National Security and the Threat of Climate Change - Political Forum

prrriiide · 07-10-2007, 04:25 AM

I ran across this document some time ago when de-bunking a skeptic on another forum. I thought some of you might be interested in what it has to say.

It is a report (in its entirety) compiled at the behest of the Pentagon. The people that did the report are 11 former US military officers, all Flag or General rank. They include a former US Army Chief of Staff (Gen. Sullivan), and Gen. Anthony Zinni, former Commander of CENTCOM. These men are not chickens.

The picture they paint is truly frightening.

National Security and the Threat of Climate Change

Oedipus Rex · 07-10-2007, 04:30 AM

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

'Global warming' is a myth.

Slartibartfas · 07-10-2007, 05:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oedipus Rex

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

'Global warming' is a myth.

Global warming might be exagerated, but its not a myth. And no matter if its human made or not, the consquences for us will be severe. If you like it or not.

Better prepare today for them than being surprised. You dont have to be a rocket scientist to see that the implications and threats climate change can pose on us will be far more severe of what terrorism does.

PS:
Do you accuse those US Generals of day dreaming? And if so why?

Oedipus Rex · 07-10-2007, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slartibartfas

Global warming might be exagerated, but its not a myth. And no matter if its human made or not, the consquences for us will be severe. If you like it or not.

Better prepare today for them than being surprised. You dont have to be a rocket scientist to see that the implications and threats climate change can pose on us will be far more severe of what terrorism does.

PS:
Do you accuse those US Generals of day dreaming? And if so why?

Global warming is a myth. Naturally occurring climate cycles? Yes. The two are not related. You cannot alter, to any significant degree, the Earth's climate cycle.

The scientific community is not all agreed global warming exists. A 'consensus' is not scientific proof. And just for good measure, when did generals become climatologists?

Slartibartfas · 07-10-2007, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oedipus Rex

Global warming is a myth. Naturally occurring climate cycles? Yes. The two are not related. You cannot alter, to any significant degree, the Earth's climate cycle.

It simply does not matter for the effect and consequences how you call it. Its important for potential meassures against it.

Its something new for the time any civlisations exist on earth, very likely for even far longer.

But tell me why is the mere possibility that humans could bring the global climate out of its former balance so impossible that you do not even have to consider it as possibility? We are able to bring the whole ecosystem of our sees totally out of balance, its very likely we are able to do the same with the CO2 balance. Our planes even take effect on cloud formations. It was definitely us who led to the Ozon hole etc etc etc.

Why is it imossible that humans influence is quite the dip needed to change the balance to a new state?

But I repeat again, even if humans have nothing to do with it. We are those who will have to take the consequences, however you like to call the climate change. And this change can very well lead to the consquences pointed out by the Generals.

Quote:

The scientific community is not all agreed global warming exists. A 'consensus' is not scientific proof. And just for good measure, when did generals become climatologists?

Well I hope the Pentagon did not pay them for producing hot steam. I would say they gave them the climate data of some serious climatoligists to let them estimate the strategical implications of those data.

Oedipus Rex · 07-10-2007, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slartibartfas

1. It simply does not matter for the effect and consequences how you call it. Its important for potential meassures against it.

2. Its something new for the time any civlisations exist on earth, very likely for even far longer.

3. But tell me why is the mere possibility that humans could bring the global climate out of its former balance so impossible that you do not even have to consider it as possibility?

3.1 We are able to bring the whole ecosystem of our sees totally out of balance, its very likely we are able to do the same with the CO2 balance.

3.2 Our planes even take effect on cloud formations.

3.3 It was definitely us who led to the Ozon hole etc etc etc.

4. Why is it imossible that humans influence is quite the dip needed to change the balance to a new state?

5. But I repeat again, even if humans have nothing to do with it. We are those who will have to take the consequences, however you like to call the climate change. And this change can very well lead to the consquences pointed out by the Generals.

6. Well I hope the Pentagon did not pay them for producing hot steam. I would say they gave them the climate data of some serious climatoligists to let them estimate the strategical implications of those data.

1. Humans cannot control the Earth's natural cycles. You're foolish to even attempt to do such a thing.

2. Wrong, the Earth's natural cycles are nothing new. We just are able to notice it on a global scale as we've never been able to do before.

3. You assume there is some sort of balance that needs to be maintained. Why is that? Just a quick look at geological deposits and formations tells me vast areas in th emiddle of the United States were once covered by seas. Global warming caused that???? What about the massive ice slabs that scored the landscapes of North America? Global warming???? My point is that there are cycles to out environment... nothing more.

3.1 CO2? We don't you amuse me and tell me which one affects this so-called global warming you're so afraid of.... CO2 or H2O?

3.2 Ok, so?

3.3 Bullshit. The ozone hole is also a naturally occurring formation. The size gets larger sometimes due to volcanic eruptions, etc., but usually reverts back to a normal size. Mt Pinatubo ring a bell?

