Military: Global warming real and dangerous

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Military Analysts: That Lost Decade of Republican Denial on
Climate Change Will Lead to Major Global Upheaval
(http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/decade-republican-denial-climate-chan)
Link (http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/decade-republican-denial-climate-chan)

Excerpt:

The changing global climate will pose profound strategic challenges in coming decades, raising the
prospect of military intervention to deal with the effects of violent storms, drought, mass migration
and pandemics, military and intelligence analysts say.

Such climate-induced crises could topple governments, feed terrorist movements or destabilize entire
regions, say the analysts, experts at the Pentagon and intelligence agencies who for the first time are
taking a serious look at the national security implications of climate change.

Recent war games and intelligence studies conclude that over the next 20 to 30 years, vulnerable regions,
particularly sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and South and Southeast Asia, will face the prospect of
food shortages, water crises and catastrophic flooding driven by climate change that could demand an
American humanitarian relief or military response.

[Meck77]

Guess you should move out of the concrete jungle you live in eh?

[Dukes]

Fear monger!

[spdirty]

Thats it, this has convinced me.

Global warming creates volatility. I feel it when I'm flying. The storms are more volatile.

Debbie Stabenow (D) Michigan

No wonder Michigan is in such great shape with these mental giants representing them.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Apparently this isn't new...the Pentagon warned Bush of worse than this in 2004, but Bush ignored it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver

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 The Observer

Sunday 22 February 2004 01.33 GMT

Article history- 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.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Apparently this isn't new...the Pentagon warned Bush of worse than this in 2004, but Bush ignored it.


That has a familiar ring to it, doesn't it?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Debbie Stabenow (D) Michigan

No wonder Michigan is in such great shape with these mental giants representing them.

Ha ha ha! Ha!

That's it - stay on the counterattack.

That way, you'll never get around to figuring out why the GOP is circling the drain, and your party will go the way of the Whigs that much faster. :~ohyah!:

[watermock]

This is all for cap and trade, Gore's pet.

The only thing reducing China's CO2 is the depression.

[watermock]

BTW, the Whigs never disappeared.

They just work behind the curtain.

[Bronx33]

This is all for cap and trade, Gore's pet.

The only thing reducing China's CO2 is the depression.

Heres what gore does to prominate Physicist LOL



http://climateresearchnews.com/2008/12/physicist-dr-will-happer-global-warming-alarm-mistaken/

WASHINGTON, DC – Award winning Princeton University Physicist Dr. Will Happer, who was reportedly fired by former Vice President Al Gore in 1993 for failing to adhere to Gore’s scientific views, has now declared man-made global warming fears “mistaken.”

“I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken,” Happer, who has published over 200 scientific papers, told EPW on December 22, 2008. Happer made his remarks while requesting to join the 2008 U.S. Senate Minority Report from Environment and Public Works Ranking Member James Inhofe (R-OK) of over 650 (and growing) dissenting international scientists disputing anthropogenic climate fears. [Note: Joining Happer as new additions to the Senate report, are at least 10 more scientists, including meteorologists from Germany, Netherlands and CNN, as well as a professors from MIT and University of Arizona.

[Dukes]

Heres what gore does to prominate Physicist LOL



http://climateresearchnews.com/2008/12/physicist-dr-will-happer-global-warming-alarm-mistaken/

WASHINGTON, DC – Award winning Princeton University Physicist Dr. Will Happer, who was reportedly fired by former Vice President Al Gore in 1993 for failing to adhere to Gore’s scientific views, has now declared man-made global warming fears “mistaken.”

“I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken,” Happer, who has published over 200 scientific papers, told EPW on December 22, 2008. Happer made his remarks while requesting to join the 2008 U.S. Senate Minority Report from Environment and Public Works Ranking Member James Inhofe (R-OK) of over 650 (and growing) dissenting international scientists disputing anthropogenic climate fears. [Note: Joining Happer as new additions to the Senate report, are at least 10 more scientists, including meteorologists from Germany, Netherlands and CNN, as well as a professors from MIT and University of Arizona.

He's not credable.

[Bronx33]

He's not credable.


:rofl: ooooooh k.

[TailgateNut]

He's not credable.


What's a CREDABLE?

[Bronx33]

Just sharing, i heard this guy Iam plimer from down under interviewed on mike rosen a couple weeks ago very impressive geologist.

http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/08/ian-plimer

Here’s the simple lesson in geology that all politicians need

Planet Earth is a warm wet greenhouse volcanic planet. The planet is dynamic, change is normal.

For less than 20% of its history Earth has had ice, five of the six major ice ages occurred when the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) content was up to 1,000 times higher than at present, and for half of Earth history CO2 has been sequestered naturally into algal reefs, coral reefs, sediments, altered rocks, bacteria, plants, soils and oceans.

The Earth’s atmospheric CO2 initially derived from volcanic degassing. Much of it still does and the rest is recycled CO2 from the oceans, rocks and life.

At present we enjoy a period of volcanic quiescence, but one big volcanic eruption can add as much CO2 to the atmosphere in a day as humans do in a year. Submarine supervolcanoes constantly pump out heat and CO2 into ocean waters, the effects of which are commonly not seen for thousands of years.

Significant oxygenation of the atmosphere took place when the planet was in middle age, after which the evolution of plants and the process of photosynthesis resulted in the recycling carbon out of the atmosphere and its sequestration into plants, soils and sedimentary rocks.
The atmosphere now contains 800 billion tonnes (Gt) of carbon as CO2, soils vegetation and humus contain 2,000 Gt carbon in various compounds, the oceans contain 39,000 Gt and limestone, a rock that contains 44% CO2, contains 65,000,000 Gt carbon. The atmosphere contains only 0.001% of all carbon at the surface of the Earth, and far greater quantities are present in the lower crust and mantle of the Earth.

