Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > Eight Years To 2023 - Tosspottery Rules OK

I came across this article at RealClimate, it was in the Guardian/Observer. It predicted chaos, mayhem and catastrophe within 20 years. It so happened that 4 "eminent" climate scientists were visiting from the UK. How did they respond to these, clearly outrageous, claims? Did they take the measured stance of a serious "eminent" scientists, carefully choosing their words so as not to insult the people who produced it while giving carefully weighted answers downplaying the dangers outlined in the paper until more scientific evidence was available.

Or did they behave like four tosspots driven by ideology.

I'll let you decide.

Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us

· Secret report warns of rioting and nuclear war
· Britain will be 'Siberian' in less than 20 years
· Threat to the world is greater than terrorism

Mark Townsend and Paul Harris in New York
Sunday 22 February 2004 01.33 GMT

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...'

"...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."

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.

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.

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.

Jun 1, 2015 at 1:36 PM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

How old is this? The president to whom they refer is Bush, but which one? If the latter, G.W., then it is at least 6 years old. As the catastrophe to which they referred was to be “as early as next year”, one can only assume that the catastrophe is at least 5 years behind schedule. Should we be afraid? Well, in a sense, yes – these are the people who are living off the tax-payers’ teat; these are the people who decide which way the government should swing; these are the people who decide when and where to start a war:

The Pentagon is no wacko, liberal group…
Maybe not, but they could well be a wacko, conservative group.

Jun 1, 2015 at 2:31 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Radical Rodent, it was 2004.

It's a pity the Pentagon was more worried about AGW instead of terrorism in which case they may have spotted 9/11 before it happened and that removing all the chief nutters from the Muslim world would result in the rise of many, many much worse nutters.

But yes, tosspots the lot of them including the Guardian/Observer encouraging such hysteria.

Jun 1, 2015 at 3:07 PM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

RR. I anticipated people would want to know how old it is so left the date of publication on.

Mark Townsend and Paul Harris in New York
Sunday 22 February 2004 01.33 GMT

The responses from these experience eminent scientist are astonishing. No caution, if it rhymes with their views on thermogeddon it's true!

Jun 1, 2015 at 3:36 PM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

THERMOGEDDON love that word hehe.

Was it not James Hansen who was the first to state if the public were not convinced of the dangers then it was legitimate to exaggerate the problem. Who knew that some idiots would take that on board to this extent?

Jun 1, 2015 at 4:04 PM | Registered CommenterDung