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.
This is OT, but relevant to any discussion about government responses to climate change. Check out:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/environment/2008-12-04-greenjobs_N.htm
So,
So,
There is more to this story than meets the eye. Yeah, the AGW crowd is up in arms (pun intended) about the report. O’course we on this thread jump on it as a glimmer of intelligence in government (for the military is an arm of the government). But here’s the rub…
Let’s just say that the AGW crowd has its way and sacks a few military staffers for having the temerity to speak out. So what?
The military goes on a buying binge to procure newly developed and wonderful equipment for the supposed warmer climate, trains its troops for hot weather combat, (not desert combat they’re trained for that) and for the parts of the world that would be at risk for insurrection when it happens.
But it doesn’t. The climate does what is usually does and remains the same or gets colder let’s say. The troops are untrained, unequipped and mentally unready to fight in another part of the world now tipped into war (sarcasm intended) by the cold.
Result: The US of A is without an effective defense force.
So let’s see, in addition to killing lots of old people who froze in their homes because Gore wanted his Carbon Offset money, now these (epithet here) people who want “Political Correctness in AGW” have killed good men and women who are “serving” their country.
That my friends I call a crock.
Mike
Jeff Id,
You left out another unproven assumption, that being the atmospheric resident time of CO2 being up to 200 years. Like a strong positive feedback that makes no sense, CO2 life cycle is yet another creative way to spread the fear. Henry’s Law is also canceled.
And obviously my second post was just “So So”…
MJB
“Wide consensus that humans are responsible for global warming. What a pile.”
Imo, the only possible “consensus” seems to be that there is in fact a scientific consensus about AGW, when, back here in reality, none has been demonstrated.
Shouldn’t people have to actually sign a specific statement affirming or denying the statement – in order to record their real opinions and to add up the numbers? Moreover, just what would this “consensus” mean or constitute numerically? 50.1 vs 49.9%?
And here I’d been thinking all along that Journalism Schools and Governmental Science Agencies weren’t supposed to cull the significantly delusional and scientifically illiterate – right!
[Not that consensus has anything to do with the Scientific Method to begin with.]
Paddy,
Those are not real jobs, but workfare ala FDR, whose similar spending did little to abate unemployment.
Now that the government will effectively own the auto companies and force them to build cars Americans do not want or cannot afford (i.e. Chevy Volt and other “green” cars), we can expect a perpetual flow of corporate welfare to pay off the unions for their financial support of certain politicians.
BTW, my job heavily relies on the current bailout talks for the Big 3. As with the global warming industry scientists who also depend on tax payers for their existence, do I wish for the Big 3 to go belly up? I’d rather not say 🙂
Douglas DC – the “former Professional Pilot” (09:08:22):
“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.”
You mean like the Manhattan Project which involved 120.000 people (I think it was) and not so long time ago?
Or the “Saddam-was-behind-9/11” hoax just “recently” and which involved the United Nations as a whole?
Well, all you really need is a military-style hierarchy and people “just following orders” and not asking too many questions.
Anyway – here’s a quick quote from elsewhere – and well, just consider it as “food for thought”:
“Dr. Edward Teller wrote a white paper in the late 1990s describing a remedial operational strategy, epic-in-proportion, to change the predicted course of what was believed by an international group of scientists, including Dr. Teller and Livermore National Laboratories, to be the inevitably cataclysmic results of global-warming, crisis level Ultra-Violet/Cosmic radiation, crisis Ozone layer depletion and other theoretical doom. It should be noted that Dr. Teller, “Father H-Bomb,” was responsible for many ill-conceived strategies; not one of which considered consequences such as safety, toxicity, lethality, environmental impact or ethics.
According to Teller, et al, ultra violet (UV) radiation from ozone depletion and global-warming from the harmful effects of greenhouse gases could be effectively mitigated through the deployment of specific sub-micron particulates into the various layers of the atmosphere.
Barium, aluminum, thorium and selenium were to be processed into a sub-micron particle dispensed from high-altitude aircraft and ionized with a specific electrical charge. We must surmise that ionization keeps the specific heavy metal particulates aloft for longer periods of time.