Once fossil fuel is burned, the released CO2 does not remain permanently in the atmosphere, but over a few years is sequestered into the oceans, living organisms and sediments. It is also a fact that if all of the world’s fossils fuels were burned, atmospheric CO2 would not even rise to twice the current level.

At present, the Earth’s atmosphere is starved of CO2, and should atmospheric CO2 drop from the current 385 parts per million (ppm) to less than 200 ppm, plant life will cease. Over the last 250 years, CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by one part in 10,000.

Ice core measurements show that temperature rises precede rises in CO2 by 800 to 2,800 years. For the first decade of the 21st Century, all climate measuring data and methods show that temperature is decreasing yet CO2 is increasing.

On all time scales, then, there is no correlation between temperature and CO2 . If there is no correlation, then there can be no causation.

Over geological history , rapid large climate changes have resulted from the changing position of the Solar System in the galaxy, solar activity, the Earth’s changing orbit, tides, ocean currents, volcanoes, tectonics and the shape of the Earth.

Never in the past has climate change been driven primarily by CO2.

Furthermore, just because we humans live on Earth does not mean that changes in our lifetime are due to human activity. A small amount of CO2 (<100 ppm) in the atmosphere has an effect on atmospheric temperature, higher than 100 ppm its effect on temperature is minimal to negligible compared to the other influences that change our climate system.

If an extraordinary hypothesis is suggested - such as, that human emissions of CO2 will lead to dangerous global warming - then extraordinary evidence needs to be presented in its support.

In fact, there is no direct, real world evidence for dangerous human-caused warming at all, and that despite the efforts of thousands of scientists and organisations since 1990, and the expenditure of approaching $100 billion, looking for precisely such evidence. Instead, the global warming scare is built entirely around unvalidated computer climate models that are known to be wrong.

In voting on the “Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme” (CPRS) bill, Australian senators are poised to determine the biggest financial and sociological decision since Federation. Yet their vote is being cast without either a transparent, independent scientific audit, or comprehensive financial due diligence.

Australia’s emissions constitute only 1.4% of global CO2 emissions, so anything that Australia does to limit its emissions will be an exercise in complete futility regarding the prevention of global warming. On the other hand, if Australian emissions are reduced, then it is certain that the economy will contract, tens of thousands of persons will lose their jobs, and the price of power will ultimately double.

All emissions trading systems are based on the invalid hypothesis that human emissions of CO2 drive global warming, and the Rudd government’s CPRS is no exception. Senators from all parties must vote it down.



Ian Plimer is Professor in the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences (University of Adelaide) and Emeritus Professor in the School of Earth Sciences (University of Melbourne).

[footstepsfrom#27]

Well those stupid liberals in the Pentagon just don't get it do they?

[W*GS]

Just sharing, i heard this guy Iam plimer from down under interviewed on mike rosen a couple weeks ago very impressive geologist.

Plimer isn't a credible skeptic. He makes gratuitous errors all over the place.

[Bronx33]

Plimer isn't a credible skeptic. He makes gratuitous errors all over the place.


Ohhhhh ok can you point them out then.

[Drek]

Heres what gore does to prominate Physicist LOL



http://climateresearchnews.com/2008/12/physicist-dr-will-happer-global-warming-alarm-mistaken/

WASHINGTON, DC – Award winning Princeton University Physicist Dr. Will Happer, who was reportedly fired by former Vice President Al Gore in 1993 for failing to adhere to Gore’s scientific views, has now declared man-made global warming fears “mistaken.”

“I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken,” Happer, who has published over 200 scientific papers, told EPW on December 22, 2008. Happer made his remarks while requesting to join the 2008 U.S. Senate Minority Report from Environment and Public Works Ranking Member James Inhofe (R-OK) of over 650 (and growing) dissenting international scientists disputing anthropogenic climate fears. [Note: Joining Happer as new additions to the Senate report, are at least 10 more scientists, including meteorologists from Germany, Netherlands and CNN, as well as a professors from MIT and University of Arizona.

You know, I don't get on my soap box about string theory, so maybe that physicist should SHUT THE **** UP about climate change.

Credible? He's a politicking quack. He's trying to join a republican think tank on **** HIS ENTIRE FIELD doesn't study.

Just sharing, i heard this guy Iam plimer from down under interviewed on mike rosen a couple weeks ago very impressive geologist.


Plimer is a conservative funded fraud. He once ventured the notion that the ocean cooling (caused by the massive amounts of ice calving off glaciers into it due to global warming) was proof that the world was actually cooling.

[W*GS]

Ohhhhh ok can you point them out then.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/07/jim_lippard_on_plimer.php

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/06/david_karoly_on_plimer.php

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/06/one_of_the_claims_that.php

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/06/lambeck_on_plimer.php

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/plimer_and_arctic_warming.php

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/ian_plimer_lies_about_source_o.php

http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Ian_Plimer

[Garcia Bronco]

You know, I don't get on my soap box about string theory, so maybe that physicist should SHUT THE **** UP about climate change.



Ahhh without physics climate study doesn't even exist.

[footstepsfrom#27]

The point this thread makes is not about quoting another expert of the day on climate changes, it's about the fact that the Pentagon believes it...those guys aren't exactly tree huggers now are they?

