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.
Science is such a difficult thing for the AGW Religionists to grasp. To them, to express any doubt or skepticism is heresy. They cannot understand it, and cannot abide by it.
But then we have:
“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.””
That is quite an amazing display of back-pedaling and spin, undoubtedly in response to the frantic objections of the AGW propagandists.
Do they really “see what is happening”? I highly doubt it. What “effects” is he even talking about? He doesn’t know, or care what is causing climate change, but knows it “will be a national security driver in the future”.
This, I guess, is what is called “military intelligence”. Fighting an unknown “enemy”, keeping us safe from the bogeyman.
“The military as a voice of reason in the cacophony of panic – now that’s an oxymoron….” Michael Bentley. This is sterotypical and has no place here, and is just as inaccurate as man-made CO2 being the principle driver of “global warming”. Most people just have no clue how many truly gifted, intelligent and very well educated people are in the military and that a culture of learning and higher education exists within it’s corporate culture. Having recently retired from the military after 30 years, I know this to be fact. Also to address one other post – the CIA was responsible for the intelligence product used by Pres Bush and SecState Powell. The mlitary is a tool or wepaon, wielded by the policy makers folks – not the other way around.
These reports, cover a wide range of issues that affect equipment, training and operations, and ultimately funding and focus. Lots of synergy in the process, and the fact that it made the comments concerning conflicting theories made it through to the final version speaks volumes about the lack of politicization, despite what you see on your TV’s. They are also used as a basis for conducting exercises to see what unforseen effects if any show up and how to cope with them.
Unfortunately, what it also signals is that day has now ended as politics will most definitely shape what the military states in public what it thnks is causig “global warming” from this day on.
I think the military is missing the boat here. It seem to me they should be concentrating on development of ‘carbon offsets’ for any munitions or fuel expended during operations. I suppose they should cease any offensive operations when they exceed the established offsets for that operation and should immediately surrender if a defensive effort exceeds those offsets. It’s the right thing to do..
Hi Gary. Yes, fear is powerful. Many of my posts on http://talkingabouttheweather.com explore same.
Best,
Harold
“But Burke said in a follow-up interview that […] she believes there are many in the government who still don’t fully embrace it.”
I would suggest it’s not that they don’t embrace it, but perhaps they just don’t believe it’s the true cause of the changing climate…
over at the guardian uk, an interesting “discussion” is ocurreing about a published article on 2008 being cold.
It appears the Guardian is deleting anti AGW posts
HANG ON GUARDIAN!
When I looked at this story 12 hours ago an intelligent, point-by-point post by ‘reismc1’ debunking climate alarmism appeared near the top to this thread (Dec 05 08, 4:01pm). It attracted a staggering 150 recommendations from interested readers.
I check back now and the Guardian has deleted it! Why? Are we now to understand that for the Guardian ‘Comment Is Free’ – unless it effectively deconstructs the newspaper’s own politically skewed self interest – in which case Comment Is… Disappeared!
As a former Professional Pilot, and one who has been involved in ah, “Government activities” the Chemtrail thing is as I can put it “Bravo
Sierra”.To get an industry and even military organizations to be
co-operative in such a cover-up is ludicrous. It would have to involve
the cooperation of thousands if not millions. To keep something secret, you have to have the loyalty and trust of your staff and underlings.With Chemtrails
where are the Chemicals, the spray equipment,the people to do this?.
I’d believe in UFO’s before Chemtrails….
I read this blog every day. I hope I didn’t miss someone posting this earlier, but I think it deserves a new blog entry of its own. Hansen, as reported in the Wall STreet Journal is as apocalyptic as ever about global warming, but he disagrees with the cap and trade being promoted by politicians.
“Mr. Hansen also had the honesty to follow his convictions to their logical conclusion, while reproaching his followers — President-elect Obama among them — for not doing the same. To wit, Mr. Hansen endorses a straight carbon tax as the only ‘honest, clear and effective’ way to reduce emissions, with the revenues rebated in their entirety to consumers on a per-capita basis. ‘Not one dime should go to Washington for politicians to pick winners,’ he writes.”
I like the idea of a rebate to individuals. I think the carbon reduction thing is a stupid unnecessary idea, but if it must be done, I’d rather it be done this way. Then I can make some money instead of Al Gore’s corporation that will broker carbon credits or whatever.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122843675983981401.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
Soldier on, folks.
“there is a wide consensus that human activity, namely the production of greenhouse gases, is responsible for global warming.” Did we scientists get to vote on this? I thiought science was evidence-based. Did we get to look at all the evidence? Or is it a consensus of politicians and bureaucrats? Truly the lunatics have escaped the asylum and have become politicians.
