Calls theories on the cause ‘contradictory’
By Bryan Bender
Boston Globe / December 6, 2008
WASHINGTON – A new US military report has come under scrutiny for asserting that the scientific data on what is causing global warming is “contradictory” – a position one leading specialist said indicates the government still hasn’t fully embraced the urgency of climate change.
The long-range planning document, published Thursday by the US Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Va., which is responsible for developing blueprints for future military strategy, is intended to provide a “basis for thinking about the world a quarter of a century from now.”
But a section of the 56-page report on climate change and natural disasters prompted criticism yesterday from some leading specialists who said that spreading the inaccurate perception that the causes of climate change remain an open question could result in government agencies not taking the issue seriously enough.
The report, titled Joint Operating Environment 2008, states that “the impact of global warming and its potential to cause natural disasters and other harmful phenomena such as rising sea levels has become a prominent – and controversial – national and international concern. Some argue that there will be more and greater storms and natural disasters, others that there will be fewer.”
It adds: “In many respects, scientific conclusions about the causes and potential effects of global warming are contradictory.”
That last line in particular was singled out at a panel discussion hosted yesterday by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank, on the topic of climate change and national security.
Sharon Burke, a former Pentagon and State Department official who is now a specialist at the Center for a New American Security, said the report was factually “wrong” and “out of line,” saying that there is a wide consensus that human activity, namely the production of greenhouse gases, is responsible for global warming.
Other specialists had similar reactions when they read the report.
“It’s very wrong,” said Kerry Emanuel, a professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology whose work was cited in the military report. “The jury is not out” on what is causing global warming, he added. “I don’t know where that statement came from, but it’s pretty bizarre.”
Emanuel also took issue with the report’s assertions about future storm intensity.
“Everyone pretty much agrees that the intensity of events could go up with global warming, although we argue how much,” he said in an interview.
The Joint Forces Command maintains that it is fully cognizant of the threat posed by climate change, saying the purpose of the report was not to debate what is or isn’t causing global warming.
“We are in complete agreement that climate change will be a national security driver in the future,” said Rear Admiral John M. Richardson, director of strategy for the command. “We are focused on the implications of climate change. We see what is happening. What is causing it is not in our purview. The commanders have to deal with the effects.”
He added in an interview yesterday: “Don’t take away that we think it is any less important.”
At yesterday’s conference, specialists agreed that the cascading effects of global warming – including drought, flooding, population flows, and disease epidemics – present the United States and other countries with enormous security threats in the years ahead – warnings that have been echoed by recent Pentagon reports and intelligence assessments.
Ronald Sugar, the CEO of Northrop Grumman, one of the nation’s leading defense companies, spoke of the need for private industry and the government to begin the difficult task of bridging the enormous knowledge base about what is happening to the earth’s climate to development of technical solutions that can help repair it.
“We have to build something that does not exist,” Sugar said.
But Burke said in a follow-up interview that it remains worrisome that some in the military command responsible for helping prepare for future dangers still appear to question the science of why global warming is occurring. She believes there are many in the government who still don’t fully embrace it. That makes it far more difficult for the leadership necessary to move the country to make the enormous changes necessary, she said.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“We have to build something that does not exist,” Sugar said.
Perfect! A great response to a crisis that does not exist.
Great stuff. It’s absolutely normal that military consider realistic scenarios. And global cooling would certainly be one of them!
Ecotretas
Well, well, well.
Conclusions on global warming are contradictory are they??? Sometimes the military can be “the mouths of babes”. Of course, the “get’erdone” crowd is aghast at such heresy.
The military as a voice of reason in the cacophony of panic – now that’s an oxymoron….
Mike
It would be a blessed miracle if some of the honesty and pragmatism in this report makes its way undiluted to President-elect Obama. With many warning of an “ice-free Arctic” any second now, the melting of Greenland and incipient flooding of Manhattan, etc., thank God not every government scientist is obsessed with the bogeyman of carbon dioxide.