I'd like to hear the doubters explain that.

[Broncojef]

Global Warming is yet another made-up crisis the administration can play off from to put regulations in place and tax the populace. When will people ever get tired of these radical tree-hugging shenanigans and wake up? The red tape, emissions controls, and industry regulations helped kill business and put California where they are now, soon the rest of the country will follow suit. If a right wing person told the world he invented the internet like Gore did the media would have laughed at follow-on movies declaring global warming a real crisis. Some of you seriously need to look yourself in the mirror at the stuff you believe from these idiots. Declaring the debate over or saying a falsehood enough times doesn't make it truth.

[Broncojef]

The point this thread makes is not about quoting another expert of the day on climate changes, it's about the fact that the Pentagon believes it...those guys aren't exactly tree huggers now are they?

I'd like to hear the doubters explain that.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=6709138&page=1

Doesn't the fact Obama put those "non-tree huggers" in high appointed places seem to indicate they may follow his agenda? I used to work in the pentagon does that somehow make me an expert in global warming?

[Garcia Bronco]

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=6709138&page=1

Doesn't the fact Obama put those "non-tree huggers" in high appointed places seem to indicate they may follow his agenda? I used to work in the pentagon does that somehow make me an expert in global warming?

I have to come to the same conclusion. In addition, not one person nor offical report is even cited in the article. And the woman quoted works on Obama's Cabinet. Not actually for the Pentagon. Not that it really makes a difference. And really all the article describes is a disaster senario, which could be caused by any number of things not related to climate change. For example if a small commet hit the planet( that of course didn't burn the whole planet. Toothless as usual from the distingushed Guy from LA.

[footstepsfrom#27]

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=6709138&page=1

Doesn't the fact Obama put those "non-tree huggers" in high appointed places seem to indicate they may follow his agenda? I used to work in the pentagon does that somehow make me an expert in global warming?
If you honestly believe that Pentagon officials with access to the world's best scientific analysts are merely shills for Obama's politics you're not terribly bright. If you read the story I posted you'd see that the same people also tried to warn Bush about this problem, hence we have consistency here between two administrations that are politically on opposite ends of the spectrum.

Can you explain that?

Dumping the trash in the offices or checking ID's at the security gate isn't the same as having national security clearance.

[footstepsfrom#27]

I have to come to the same conclusion. In addition, not one person nor offical report is even cited in the article. And the woman quoted works on Obama's Cabinet. Not actually for the Pentagon. Not that it really makes a difference. And really all the article describes is a disaster senario, which could be caused by any number of things not related to climate change. For example if a small commet hit the planet( that of course didn't burn the whole planet. Toothless as usual from the distingushed Guy from LA.
You obviously missed the linked story I presented in post #5. Also...Amanda Dory is Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, and she does work for the Pentagon.

[Garcia Bronco]

You obviously missed the linked story I posted.

Well. I started to and didn't make it past the first sentence.

"Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters.. "

Hardly an indictment.

But I don't want to cheat you. Yes abrupt climate change would bring the planet to the edge of more than just anarchy. I think that's the overall point of the article. The article goes on to quote special interests, but at the end of the day this "secret" "report" does not say that humans cause global warming or climate change. If fact Earth's history shows that it goes through cycles like this. The expectation that the President or Americans can control the weather or the earths temperature from a group of people that can barely tell me what the weather will be tomorrow are hardly a group that know Col. Mustard did it with the lead pipe in the ktichen

[tnedator]

Plimer is a conservative funded fraud. He once ventured the notion that the ocean cooling (caused by the massive amounts of ice calving off glaciers into it due to global warming) was proof that the world was actually cooling.

If claiming that the world is cooling is enough to discredit an 'expert' than I assume you also discredit the father of global warming, James Hansen, for trumpeting the coming of a new ice age in the '70s. Right?

Also, this ultra conservative Plimer is an anti-creation guy, which kind of goes against the "just promote the party line" label.

[Garcia Bronco]

You obviously missed the linked story I presented in post #5. Also...Amanda Dory is Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, and she does work for the Pentagon.

But as the assistant SOD she is also a part of Obama's Cabinet. Like I said. It doesn't matter.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Well. I started to and didn't make it past the first sentence.

"Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters.. "

Hardly an indictment.
Good God you must be kidding. You failed to read this because you seized on a single word in the writers story?

Wow.

That means you missed the enormous significance of this story. I suggest you go back and read it before characterizing it as "hardly an indictment". It's far more than that.
But I don't want to cheat you. Yes abrupt climate change would bring the planet to the edge of more than just anarchy. I think that's the overall point of the article. The article goes on to quote special interests, but at the end of the day this "secret" "report" does not say that humans cause global warming or climate change.
What "special interests" are you referring to? This is a report by the Pentagon predicting a global catastrophy in the next 10 years and you're dismissing it on some kind of imagined political grounds? The point is not whether it was man made or not, but what we need to do from a strategic defense perspective. The report makes it clear that Bush denied that global warming was even happening at all.

[Mr.Meanie]

I understand the conservatives view that global warming is a product of natural earth cycles. I also understand the liberals view that humans are creating global warming. I am not knowlegable enough to say whether it's true one way or the other, and there are a lot of experts in the field who disagree with each other...who am I to say any of them are wrong?

But most all of them agree that the earth IS indeed changing its weather patterns, no matter the cause, and it could have far reaching effects on our lives on this planet as a species.