The AGW religion will be embraced by all in federal service after January 20th. What we have here is the last whimper of the dying beast called truth.
“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.”
Effects due from nuclear exchanges and natural disasters (including large meteorite strikes) are probably in the mix also. Like the Admiral says, their concern is not the cause but how to adapt to the results.
Wide consensus that humans are responsible for global warming. What a pile.
I just did a short post on the myths of global warming.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/ten-global-warming-myths/
Lots of names, but no comments. What am I missing?
I feel sorry for the individuals in the military. Gays in the military, politically correct speech, and now global warming having to be included in their long-range planning. Why is the military always the target by the left-wing nuts?
Liberalism is clearly a mental disorder. It is clearly suicidal towards themselves and society. The problem is this: I am part of the society. I do not mind if they want to commit suicide. Just keep me and society out of it.
Now they show up …
Mango,
Obviously you don’t understand scarcasm –
MJB
Susan pretty much has to maintain the party line…as her paycheck depends on it. Why the public can’t see this correlation is beyond me.
Happens all the time in politics, and the press jumps on it like a hobo on a baked ham. But all of the conflicts of interest in climate studies?…They MUST be right.
Sad.
We need those 30sec sound bites, I’m tellin’ ya.
Jim
“Some very interesting stuff from Sharon…seems she led a climate-war games exercise recently”
“Climate War Games”, eh? Why didn’t Sharon Burke’s parents just let her play with GI Joe’s like she wanted to, instead of forcing her to become a “facilitator” involving Group Therapy “role-playing” among supposedly well adjusted adults? And genuine “real projections”? ‘Reminds me of the time I first noticed wallets advertised as being made out of “genuine faux leather”.
You don’t know how badly I wish we didn’t have to be taxed merely in order to support people’s acting out of their infantile psychoderangements and attendant Fairy Tales.
Ms. Emanual says…everyone “pretty much agrees” that the intensity “could” go up with global warming’??? What the hell does that mean…talking about hedging your bets. If this is sooo certian why don’t they just say “everyone agrees” the intensity “will” go up, one reason, they are not certian. What the country needs is a national debate about Glabal Warming, get the ten best on each side and have it out on national TV, but the belivers refuse to debate the subject, to them the debate is over, so give me your money and shutup.
Michael J. Bentley (10:18:11) :
Mango,
Obviously you don’t understand scarcasm –
As so much in a blog is affected by [at times, meaningless] personal bias it can be hard at times to recognize scarcasm [sic], so sarcasm should be clearly marked as such, e.g.
This is sarcasm or THIS IS SARCASM, or [start sarcasm] blah blah [end sarcasm]
Ron, the believers refuse to debate because the last time they did, they got their butts kicked.
The bovine excrement is piling higher and higher.
Very interesting that perhaps the Military will be the voice of reason on this topic. In fact, their analysts are probably some of the best at objective assessment since when they develop plans, unrealistic assessments cause people to die.
Granted these are long term plans, but if current investments are influenced toward technologies and systems suited for some catastrophically warm climate and cooling is what actually happens, as many think might actually be more “likely” in the next 20-30 years, military readiness suffers and soldiers die.
Mr Anderson,
Do you know why carbon taxes do not work, let me share with you a tale from the Carbon Tax program here in British Columbia Canada…
The tax came in and fuel prices spiked with this summer’s insane run up in oil prices, a hike in rates for Natural Gas, fees on electricity to fund research, a two fronted assault causing massive demand destruction.
So now as the economy stutters under the dual load on financial deleveraging and world economic recession the revenues from the Carbon Tax are falling far short of the goals. This is a problem because it wiped out the surplus in the budget and will mean only one thing in the new year.
The Income Tax cut (the rebate portion) will be smaller and the Carbon tax increase larger than expected, or reduction in the subsidies to the poor (a la Hansen Plan) because the Government is broke ( here in Canada unlike other countries being in deficit is a Governmental death sentence) or reduction in other services like education or healthcare to meet the subsidy obligations.
This is why consumption taxes that are used to fund programs that require non-fixed expenditures like rebates never work, the income is too unpredictable and the expenditures rise in direct accordance with the reduction in tax collected.
The point being you cannot fund a program to reduce consumption by taxing what you are ultimately subsidizing, in this case energy. This is common sense, lost on all who think a price on emissions is a good thing.
Rear Admiral John M. Richardson said: “We are in complete agreement that climate change will be a national security driver in the future,” ….. “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.”…. “Don’t take away that we think it is any less important.”
Unless I missed something, the Admiral didn’t say what kind (direction) of Climate Change they were looking at. My guess is that they would look at all scenarios, but they would need to understand which is most likely based on the science, which has the most severe consequences and develop long range plans to maximize “coverage” among these scenarios.