This electronically-charged particulate matrix might also be the perfect RF control field. Theoretically, the heavy metals would block and reflect the sunlight from entering the Earth’s atmosphere and reflect 1 percent to 2 prevent of the UV radiation back into space causing UV radiation levels to decline.
Teller also recommended the use of commercial and military aircraft to carry out the enormous task of seeding the Earth’s stratosphere with these experimental substances.
We believe that the implementation and subsequent weaponization of these technologies has been well demonstrated. Under the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) program entitled “RF Dominance” the military has been experimenting with enhancing, jamming or intercepting radio communications with the aid of these particulates.
The U.S. Air Force VTRP virtual imaging technology for fighter aircraft pilots also rely on an atmosphere seeded with these heavy metals.
A U.S. Air Force paper entitled, “Weather—A Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather by 2025,” clearly describes the military advantages of using the particulate-laden troposphere to “own” (create, control, manipulate or direct) the weather.” http://proliberty.com/observer/20060504.htm
I’m sure that, were he alive today and could compare the present climate to that which he experienced during his last command, General Washington would acknowledge the present warmer climate. There is no doubt that present conditions are warmer than those during the depths of the Little Ice Age. There may even be some additional warming before this current large natural cycle peaks in a century or two.
As to causes; well, Sharon Burke herself is out of line to call the military’s report “out of line.” The military doesn’t achieve success by closings its eyes to reality. Or toeing an ideological party line. It is good to see that they recognize that there are differing opinions on what is happening to the climate and why. Rear Admiral John M. Richardson put it well when he said, “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.” If the climate cools over the next half century before resuming its warming, that may effect military operations and they would be ill advised to adhere to ideological purity.
Please notice that those who criticized the military’s assessment are a) not military, and b) not in the military command structure, and c) not even government officials.
In other words, they are entitled to their opinion, but probably have no idea what the military should do to “plan” for anything, let alone how to execute the plan.
I would classify it as ‘noise’ at this juncture.
Just wait until the Prince Elect gets in office. He will make those Generals sing the right tune.
First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
AGW is a religion, as I define it, because it is a belief system based primarily on faith, not science. Therefore all of this is a violation of the very first Amendment, arguably the most important.
The New Army: shoot a man, plant a tree.
sod has it nailed. You just repeat what politicians you trust (red flag) are saying without examining it because it is “too complicated” and then pretend to yourself that you are smarter than everybody. It works great. It is the new smart.
The new motto of the left “Don’t Question Authority!”
“Freezing Finn”
There was a hoax that Saddam was behind 9/11? Where? Who ever said that? I am aware of few ill-informed anti-right types who twisted words to that effect.
Perhaps you don’t realize that ludicrous statements like that completely invalidate everything else you wrote…
Oh… and the Manhattan Project was hardly “secret”. What secrecy there was lasted a very short time, after the project was completed virtually everyone in the world became aware of it.
Kerry Emanuel, a professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology states: “Everyone *pretty much* agrees that the intensity of events *could* go up with global warming, although we argue how much.”
That’s “could” go up, not will go up. The sentence is so hedged that I’m not sure is qualifies as declarative. I think it’s very fair to say that statements coming from global warming scientists are contradictory about global warming.
OK Leif,
From you I’ll take lumps…
I’ll label my humor (?) sarcasm (?) and other tongue-i- cheek (hereafter abbreviated as “TIC”) statements.
Me? I don’t have any meaningless personal biases.
(SARCASTIC HUMOR!)
Mike
Michael J. Bentley (15:13:39) :
Me? I don’t have any meaningless personal biases.
Perhaps my parahippocampal gyrus isn’t working too well today, anyway, sarcasm is said to be the lowest form of wit…
Off topic, but holy crazy-sea-ice-melt-pattern, Batman, has everyone seen this?
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/arctic.2.jpg
It is always alarming to me for policy makers and member of think tanks to use the terms consensus, debate is over, and confusing things that “could” happen with reality. To me, it reflects that they are not intellectually qualified to have an official voice of opinion.