I don't know why the phrase "global warming" creates such a visceral knee jerk reaction from some conservatives. Even if it is just another phase in earth's weather patterns, wouldn't you want studies and research done into it just to be sure we are prepared for any of the possible repercussions?

[footstepsfrom#27]

I understand the conservatives view that global warming is a product of natural earth cycles. I also understand the liberals view that humans are creating global warming. I am not knowlegable enough to say whether it's true one way or the other, and there are a lot of experts in the field who disagree with each other...who am I to say any of them are wrong?

But most all of them agree that the earth IS indeed changing its weather patterns, no matter the cause, and it could have far reaching effects on our lives on this planet as a species.

I don't know why the phrase "global warming" creates such a visceral knee jerk reaction from some conservatives. Even if it is just another phase in earth's weather patterns, wouldn't you want studies and research done into it just to be sure we are prepared for any of the possible repercussions?
Isn’t it obvious? The right thinks global warming is one of the buzz words describing some kind of massive international socialist conspiracy to drag the US economy into the ditch by burdening US corporations with all kinds of unwarranted and silly regulations like trying to protect us from poisons in the air, water and food. ANYTHING that interferes with the God ordained right of big business to act solely in the pursuit of their own interests…even if it means they can expose children to cancer causing lead paint, dump toxins in our drinking water or flood the food chain with brain and body damaging chemical pesticides…is A-OK as long as it doesn’t interfere with profits. Hence, “global warming” is obviously to be rejected as fake, the secret global plot by commies and college professors to attack the middle class who depend on the corporate thugs for jobs and needs to be fought tooth and nail. If they accept it as real, they'll have to also accept environmental regulations that could cost business more money.

And we all know costing people money gets them riled up...don't we?

[elsid13]

I have to come to the same conclusion. In addition, not one person nor offical report is even cited in the article. And the woman quoted works on Obama's Cabinet. Not actually for the Pentagon. Not that it really makes a difference. And really all the article describes is a disaster senario, which could be caused by any number of things not related to climate change. For example if a small commet hit the planet( that of course didn't burn the whole planet. Toothless as usual from the distingushed Guy from LA.

It was releasesd as part of the QDR last cycle under Bush. As part of the strategic guidance, the Joint Staff look at number of potential challenges that military will potential face in the near term and try to steer development of systems, investment and training to meet those identify gaps.

Other challenges that the military looked at

1. Failed State in Mexico due to drugs
2. Global warming/weather changes result increased human refugees and conflicts over resources
3. Taiwan/China dispute
4. North Korea/Iran use of nuclear weapons
5. Terrorism

When it was include there was a slight controversy, as Lt Colonel, who was self admitted hard right, add the words long the line of "global warming, which has no scientific proof". Those words were stripped when they came to light.

[AbileneBroncoFan]

Isn’t it obvious? The right thinks global warming is one of the buzz words describing some kind of massive international socialist conspiracy to drag the US economy into the ditch by burdening US corporations with all kinds of unwarranted and silly regulations like trying to protect us from poisons in the air, water and food. ANYTHING that interferes with the God ordained right of big business to act solely in the pursuit of their own interests…even if it means they can expose children to cancer causing lead paint, dump toxins in our drinking water or flood the food chain with brain and body damaging chemical pesticides…is A-OK as long as it doesn’t interfere with profits. Hence, “global warming” is obviously to be rejected as fake, the secret global plot by commies and college professors to attack the middle class who depend on the corporate thugs for jobs and needs to be fought tooth and nail. If they accept it as real, they'll have to also accept environmental regulations that could cost business more money.

And we all know costing people money gets them riled up...don't we?

You forgot to add their belief that "only God can cause global climatic catastrophes." Other than that pretty much spot on. I guarantee you if there was some profit to be made by advancing global warming awareness they'd have been all over it...25 years ago.

[Garcia Bronco]

It was releasesd as part of the QDR last cycle under Bush. As part of the strategic guidance, the Joint Staff look at number of potential challenges that military will potential face in the near term and try to steer development of systems, investment and training to meet those identify gaps.

Other challenges that the military looked at

1. Failed State in Mexico due to drugs
2. Global warming/weather changes result increased human refugees and conflicts over resources
3. Taiwan/China dispute
4. North Korea/Iran use of nuclear weapons
5. Terrorism

When it was include there was a slight controversy, as Lt Colonel, who was self admitted hard right, add the words long the line of "global warming, which has no scientific proof". Those words were stripped when they came to light.

And there is nothing wrong with that, but that doesn't mean climate change or global warming is anything we can control.

[Garcia Bronco]

You forgot to add their belief that "only God can cause global climatic catastrophes." Other than that pretty much spot on. I guarantee you if there was some profit to be made by advancing global warming awareness they'd have been all over it...25 years ago.

The global warming knuckle draggers have done exactly that. What do you think people like Gore have their money tied up in?

[Garcia Bronco]

What "special interests" are you referring to? This is a report by the Pentagon predicting a global catastrophy in the next 10 years and you're dismissing it on some kind of imagined political grounds? The point is not whether it was man made or not, but what we need to do from a strategic defense perspective. The report makes it clear that Bush denied that global warming was even happening at all.

The Pentagon is predicting no such thing. The special interests quoted in the article are doing that. It's fear mongering.

[TailgateNut]

The global warming knuckle draggers have done exactly that. What do you think people like Gore have their money tied up in?


Do you have access to Gores' portfolio?

[Garcia Bronco]

Do you have access to Gores' portfolio?

It's been public knowledge for some time that Gore is vested in carbon credit companies. So is Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and President Obama.