Ten years from now, when the cooling has begun in earnest, this debate is going to get really interesting. And, by the way, I’m not catastrophizing on the side of cooling. I predict that we will handle the pendulum swinging toward cold for a few decades.
In the meantime, I simply don’t know how “scientists” live with themselves as they continue to frighten people about the wrong problem.
But Burke said in a follow-up interview that it remains worrisome that some in the military command responsible for helping prepare for future dangers still appear to question the science of why global warming is occurring. She believes there are many in the government who still don’t fully embrace it. That makes it far more difficult for the leadership necessary to move the country to make the enormous changes necessary, she said.
These people in the military command who do not fully embrace the science will be singled out and sent to indoctrination camps so that they do fully embrace the consensus science. IOW, “How dare they question the science?”
I sense a purge of the military high command coming. They are clearly ‘not of the body’.
“Emanuel also took issue with the report’s assertions about future storm intensity.
“Everyone pretty much agrees that the intensity of events “could” (emphasis mine) go up with global warming, although we argue how much,” he said in an interview.”
Well, stating ‘could’ vs ‘will’ certainly doesn’t makes that statement itself a tad self-contradictory, doesn’t it?
The High Priests of the Church of CO2 Worship are not pleased. They find your lack of faith… disturbing.
Oops, meant to delete the ‘doesn’t’ from that sentence. More coffee is needed.
amazing when a government document speaks the truth it causes a hub-bub.. the Military has a life and death obligation to it’s troops, so it speaks without bias to the root of whatever it is analyzing.
the real urgency seems to be in the pushing of the AGW religion. Professional adherence to what is and is not known cannot be tolerated.
These comments came from consultants of “Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank, on the topic of climate change and national security.” Do you wonder if they actually read scientific literature and know of the ongoing debates about climate? Or do they just read bits and pieces of editorials, watch National Geographic specials, and the like. It is a shame that these same consultants’ remarks will always be reported and quoted and taken as the gold standard. Good for the US Joint Forces Command ! At least they are trying to present a more unbiased view of causes and effects.
Kerry Emanuel, the scientist, said, “Everyone PRETTY MUCH agrees that the intensity of events COULD go up with global warming, although WE ARGUE how much. ” Those are weasel words that give weight to the military’s statement.
Any thinking person who reads this blog knows that the military’s statement is the unvarnished truth.
I think the military is saying, no matter what the cause, keep us strong to handle any “intense events”.
I love this quote:
“Everyone pretty much agrees that the intensity of events could go up with global warming, although we argue how much,”
It says NOTHING! He doesn’t say it will.
If; 1. The earth warmer and 2. There are fewer storms he can say; “We said it COULD go up not that it WOULD go up.”
…(T)here are many in the government who still don’t fully embrace it. That makes it far more difficult for the leadership necessary to move the country to make the enormous changes necessary, she said.
Good.
More evidence that the field of climate science has become more advocacy than science.
Allowing any further debate on the science simply distracts us from the task at hand – reducing CO2 emissions.
The driver of the “climate car”, as anyone who has remotely looked at this subject knows, has yet to be determined. No matter what side of the discussion you are on, there is no “conclusive proof” for any( or all) of the possible suspects. To claim otherwise is non-scientific. I have my suspicions as to the culprit(s), but one has to admit, we do not have all the information necessary to draw any absolute conclusions. IMHO, there are still too many variables in an extremely complex system for us to determine root cause(s). The AGW believers jump on this saying that we skeptics don’t have an answer, and they do. That is simply not the case. The turtle won the race, didn’t he?
Pay more in taxes to gubbermint, so gubbermint scientists can pretend to control the weather — The perfect tax fraud.
So how will we know when something is being accomplished? And when we are done? And then there is the issue of what those taxes will be spent for — See the tobacco settlement for details.