4. I could make neither heads or tails of this comment. Re-phrase.

5. Yes, on this I agree. We have to accept nature's natural course. Not a damned thing any of us can do.

6.

Ya wanna buy a $900 toilet seat? Or a $700 hammer?

Oedipus Rex · 07-10-2007, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neorealist234

you might be right....but there are ways to "brace" for impact. Perhaps in the future the worlds largest cities might want to rethink being so close to water. Perhaps stockpiling resources in higher elevated areas in the interior of our nation could help.

just throwin ideas out....I pretty much agree with you on global warming...or naturally occuring climate change....whatever you want to call it.

I think it would be wise to look at our climatic future but as a means of self preservation.

Rick · 07-11-2007, 02:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prrriiide

I ran across this document some time ago when de-bunking a skeptic on another forum. I thought some of you might be interested in what it has to say.

It is a report (in its entirety) compiled at the behest of the Pentagon. The people that did the report are 11 former US military officers, all Flag or General rank. They include a former US Army Chief of Staff (Gen. Sullivan), and Gen. Anthony Zinni, former Commander of CENTCOM. These men are not chickens.

The picture they paint is truly frightening.

National Security and the Threat of Climate Change

I read the executive summary. Their idea, accepting GW as fact, is that it will add instability to the world. It says that the US will be pressured to accept refugees. It says we should act to reduce the purported GW. But even the GW experts admit that the unrealistic kyoto protocols couldn't stop GW - maybe the generals missed that point from the experts. One thing I never see is an account of beneficial changes from GW: Eg, much more land in canada and russia will be arable, and more resources will be accesible. In terms of security, more areas will be accessible to the US blue water navy with the purported rising sea levels. In some areas like the US, multiple crops will be possible, including the corn for ethanol.

Slartibartfas · 07-11-2007, 05:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oedipus Rex

1. Humans cannot control the Earth's natural cycles. You're foolish to even attempt to do such a thing.

I nowhere wrote that I claim its possible to control it. Please point out the line where I should have done so.

Potential actions against it, can include everything possible. I can't judge hopw much is possible, but improve prediction methods, improve defenses against rising sea levels, handling water shortages, adopting agriculture to new temperatures and climatic circumstances etc etc etc. I dont claim its for sure we can prevent it, but I say we have to adopt if we can not prevent it, and the sooner we start adopting and preparing for what lies ahead the better. To claim there is nothing we have to worrie about is the exact opposite of this.

Quote:

2. Wrong, the Earth's natural cycles are nothing new. We just are able to notice it on a global scale as we've never been able to do before.

Says who? You?
Civilsations exist only for the last few (ten)thousand years. I dont think you can show me a comparable developement of climate to which one is currently going on. (I would say we have pretty sufficiant climate data from that dime span to know that)

First of all, how can you tell me I am wrong, if a very substantial number of climatologist disagrees with you? I mean you can not seriously want to make me believe scientists would be uncontroversially be behind your claim? If not, your "wrong" has no justification as its a pretty definate.

Of course cycles are nothing new, but that does not say this cycle has a new player in the calculation, additionally.

Quote:

3. You assume there is some sort of balance that needs to be maintained. Why is that? Just a quick look at geological deposits and formations tells me vast areas in th emiddle of the United States were once covered by seas. Global warming caused that???? What about the massive ice slabs that scored the landscapes of North America? Global warming???? My point is that there are cycles to out environment... nothing more.

No I am claiming there is some sort of balance that finds itself no matter of what we humans need and that can change in relation to the factors that cause it. And we are a factor in the calculation leading to this balance. The question is only if the factor is ignorably small or the tip needed to change the balance mentionworthy. PS: ever heard about the butterfly effect?

Quote:

3.1 CO2? We don't you amuse me and tell me which one affects this so-called global warming you're so afraid of.... CO2 or H2O?

Both but not only. Whereas H2O can have both roles of heating earth up and cooling it down, making climate prognosis a really tought job.
I would not forget other human caused gases like CH4 etc. btw

I hope you do not put the whole green house effect into question. If you would I have to tell you that without it, we would in a very very cold world. What is now discussed is if humans increase it significantly.

Quote:

3.2 Ok, so?

Little amounts on global scale can have huge impact. little factors can alread change the balance. And thats why climatology is so urgently needed today. We have to improve our abilities to predict the climate and the atmosphere.

Quote:

3.3 Bullshit. The ozone hole is also a naturally occurring formation. The size gets larger sometimes due to volcanic eruptions, etc., but usually reverts back to a normal size. Mt Pinatubo ring a bell?

I did not say ozone could not be influenced by natural factors, I said that there is now this large ozon hole is not caused by natural factors to the most part.
You dont call my position Bullshit you call the scientific consent bullshit. The mechanism how CFC have caused it are very well understood. Its a catalytic reaction so comparable tiny concentrations can have already a huge impact.