[Fedaykin]

I understand the conservatives view that global warming is a product of natural earth cycles. I also understand the liberals view that humans are creating global warming.

This is not accurate. The deniers claim that GCC is *only* a product of natural earth cycles. However, climatologists have never made the claim that *only* human activity is responsible for GCC.

The problem scientists see is that human activity is increasing the rate of change to be considerably faster than natural cycles produce change. This is problematic because the faster climate changes, the more problems it creates for ecosystems.

[footstepsfrom#27]

The Pentagon is predicting no such thing. The special interests quoted in the article are doing that. It's fear mongering.
Cripes you're kidding right? Here's the proof:

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.'.
To summarize:

1) The Pentagon comissioned the report though one of it's most influential advisors.
2) One of the authors is an ex CIA consultant
3) It says Europe could be under water by 2020 and nuclear war the result.

What's your point...that because the Pentagon comissions consultants and outside writers that they didn't produce this? Even if you wish to split hairs like that the Pentagon BACKS the report. The "special interests" you refer to are mostly SCIENTISTS.

What about this is not clear to you?

[Drek]

Ahhh without physics climate study doesn't even exist.

And physics is based on math. Chemistry is based on physics. Biology is based on chemistry.

By your rationale why not let the good doctor perform open heart surgery. I mean ****, he took a field with some base correlation!

He doesn't know the first think about climate change. He's got a PhD in a science field and he's using it to sound like he's got a ****ing clue, get his name included as a bullet point in a lot of politically biased think tanks, and sell the agenda of whomever pays him the most. He's the worst kind of quack, a quack for hire.

If claiming that the world is cooling is enough to discredit an 'expert' than I assume you also discredit the father of global warming, James Hansen, for trumpeting the coming of a new ice age in the '70s. Right?

Also, this ultra conservative Plimer is an anti-creation guy, which kind of goes against the "just promote the party line" label.

No, claiming that the world is cooling because the oceans are getting cooler is enough to discredit a so called expert as a hack pushing an agenda when any elementary school science teacher could come up with an experiement to prove WHY its happening.

Take a glass of water that is at room temperature. Drop a few ice cubes in it with a thermometer, set it out on your deck on a 90 degree day. Maybe the results will show you why Plimer isn't someone with much real legitimacy.

As for him being anti-creation: You know who're creationists? Totally ****ing retarded mouth breathing morons. Its a completely illegitimate viewpoint from a scientific perspective. The theory has been proven false repeatedly, without a single positive test to support any notion that it might be real. Evolution might be wrong, but up to this point the theory has held up against multiple tests that encompass the breadth of our scientific knowledge. Creationism hasn't withstood a legitimate test since the scientific method was first applied.

[W*GS]

If claiming that the world is cooling is enough to discredit an 'expert' than I assume you also discredit the father of global warming, James Hansen, for trumpeting the coming of a new ice age in the '70s. Right?

Hansen is neither the father of global warming nor did he, or anyone else, "trumpet" a new ice age in the 1970s.

Get yer ass off CA and WUWT (aka WTFWT) and Morano, and get to the science.

[Bronx33]

Cripes you're kidding right? Here's the proof:


To summarize:

1) The Pentagon comissioned the report though one of it's most influential advisors.
2) One of the authors is an ex CIA consultant
3) It says Europe could be under water by 2020 and nuclear war the result.

What's your point...that because the Pentagon comissions consultants and outside writers that they didn't produce this? Even if you wish to split hairs like that the Pentagon BACKS the report. The "special interests" you refer to are mostly SCIENTISTS.

What about this is not clear to you?


Not sure but i kinda remember back in 89 they said we would be underwater by 2000 also i really don't trust any info coming from programs ran by obama anyways since he does have a stake in it.

[Bronx33]

Hansen is neither the father of global warming nor did he, or anyone else, "trumpet" a new ice age in the 1970s.

Get yer ass off CA and WUWT (aka WTFWT) and Morano, and get to the science.



Who do you trust for scientific global warming info?

[elsid13]

Cripes you're kidding right? Here's the proof:


To summarize:

1) The Pentagon comissioned the report though one of it's most influential advisors.
2) One of the authors is an ex CIA consultant
3) It says Europe could be under water by 2020 and nuclear war the result.

What's your point...that because the Pentagon comissions consultants and outside writers that they didn't produce this? Even if you wish to split hairs like that the Pentagon BACKS the report. The "special interests" you refer to are mostly SCIENTISTS.

What about this is not clear to you?

This quote "Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.' " is more then just climate change. What the Joint Staff was doing setting the stage for increase funding and stating looking at all the current social, economic, political and natural trends that they predict a wide potential for conflict. Joint Staff never stated there is one single thing that cause future conflicts but a matrix of possible trends that will lead to unrest.

[Broncojef]

If you honestly believe that Pentagon officials with access to the world's best scientific analysts are merely shills for Obama's politics you're not terribly bright. If you read the story I posted you'd see that the same people also tried to warn Bush about this problem, hence we have consistency here between two administrations that are politically on opposite ends of the spectrum.

Can you explain that?

Dumping the trash in the offices or checking ID's at the security gate isn't the same as having national security clearance.

