Whatever happened to the Pentagon telling George Bush that the other GW, global warming GW, is an even bigger threat to the planet than terrism?:
| 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 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.
|
Maybe he just didn't believe the Pentagon. Well, we have had the world's hottest year on record and Hurricane Katrina since then and we can see from the US's inability to stop Iran and North Korea from steadily becoming nuclear powers that the Pentagon prediction about the emergence of rogue nuclear states is not completely improbable.
Global Warning Climate Change Environment Nucelar+War, Pentagon, Bush, Iraq, News, Politics Kyoto Energy
The problem claims of "Global Warming on a catostrophic scale" are that they are based on computer modeling, supposition, conjection and rarely on scientic facts or scientific history. Most members of "the sky is falling" crowd are usually out of the mainstream scientists, one-off authors claiming to be experts and junk science practicioners. Most respected and globally accepted experts in the fields of climatology debunk the global warming theories any chance they can get. Most of it is based on junk science and unwillingness to look at imperical data to the contrary. Doomsayers never want to know it'll be a sunny day tomorrow. Would some degree of warming be bad for most societies and natural environments? Probably not.
ReplyDeleteDuring the 20th century, we have already proceeded more than half way to doubling the natural carbon dioxide greenhouse effect. Here is what resulted: Life expectancy doubled in the free and developed world. The developing world is catching up as their emissions rise. Corn production per acre increased five-fold. The growing season in the coldest latitudes increased slightly, but enough to increase greenness by 10 percent.
The small amount of warming that occurred during the past century consisted primarily of increased minimum temperatures at night and during winters. This means higher average temperatures, should they occur, would not result in more daytime evaporation, which some claim would lead to droughts and desertification.
Warmer winters would mean longer growing seasons and less stress on most plants and wildlife, producing a substantial benefit for the global ecosystem. Finally, past warming has been accompanied by increased cloudiness, a phenomenon also predicted by most global climate models. This means a warmer world would probably be a wetter world, which once again would be beneficial to most plant and animal life.
Ex-Vice President Al Gore claimed that "hundreds of millions of people may well become even more susceptible to the spread of diseases when populations of pests, germs, and viruses migrate with the changing climate patterns." Gore has also claimed that global warming will cause floods, droughts, heavy rainfall, forest fires, retreating glaciers, and heavier snowfall.
In addition to often being at odds with each other, Gore's claims are at odds with most scientific research. The two historical epidemics described by Gore to validate his prediction were unrelated to climate change. The Black Death, for example, was transmitted by rats, which flourish in cool as well as warm climates. Cholera has been a threat in warm as well as cold climates, and is readily brought under control by treating water supplies with chlorine.
The latest research suggests that sea levels would decline, not rise, if temperatures rise, due to increased evaporation from the oceans and subsequent precipitation over land. Increasing polar temperatures by a few degrees would not cause ice or snow to melt because the original temperatures are so low that an increase of a few degrees would leave them well below freezing.
The "torrential" rainfalls Gore fears turn out to be any rainfall of 2 inches or more in a 24-hour period, something every farmer knows would likely be a blessing rather than a curse. The number and intensity of hurricanes occurring over the Atlantic Ocean (the ocean basin with the highest quality data) has steadily fallen since aircraft reconnaissance began in 1944.
The IPCC itself found "inadequate data to determine whether consistent global changes in climate variability or weather extremes have occurred over the 20th century," with some regions exhibiting greater variability and others less.
In short, a slightly warmer world would probably be greener and a little cloudier than our world today, but otherwise not much different.
Most of it is based on junk science and unwillingness to look at imperical data to the contrary.
ReplyDeleteRight. Well, if you can't spell empirical there is not much point debating you about science, is there?