undoe all that has happened up to now, and that is probably sufficient to cause at least some of the very scary scenarios that are suggested. Hope I get to watch some of it before it swallows me up. "The Day After Tomorrow" undoubtedly played fast and loose with science. But La Nina, the ozone hole, and other climatic changes are not fiction.

I'm going to spend more time with my guitar, read more, and work on eating more vegetables.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pentagon on Global Warming
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Jun 04 - 03:58 PM

Good idea, saulgoldie... especially the 'eating more vegetables' part.

;-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pentagon on Global Warming
From: Rapparee
Date: 20 Jun 04 - 10:16 AM

Here's the link I mentioned earlier.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pentagon on Global Warming
From: Metchosin
Date: 20 Jun 04 - 11:13 AM

A few of days ago CBC Radio in Canada, interviewed one of the group of European scientists, who is working on a long term ice core drilling project in Antarctica. Apparently they only have another 300 feet to drill before they completete their 3,000 foot core. It is the most complete record of the earth's climate that has ever been obtained.

According to the fellow interviewed, in the overall scheme of long range climate, we are in the middle of a regular interglacial period, which lasts about 25,000 years. Apparently the current CO2 levels are higher than most recorded in the ice record. Although he was concerned regarding the CO2, even with the most sophisticated computer modeling programs, in his opinion, there still was not enough data to make any predictions of catastrophic climate changes in the near future.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pentagon on Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Jun 04 - 11:39 AM

climate changes are a fact of nature, and population IS too large for the planet to sustain indefinately....but 20 years? I would have to be convinced that ANY major change could happen that fast barring another big meteor strike...

Subject: RE: BS: The Pentagon on Global Warming
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Jun 04 - 02:02 PM

I generally take a skeptical view of apocalyptic scenarios like this, but I know enough science to know that such things are indeed possible. There is a sufficient number of scientists who are concerned to make me concerned also. There are all kinds of possible ecological disasters that human beings can and may have already set off. For example, Jacques Cousteau said a decade or so ago that we are pouring so much toxic waste into the oceans that the plankton is dying off; and if the plankton dies, there goes all sea life, because plankton is the basis for the whole oceanic food chain. And biological interaction in the oceans produce 70% of the earth's oxygen. I'd believe Cousteau long before I'd believe a lot of the people who keep saying it ain't so.

Tornadoes in my area (Washington State) are extremely rare. Whenever they do appear, they're usually in eastern Washington where it tends to be hotter than western Washington (the state is divided by the Cascade mountain range). When they do occur, they're weak, short-lived, and rarely even touch down. It was a startling event some years ago when a small tornado did touch down near Yakima in eastern Washington and tore up somebody's garage. But so far this year, Washington State has had five tornadoes, some of which were in western Washington, and most of them occurred within the past five or six weeks! They were considerable more energetic than tornadoes that have appeared before, but fortunately, I haven't heard any reports of major damage or loss of life, certainly nothing like what seems to occur seasonally in the plains states. Nevertheless, this is enough to make folks around here sit up and take notice and start asking what in the hell is going on? I thought all we had to worry about here was the occasional earthquake.

For the government—any government—to simply ignore this because doing something about it such as passing a few laws (or enforcing existing one) restricting the dumping of wastes into the oceans and atmosphere might cost some of its high-finance buddies a nickel or two is dereliction of the worst sort. But you can't count on the governments and the corporations that own them to look any further than the next quarterly report.

Some folks refuse to believe they have a rabid Rottwieler in their pants until it bites 'em in the ass! Problem is that everybody else gets bit too.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: The Pentagon on Global Warming
From: Ed.
Date: 20 Jun 04 - 02:40 PM

'Short-terminism' and selfishness, is a nature of the human condition.

It's not a case of whether we will destroy our own environment, simply when.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pentagon on Global Warming
From: Peace
Date: 20 Jun 04 - 04:51 PM

We have had scientists telling us the possibilities for decades. Now it's beyond that into probabilities. (Recall Erlich from the '60s.) My concern is mostly that we have gone beyond anything we can repair in our lifetime--that is, in the life of the human race. I used the analogy of joists that hold up a floor (on another thread). With today's construction, one burnt-through joist will allow the floor to collapse. I wonder how far into that joist the rot has gone.