The radical global warming agenda was in place long before Obama, there we can agree. Yes, I'm sure people with a radical agenda to tax our economy and kill business approached the Bush administration to promote their views, luckily nothing radical was done on his watch as we are seeing with the Obama crowd. Radical factions will hold similar views, no matter the people in charge. Global warming is gaining ground now because left tree huggers are closer to to power source and can affect change with the powers to be. It doesn't mean conservatives within the Pentagon have had similar views throughout. The best scientific analysis on global warming is NOT performed at the pentagon. Its nice you as a liberal want to warm to a person or two that holds your belief system but thats not very scientific. Some good reading below should you really be concerned about this issue and not just propagating a liberal agenda.

http://www.tulsabeacon.com/?p=462

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20573

PS I didn't dump trash, serve in the lunch room, perform security checks or do remedial jobs.

[Broncojef]

Thousands of scientists sign petition against global warming
by Charles Biggs



It’s about time that liberals like Al Gore come up with a new crisis. Global warming (climate change) is running out of steam.

Bob Unruh of WorldNetDaily reported that 31,000 U.S. scientists - 9,000 with doctorate degrees in atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and other specialties - have signed a petition rejecting global warming.


The list of scientists includes 9,021 Ph.D.s, 6,961 at the master’s level, 2,240 medical doctors and 12,850 carrying a bachelor of science or equivalent academic degree.

Global warming assumes that human production of greenhouse gases is destroying the Earth’s climate.

According to the petition, “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.

“Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

The Petition Project www.petitionproject.org has been underway for 10 years. It’s a gradual movement but it was spurred on by the release of Gore’s “documentary” An Inconvenient Truth.

Gore’s movie claims there is a “consensus” and “settled science” about human-caused global warming. It was particularly unsettling because teachers all across the country showed the movie to students to indoctrinate them in global warming.

“Unfortunately, Mr. Gore’s movie contains many very serious incorrect claims which no informed, honest scientist could endorse,” said project spokesman and founder Art Robinson.

Robinson said Gore’s folly has gone so far that it is damaging people’s lives.

“The campaign to severely ration hydrocarbon energy technology has now been markedly expanded,” he said. “In the course of this campaign, many scientifically invalid claims about impending climate emergencies are being made. Simultaneously, proposed political actions to severely reduce hydrocarbon use now threaten the prosperity of Americans and the very existence of hundreds of millions of people in poorer countries,” Robinson said.

Is this politics versus science? Yes. Which is more dangerous, Gore’s false claims or the policies that spring from his deception?

Liberals blame global warming for recent shark attacks off the shore of California, typhoons, earthquakes and just about any natural disaster.

And the effort is aimed at the pocketbook of every American.

Our federal government is close to an international agreement that would ration our use of energy. The targets are coal, oil, natural gas and other organic compounds.

But honest research shows that atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.

This energy agreement would really hurt emerging economies that are trying to lift their people out of extreme poverty and into modern lifestyles. That includes about four billion people.

The 1997 Kyoto Agreement was signed by then-President Bill Clinton but never ratified by the U.S. Senate. If a Democrat is elected president and the Democrats gain more seats in the Senate, it could become law in this country.

There is no reason for the United States to import energy. We have the natural resources, the technology and the initiative to provide all our needs domestically.

We lack the political willpower.

The United Nations is trying to ban research into oil research, exploration and development. They think their agenda must prevail. Their goal is wealth redistribution through vilification of hydrocarbons.

America was built on freedom. We don’t want people from other countries telling us we can’t drive cars or expand our businesses.

When America prospers, the entire world prospers.

The Petition Project website www.petitionproject.org> reports there are 31,072 scientists who have signed up and that list is growing.

This is further complicated as Sen. John McCain makes statements that he believes in global warming and it will be a top priority if he is elected president. He wants to be the “environmental president” or the next Teddy Roosevelt.

My hope is that this is simply campaign rhetoric to lure liberal Democrats and Republicans to vote for him.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton would rush to change our laws to accommodate local and international environmentalists.

They would be worse than McCain because they support wealth distribution through confiscatory taxation and internationalism. We’ll all be riding bicycles to work for four years if they get elected.

McCain is unwittingly supporting wealth distribution. If he were to sign on to his own party’s platform, he would reject global warming (climate change) and embrace real science.

Humans have little impact on the weather.

Conservatives want a clean, healthy environment. We don’t want industrial pollution.

But we want jobs, we want a decent standard of living and we want a middle class.

Al Gore and his radical environmental fascists want to run every facet of our lives. And we can’t let them do that in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

[Abqbronco]

Sunday 22 February 2004 01.33 GMT

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.

Did I misread this? This was written in 2004 right? Kinda loses some credibility right there.

[W*GS]

Who do you trust for scientific global warming info?

"Nature".

"Science".

The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.

http://www.realclimate.org

http://tamino.wordpress.com

http://chriscolose.wordpress.com

[W*GS]

Thousands of scientists sign petition against global warming

Bull****. The "Petition Project" is beat-off fodder for denialists and their fellow scumbags.

[Rohirrim]

The radical global warming agenda was in place long before Obama, there we can agree. Yes, I'm sure people with a radical agenda to tax our economy and kill business approached the Bush administration to promote their views, luckily nothing radical was done on his watch as we are seeing with the Obama crowd.

Well, except for ignoring warnings about a terrorist attack on our shores and letting the worst attack on American soil in history happen...

And except for lying the country into an unnecessary war to fulfill his understanding of biblical prophecies...

And taking the largest surplus in history and turning it into the largest deficit in history...

And outing a covert CIA agent because her husband was trying to dispel the lies that got us into that war...

Oh, and then letting Bin Laden escape...

And there was Katrina...

Turning Iraq over to Halliburton, KBR and Blackwater (creating the first, American mercenary army whose crimes are only now coming to light) which committed crimes in our names and stole billions of our money...