Quote:

4. I could make neither heads or tails of this comment. Re-phrase.

Why do you know for sure that it is impossible that Human influence can change the climatic balance?

Quote:

5. Yes, on this I agree. We have to accept nature's natural course. Not a damned thing any of us can do.

I disagree with the second sentence. Of course even if we can not influence the climatic developement, there are still many actions we could set in order to improve our adoption to the new circumstances. A fatalist view helps noone and its also not necessery.

Quote:

6.

Ya wanna buy a $900 toilet seat? Or a $700 hammer?

I could make neither heads or tails of this comment. Re-phrase.

Oedipus Rex · 07-11-2007, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slartibartfas

1. I nowhere wrote that I claim its possible to control it. Please point out the line where I should have done so.

2. Potential actions against it, can include everything possible. I can't judge hopw much is possible, but improve prediction methods, improve defenses against rising sea levels, handling water shortages, adopting agriculture to new temperatures and climatic circumstances etc etc etc. I dont claim its for sure we can prevent it, but I say we have to adopt if we can not prevent it, and the sooner we start adopting and preparing for what lies ahead the better. To claim there is nothing we have to worrie about is the exact opposite of this.

3. Says who? You?
Civilsations exist only for the last few (ten)thousand years. I dont think you can show me a comparable developement of climate to which one is currently going on. (I would say we have pretty sufficiant climate data from that dime span to know that)

4. First of all, how can you tell me I am wrong, if a very substantial number of climatologist disagrees with you? I mean you can not seriously want to make me believe scientists would be uncontroversially be behind your claim? If not, your "wrong" has no justification as its a pretty definate.

5. Of course cycles are nothing new, but that does not say this cycle has a new player in the calculation, additionally.

6. No I am claiming there is some sort of balance that finds itself no matter of what we humans need and that can change in relation to the factors that cause it. And we are a factor in the calculation leading to this balance. The question is only if the factor is ignorably small or the tip needed to change the balance mentionworthy. PS: ever heard about the butterfly effect?

7. Both but not only. Whereas H2O can have both roles of heating earth up and cooling it down, making climate prognosis a really tought job.
I would not forget other human caused gases like CH4 etc. btw

8. I hope you do not put the whole green house effect into question. If you would I have to tell you that without it, we would in a very very cold world. What is now discussed is if humans increase it significantly.

9. Little amounts on global scale can have huge impact. little factors can alread change the balance. And thats why climatology is so urgently needed today. We have to improve our abilities to predict the climate and the atmosphere.

10. I did not say ozone could not be influenced by natural factors, I said that there is now this large ozon hole is not caused by natural factors to the most part.

11. You dont call my position Bullshit you call the scientific consent bullshit. The mechanism how CFC have caused it are very well understood. Its a catalytic reaction so comparable tiny concentrations can have already a huge impact.

12. Why do you know for sure that it is impossible that Human influence can change the climatic balance?

13. I disagree with the second sentence. Of course even if we can not influence the climatic developement, there are still many actions we could set in order to improve our adoption to the new circumstances. A fatalist view helps noone and its also not necessery.

14. I could make neither heads or tails of this comment. Re-phrase.

1. Buying into the foolish position that 'global warming' exists and that something must be done to slow its progress

, is saying we can somehow control Mother Nature.

2. Sell your beach home and move inland. Problem solved.

3. Two things you cannot possibly account for... today or in the last 100,000 years... the natural cycles of our sun, and the water vapor content of our atmosphere. They're the biggest factors in this whole 'global warming' religion and no one can come up with accurate numbers concerning them. The 'consensus scientists' must therefore speculate as to what those numbers are. Quite a big 'fudge factor' wouldn't you say???

4. At one point in time, the 'consensus' among the all knowing science community was that the Earth was flat. That the Earth was the center of the universe. Lead could be turned to gold. Etc., etc., etc. What has history proven about those idiots?

5. And no one knows if that 'player' is of any significant consequence in the grand scheme of things.

6. Ever heard of the great 'global cooling' scare of the 1970's? What about the planet not being able to support itself with food, associated with the planet's population explosion, by the early 21st century? What happened to those quacks? Are they the same group of idiots who've come up with 'global warming' as their new scare tactic?

7. Do some reading... UAH News: Your Official UAH News Source

8. See #7.

9. We cannot even predict the weather 3 weeks out. How do you expect to predict our climatic future?

10. I say that the hole in the ozone is, more or less, governed by natural cycles within our planet.

11. I'll call it bullshit if I like. What's it to ya?

12. No one knows 100% but I'm willing to bet neither of us will be proven correct in our lifetimes.

13. Then I suggest you adopt all the crazy leftists ideas out there. Just leave my little slice of the pie alone.

14. If the Pentagon is will to pay $900 for a freakin' toilet seat, why would they not pay a bunch of 'scientists' for their expert 'consensus'? Wanna buy a hammer?