I wonder why people who ask about the true purpose of HAARP are marginalized or ridiculed. I wonder why inquiries into the current phenomenon of chemtrails are met with obfuscation and ridicule. I wonder how much Washington is working to actually control weather. I wonder.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pentagon on Global Warming
From: Metchosin
Date: 20 Jun 04 - 05:42 PM

Bad analogy brucie, one burnt through floor joist, while it may permit your goat to plummit into the basement, will not allow a floor to collapse.*BG*

Subject: RE: BS: The Pentagon on Global Warming
From: Peace
Date: 20 Jun 04 - 06:16 PM

Yeah. From my perspective, if I'm one of the firefighters on the floor, the whole floor collapsed. I guess I could go look for a better analogy, but I have to pull the pin today.

Later.

PS At least ya knew what I meant. And, I certainly hope nothing bad happens to the goat.

BM

Subject: RE: BS: The Pentagon on Global Warming
From: Peace
Date: 20 Jun 04 - 06:31 PM

Incidentally, I should have said truss construction and avoided the use of the word joist. Thanks, Metchosin.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pentagon on Global Warming
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jun 04 - 06:31 PM

I just did a Google search on HAARP. I see the date "2020" appears to have some significance in that context as well:

"In 1994 the Air Force revealed its Spacecast 2020 master plan which includes weather control. Scientists have experimented with weather control since the 1940's, but Spacecast 2020 noted that "using environmental modification techniques to destroy, damage or injure another state are prohibited." Having said that, the Air Force claimed that advances in technology "compels a reexamination of this sensitive and potentially risky topic.""

http://www.haarp.net/#lenews

And this page has some background information from the perspective of concerned citizens of Alaska ("a coalition of both conservative and liberal organizations") on the subject of HAARP

http://www.earthpulse.com/haarp/wakeup.html

Subject: RE: BS: The Pentagon on Global Warming
From: Metchosin
Date: 20 Jun 04 - 09:59 PM

correct brucie, and top chord bearing trusses are the worst of the lot. They blow out the side walls when they collapse. Trusses are a firefighters nightmare. A lot of good "old fashioned" technology is a lot safer for the world. A few elements may fail or cause problems, but that will not cause the damned structure to fall down.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pentagon on Global Warming
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Jun 04 - 04:54 AM

To add woe upon woe take a visit to Google and type in "Super Volcanoes Yellowstone" - Due to happen at anytime - What me worry?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pentagon on Global Warming
From: Peace
Date: 22 Jun 04 - 10:16 AM

Teribus: A volcano is just a mountain gettin' its rocks off.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pentagon on Global Warming
From: Wolfgang
Date: 22 Jun 04 - 01:03 PM

It is a serious theme, but I had to grin nonetheless:

We have had scientists telling us the possibilities for decades. Now it's beyond that into probabilities. (Recall Erlich from the '60s.) (Brucie)

Brucie, I do recall and that's why I grin. You have picked the wrong name and the wrong date:

Paul Erlich as a man who in the sixties cried wolf and was proven right after all is a too funny picture.

Paul Erlich

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: The Pentagon on Global Warming
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Jun 04 - 01:50 PM

Enjoyed that article Wolfgang, thanks for posting the link to it.

brucie - 22 Jun 04 - 10:16 AM

"Teribus: A volcano is just a mountain gettin' its rocks off."

A volcanoe might be Brucie - a Super Volcanoe certainly ain't - read on -

< A super volcano is the most destructive force on this planet. Only a few exist in the world and when they erupt they do so with a force tens of thousands of times greater than other eruptions. They lie dormant for hundreds of thousands of years as a vast reservoir of magma builds up inside them before finally they unleash their apocalyptic force, capable of obliterating continents. They threaten the survival of mankind.