Approved of NSA warrantless, wiretapping of Americans...

Set up secret prisons where the CIA could violate the Geneva Convention by torturing prisoners without oversight...

Gave Jack Abramoff, his buddy Tom Delay, and the rest of the criminals on K Street free reign...

Allowed Cheney to invite the energy companies in to write our nation's energy policy, in secret, without input from any representative of the American people...

Same went with our "Healthy" forests act and our "Clean" water bill...

Destroyed American prestige and set our foreign policy back twenty years with his abusive cowboy rhetoric and unilateral politics...

Was the first president in history actually hostile to science and scientific research...

Almost single-handedly destroyed the U.S. justice department with his political firings of numerous highly experienced attorneys and replacing them with political hacks...

Trying to put a totally ridiculous, unqualified choice like Harriet Miers on the SCOTUS...

Allowed Rumsfeld to build a separate, militaristic intelligence agency...

Pretty much destroyed the U.S. Army...

but other than that...

(Well, that's actually not the end of the list, but I'm getting tired of typing)

[Broncojef]

Well, except for ignoring warnings about a terrorist attack on our shores and letting the worst attack on American soil in history happen...

And except for lying the country into an unnecessary war to fulfill his understanding of biblical prophecies...

And taking the largest surplus in history and turning it into the largest deficit in history...

And outing a covert CIA agent because her husband was trying to dispel the lies that got us into that war...

Oh, and then letting Bin Laden escape...

And there was Katrina...

Turning Iraq over to Halliburton, KBR and Blackwater (creating the first, American mercenary army whose crimes are only now coming to light) which committed crimes in our names and stole billions of our money...

Approved of NSA warrantless, wiretapping of Americans...

Set up secret prisons where the CIA could violate the Geneva Convention by torturing prisoners without oversight...

Gave Jack Abramoff, his buddy Tom Delay, and the rest of the criminals on K Street free reign...

Allowed Cheney to invite the energy companies in to write our nation's energy policy, in secret, without input from any representative of the American people...

Same went with our "Healthy" forests act and our "Clean" water bill...

Destroyed American prestige and set our foreign policy back twenty years with his abusive cowboy rhetoric and unilateral politics...

Was the first president in history actually hostile to science and scientific research...

Almost single-handedly destroyed the U.S. justice department with his political firings of numerous highly experienced attorneys and replacing them with political hacks...

Trying to put a totally ridiculous, unqualified choice like Harriet Miers on the SCOTUS...

Allowed Rumsfeld to build a separate, militaristic intelligence agency...

Pretty much destroyed the U.S. Army...

but other than that...

(Well, that's actually not the end of the list, but I'm getting tired of typing)

We "were" talking about the hoax that is global warming but thanks for the list of why you hate Bush.

[Broncojef]

Bull****. The "Petition Project" is beat-off fodder for denialists and their fellow scumbags.

So every other wacko that has views similar to yours are valid, everyone else is crap. You guys always whine conservatives and republicans won't deal in facts and debate with lies and then when you are given evidence to the contrary you swear and carry-on. Classy post dude, how can I refute logic like that.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Not sure but i kinda remember back in 89 they said we would be underwater by 2000 also i really don't trust any info coming from programs ran by obama anyways since he does have a stake in it.
Do you understand that this report was comissioned on Bush's watch, not Obama's?

Why don't people ever read anything?

[footstepsfrom#27]

This quote "Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.' " is more then just climate change. What the Joint Staff was doing setting the stage for increase funding and stating looking at all the current social, economic, political and natural trends that they predict a wide potential for conflict. Joint Staff never stated there is one single thing that cause future conflicts but a matrix of possible trends that will lead to unrest.
The basis for the entire predictive analysis in the report is climate change according to the news source that obtained a copy of this. The rest of this is merely symptomatic of that problem.

[footstepsfrom#27]

The radical global warming agenda was in place long before Obama, there we can agree. Yes, I'm sure people with a radical agenda to tax our economy and kill business approached the Bush administration to promote their views, luckily nothing radical was done on his watch as we are seeing with the Obama crowd. Radical factions will hold similar views, no matter the people in charge. Global warming is gaining ground now because left tree huggers are closer to to power source and can affect change with the powers to be. It doesn't mean conservatives within the Pentagon have had similar views throughout. The best scientific analysis on global warming is NOT performed at the pentagon. Its nice you as a liberal want to warm to a person or two that holds your belief system but thats not very scientific. Some good reading below should you really be concerned about this issue and not just propagating a liberal agenda.
This report was not comissioned by "tree huggers", but by a guy in the Pentagon whose had a major influence on military strategy over the last 30 years. Does he sound like the type who wants to "tax our economy and kill business" to you? Please learn to actually READ the story instead of just whipping something out of your ass.
PS I didn't dump trash, serve in the lunch room, perform security checks or do remedial jobs.
Is this one of those McDrama Lama things where you're going to tell us you're some kind of Pentagon analyst or military strategist posting here on the little Orange Mane?

I'm hoping it is since I need a good laugh.

You can't even read for comprehension...you want me to be impressed because you claim you "worked in the Pentagon"? :rofl::giggle::~ohyah!:!Booya!

[W*GS]

So every other wacko that has views similar to yours are valid, everyone else is crap. You guys always whine conservatives and republicans won't deal in facts and debate with lies and then when you are given evidence to the contrary you swear and carry-on. Classy post dude, how can I refute logic like that.

I'll let you off easy. Ask anyone on the OM about me and global warming.

If you choose to argue with me about it, there won't be anything left of you except cinders, son.