I write extensively on the climate change issue. Quite often I broach the topic of governmental responsibility. In the above article an urgency for the military to accept and prepare for ‘global warming’ is conveyed. While catastrophic global warming is unlikely it is still essential for the military, and civilian entities, to have contingency plans for a number of scenarios. The case that catastrophic global warming is a reality should not, however, be made. An ‘over focus’ in one direction.
For each dollar, for each hour, invested in contingencies for catastrophic global warming an equal amount should be invested in contingencies for extensive global cooling. It is the governments responsibility to prepare for all contingencies, not just one loosely theoretical and remotely possible. Those who advocate the latter do a disservice to the nation, to humanity.
An equal investment of time and funds would result in a greater true understanding by man of the climate. An equal investment of time and funds would result in more REAL climate science and less political science. We might even find that severe global cooling has an equal or greater potential of reality than catastrophic global warming. Is the populace and military being prepared for that potential?
Mike M.
…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.
I am happy to see that the military has some clear thinkers in its ranks who can cooly analyze a situation, but you are wrong to assert that this is because of their “life and death obligation” to the troops. They have fallen on their faces many times regarding that, most recently in their quest for Iraqi WMD. Why these clear headed people were put in this report, and not in the ones eight years ago..? Interesting question.
What gets me about this whole AGW “debate” is that it is either getting warmer or it isn’t.
The records for the last decade overall show a decline…so how can AGW’s say their theory is correct when the temp is going down whilst CO2 is going up?
I am obviously missing something (deceit?)
We now know the Aqua satellite found no hotspots in the Troposhere and that the CO2/water vapour interaction takes place at low altitude, the temps for the 1990’s downgraded as the 1930’s is once again accepted as the hottest decade of the last century.
The Hadley Cente admitted they did not allow for “natural variations” in their climate models…which roughly translated means they put in the pros of their argument in the mix but not the cons.
We also know the ice is returning to the Arctic (9% up at end of melting season in mid-sept and + 30% in late October on last year).
And yet we are still being told that AGW is real….
Do you mind if I swear?…give me ….ing strength.
CodeTech (14:44:42) :
“I am aware of few ill-informed anti-right types who twisted words to that effect.”
Well, there’s no need for you to twist the whole issue into a false left right paradigm – meaning I don’t believe in it – but ok – let me refrase… there was an attempt to link Saddam Hussein to 9/11 – couldn’t do that – so, they tried to link him to Al-Qaeda – that didn’t work out either, so finally they came up with the idea of WMD’s – and which then was “good enough” to start the war against Iraq and which they were after in the first place.
Better?
“Perhaps you don’t realize that ludicrous statements like that completely invalidate everything else you wrote…”
Well, thank you for your “educated” and “open minded” thoughts. Exactly what I was after.
“Oh… and the Manhattan Project was hardly “secret”… after the project was completed virtually everyone in the world became aware of it.”
Wow, you sure got me there – with my pants down and all – now the whole world is aware of my little secret too… 😉
Lief
Yeah, but it’s still humor……
sort of…..
Mike
Here’s an O/T article that illustrates how dogma corrupts science:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081204133853.htm
Melting glaciers have revealed an area in Lapland, in northernmost Sweden, where it’s been found that trees were growing from 7,000 to 11,800 years ago. After the last major ice age, the ice melted so much that forests developed in this area until approx 7,000 years ago, when the climate cooled enough to bring a return of glaciation which covered these forests. Now that the climate’s warming once again, do scientists consider this a natural return to earlier warm conditions? Silly question. Dogma trumps science.
Michael J. Bentley (17:00:52) :
Yeah, but it’s still humor……
sort of…..
Better to say directly what is on your mind without using “Sarcasm as a form of speech or writing which is bitter or cutting, being intended to taunt its target”. Sarcasm is unnecessary ad-hom, and it’s not that funny, especially not if it is intended to insult and taunt.
Harold Ambler (07:08:51) says”
In the meantime, I simply don’t know how “scientists” live with themselves as they continue to frighten people about the wrong problem.
Simple: Follow the money.