What happened during the last eruption of a super volcano?
The last eruption of a super volcano was in Toba, Sumatra, 75,000 years ago. It had 10,000 times the explosive force of Mount St. Helens and changed life on Earth forever. Thousands of cubic kilometres of ash was thrown into the atmosphere - so much that it blocked out light from the sun all over the world. 2,500 miles away 35 centimetres of ash coated the ground. Global temperatures plummeted by 21 degrees. The rain would have been so poisoned by the gasses that it would have turned black and strongly acidic. Man was pushed to the edge of extinction, the population forced down to just a couple of thousand. Three quarters of all plants in the northern hemisphere were killed.

What causes super volcanoes?
Super volcanoes differ from normal volcanoes in many ways. The stereotypical volcano is a towering cone, but super volcanoes form in depressions in the ground called calderas. When a normal volcano erupts lava gradually builds up in the mountain before releasing it. In super volcanoes when magma nears the surface it does not reach it, instead it begins to fill massive underground reservoirs. The magma melts the nearby rock to form more extremely thick magma. The magma is so viscous that volcanic gasses that normally trigger an eruption cannot pass, so a massive amount of pressure begins to build up. This continues for hundreds of thousands of years until an eruption occurs, which blasts away a huge amount of ground, forming a new caldera.

Where are there other super volcanoes?
Not all super volcanoes have been found, but one of the largest is in Yellowstone Park, USA. Scientists searching for the caldera in the park could not see it because it was so huge - only when satellite images were taken did the scale of the caldera become apparent - the whole park, 85km by 45km, is one massive reservoir of magma. The idyll landscape of Yellowstone (below) could soon explode with devastating consequences.

When will it next erupt?
Scientist have discovered that the ground in Yellowstone is 74cm higher than in was in 1923 - indicating a massive swelling underneath the park. The reservoir is filling with magma at an alarming rate. The volcano erupts with a near-clockwork cycle of every 600,000 years. The last eruption was more than 640,000 years ago - we are overdue for annihilation.

What would be the effect of an eruption?
Immediately before the eruption, there would be large earthquakes in the Yellowstone region. The ground would swell further with most of Yellowstone being uplifted. One earthquake would finally break the layer of rock that holds the magma in - and all the pressure the Earth can build up in 640,000 years would be unleashed in a cataclysmic event.

Magma would be flung 50 kilometres into the atmosphere. Within a thousand kilometres virtually all life would be killed by falling ash, lava flows and the sheer explosive force of the eruption. Volcanic ash would coat places as far away as Iowa and the Gulf of Mexico. One thousand cubic kilometres of lava would pour out of the volcano, enough to coat the whole of the USA with a layer 5 inches thick. The explosion would have a force 2,500 times that of Mount St. Helens. It would be the loudest noise heard by man for 75,000 years, the time of the last super volcano eruption. Within minutes of the eruption tens of thousands would be dead.

The long-term effects would be even more devastating. The thousands of cubic kilometres of ash that would shoot into the atmosphere could block out light from the sun, making global temperatures plummet. This is called a nuclear winter. As during the Sumatra eruption a large percentage of the world's plant life would be killed by the ash and drop in temperature. Also, virtually the entire grain harvest of the Great Plains would disappear in hours, as it would be coated in ash. Similar effects around the world would cause massive food shortages. If the temperatures plummet by the 21 degrees they did after the Sumatra eruption the Yellowstone super volcano eruption could truly be an extinction level event.>>

As I said - What Me Worry?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pentagon on Global Warming
From: Peace
Date: 23 Jun 04 - 09:34 AM

Wolfgang: Who am I thinking of?

Teribus: Nothin' to worry about. Sit on a chair, put your head beteen yer knees and . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: The Pentagon on Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Jun 04 - 09:53 AM

KYAG.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pentagon on Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jun 04 - 10:23 AM

"We're overdue for annihilation."

Oh. Well. Then... Not much point in doing anything. We could be scrubbed right out of existence any minute. Stay in bed, that's the right idea. Communication, effort, helping, contributing and making things better are all idle delusory dreams in the face of such serious bad news. Sigh. Think I'll stay home today. Maybe all year...nice to have that straightened out once and for all...


A

Subject: RE: BS: The Pentagon on Global Warming
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Jun 04 - 10:55 AM

For those of us with a karmic perspective on how we fit into this big old jigsaw puzzle of a world, being annihilated by a super volcano would be much more preferable than being responsible for destroying the world as we know it.