[Spider]

So every other wacko that has views similar to yours are valid, everyone else is crap. You guys always whine conservatives and republicans won't deal in facts and debate with lies and then when you are given evidence to the contrary you swear and carry-on. Classy post dude, how can I refute logic like that.

;D dude , me and W*GS are like oil and water , if he says red , I say green etc ..... But the **** knows whats what about Global warming ......... when he speaks , I shut up and listen .............As much as it pains me to do so ;D

[Spider]

I understand the conservatives view that global warming is a product of natural earth cycles. I also understand the liberals view that humans are creating global warming. I am not knowlegable enough to say whether it's true one way or the other, and there are a lot of experts in the field who disagree with each other...who am I to say any of them are wrong?

But most all of them agree that the earth IS indeed changing its weather patterns, no matter the cause, and it could have far reaching effects on our lives on this planet as a species.

I don't know why the phrase "global warming" creates such a visceral knee jerk reaction from some conservatives. Even if it is just another phase in earth's weather patterns, wouldn't you want studies and research done into it just to be sure we are prepared for any of the possible repercussions?whn in doubt , listen to that **** head W*GS ..... he is an ass , but he knows climate weather patterns .........

[Bronco Bob]

Thousands of scientists sign petition against global warming
by Charles Biggs



It’s about time that liberals like Al Gore come up with a new crisis. Global warming (climate change) is running out of steam.

Bob Unruh of WorldNetDaily reported that 31,000 U.S. scientists - 9,000 with doctorate degrees in atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and other specialties - have signed a petition rejecting global warming.


The list of scientists includes 9,021 Ph.D.s, 6,961 at the master’s level, 2,240 medical doctors and 12,850 carrying a bachelor of science or equivalent academic degree.



What the hell makes a medical doctor qualified to know anything about
climate change? Does a climatologist know anything about open heart
surgery. And for that matter, 9,021 PHDs in what? Art History,
Sociology, Music Theory? Just because someone has a PHD in one
field doesn't make them an expert in another.

[footstepsfrom#27]

What the hell makes a medical doctor qualified to know anything about
climate change? Does a climatologist know anything about open heart
surgery. And for that matter, 9,021 PHDs in what? Art History,
Sociology, Music Theory? Just because someone has a PHD in one
field doesn't make them an expert in another.
Click that link he supplied. It doesn't break it down by PhD but does by area of specialty for all degrees.

Atmospheric Science (113)
Climatology (39)
Meteorology (341)

That's 493 people degree'd in a related field out of 31,479 "scientists"...a VERY deceiving designation to begin with since most on this list are not scientists at all. Is a guy with a BS in mathematics teaching high school algebra a "scientist"?

Of course not.

In other words only 1.5% of those with all degrees in the study are in the 3 critical fields listed above. By contrast 9,449 are engineers...or 19 times more than those who studied atmospheric or climate science.

98.5% are not degreed in this field, and of that tiny remaining number that are, most would be Bachelors or Masters qualified, not PhD's.

They make an attempt to explain why people with degrees in computer science, engineering or other fields would be qualified to sign the petition, but it's an extreme stretch, especially given that they portray these as "scientists", when in fact only a very small percentage of these are probably PhD's...what would be expected to be considered a "scientist", and obviously VERY few are truly able to comment as experts in this specific field.

All in all...it's very deceiving, is it not?

[elsid13]

The basis for the entire predictive analysis in the report is climate change according to the news source that obtained a copy of this. The rest of this is merely symptomatic of that problem.

The new source is wrong. I have read the actually report and you read unclass report on defenselink if you are interested.

[Rohirrim]

We "were" talking about the hoax that is global warming but thanks for the list of why you hate Bush.

No. I was making the point that when it comes to "radical" policies, Obama is not even in the ballpark with Bush. Too bad the Right didn't choose to get hysterical over some of Bush's subversions of the Constitution the way they are about the mythical death panels or attacking climate science. Might have saved some lives.

Of course, the rightards don't have much of a choice. They are nothing but corporate tools. They don't have much control over how and where they are used.

[AbileneBroncoFan]

I suppose 100 years ago conservatives were against the automobile, since it would have eliminated jobs of coachmen and stall vendors. These are the undisputed facts:

1. The Earth is warming at a rather quick pace. Climate/weather pattern changes are going to occur unless it can be curtailed (if it can).

2. Fossil fuels are non-renewable sources of energy. Regardless of how you feel about them, they will not last forever, and as they become increasingly scarce, the price of them will increase. Translation: the more we use and the faster we use it, the harder it's going to be to buy and the more it's going to cost.

3. Green energy is a promising technology (but not developed enough to be the sole supplier of our energy needs). It is imperative that we develop it and methodically replace fossil fuels with it. This will save us enormous sums of money without a doubt, and, hopefully, slow down the rate of temperature rise.

We are faced with the choice of following the ways of old or creating a new world in the 21st century. Both choices have pros and cons, but we have to look at them in the long term perspective. Clearly green energy is the way to go. This is the next industrial revolution. It is imperative that we be the leaders in it just as we were in the 1800s.

[footstepsfrom#27]

The new source is wrong. I have read the actually report and you read unclass report on defenselink if you are interested.
Link please?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I suppose 100 years ago conservatives were against the automobile, since it would have eliminated jobs of coachmen and stall vendors.

Ha!

And don't forget: The conservatives and their preachers tried to squash rock and roll back the 50s as well.

Wherever you find progress or evolution, there will be a conservative to oppose it.