There are some facts worth thinking about, when it gets warm, you sweat, plants grow and food crops flourish. When it gets cold, the reverse happens, in particular, food crops suffer. We should be preparing for cold, instead we are busy chasing around a tax fraud scheme trying to ration energy and control people’s lives. This is not going to end well for the planet and it’s people.
The New American Army
Of course, all combatants will be clad in the new zero carbon suits which automatically converts the polluted (CO2) exhalations of the soldier into it’s component parts C and O. The C and O will be collected by the new Carbon Retrieval Force which will serve alongside the combatants. Oxygen, it goes without saying, is also a pollutant in large quantities just as CO2 is.
The Army will be equipped with all electric transport, and will be armed with Bows and arrows. Of course anything that involves chemical explosions of any sort will not be used on the battlefield. Slingshots will be used as sidearms. The Air Force will use only gliders powered by catapult and electric motors. The Navy Ships will be converted to galleys and be powered by paddles. The Marines will power the galleys. Ships will be equipped with catapults and archers.
these are the same guys, who made Powell claim, that he knows where the WMDs are stored, in front of the UN.
yes, Obama will allow scientists and experts to be heard, not those who simply have the task to spin the truth and obfuscate reality. good times ahead.
Some very interesting stuff from Sharon…seems she led a climate-war games exercise recently:
http://newsecuritybeat.blogspot.com/2008/09/guest-contributor-sharon-burke-on.html
And in her write up, she states that one of the differences is the projections used were real?
“The context of the game was an emergency ad-hoc meeting of the world’s top greenhouse gas emitters in 2015—China, the European Union, India, and the United States—to consider future projections (unlike most war games, the projections were real;”
Page listing “projections”:
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/knowledgediscovery/WarGaming
Mommy?
JimB
Conclusion of the game posted on Nature:
“10:15 a.m.
The game ends. Delegates worked out compromises on the emissions targets, with regard to both India and China, and then spent another 45 minutes poring over the rest of the agreement. What’s remarkable is how fast a role-playing “game” turned into a seemingly interminable political and bureaucratic exercise. Notes were passed, objections were raised. No word was too small to dispute.
But United Nations Secretary General John Podesta finally rang the bell, acknowledging that a number of issues – including his own proposal to create a major new international fund for clean technology – were left on the table.
Significantly, the game ended without a binding agreement on emissions reductions. The United States and Europe committed to a 30 percent reduction in emissions by 2025, and all of the parties agreed to shoot for the same targets at a global level. But China, while endorsing the idea of numeric targets, did not actually agree to any specifics. India walked away with specific targets, but with some contingencies as well. And even these concessions might not have been possible without a substantial cash infusion from the West.
On migration, the countries agreed on the need to recognize climate refugees as such, while stressing that they must be distinguished from people who are displaced by other natural disasters, such as earthquakes. “Non-coercive repatriation” to the country of origin should be the preference, and international assistance should be forthcoming to smooth this process.
The draft agreement broadly supports new agricultural programs and regional partnerships for managing water resources, although there is little in the way of specifics. It would also create a new “International Disaster Relief Organization” to help coordinate emergency operations around the globe. ”
See Climate War Game: Angry Red Chart here:
http://blogs.nature.com/news/blog/events/climate_war_game/
Ima hide now.
Jimsomebodyelse
I think the military doesn’t understand a key point about global warming: even when it’s getting cooler, it’s actually getting warmer.
So sad that the military is more intelligent than the CIA.
Consus is not science. The whole AGW panic is a hoax by people who stand to make a lot of money from the panic. But then, I don’t guess that scientific method is taught by all that many professors these days.
Better to get the grant than pursue any real science these days.
OT – or maybe not – but I’d be interested in some educated, yet open minded 😉 thoughts on a phenomenon called “chemtrails”, thanks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory
Good to know that a consensus of “scientists” is no longer important, just a consensus of “specialists.” If all the AGW “specialists agree” that AGW is real, then clearly it is.