DoD study: climate change will destroy us …in 2020

Reposted from Fabius Maximus Website

By Larry Kummer, Editor / 29 December 2019

Summary: In February 2004, headlines in The Guardian and other news media told us of a secret DoD report predicting a climate catastrophe by 2020. Read the study and gain perspective about today’s warnings of a Climate Emergency.

Burning and smoking Earth.

Photo 50590315 © Strahil Dimitrov – Dreamstime.

Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us.”

From The Guardian on 21 February 2004.

“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.”

“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. …Randall added that it was already possibly too late to prevent a disaster happening. ‘We don’t know exactly where we are in the process. It could start tomorrow and we would not know for another five years,’ he said. …”

Other journalists gave uncritical coverage to it (e.g., Fortune, Grist). The secret report is now public. Read it and feel the terror!

An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and
Its Implications for United States National Security
.”

By Peter Schwartz and Doug Randall for NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
Commissioned by DoD’s Office of Net Assessment. Published October 2003.

Schwartz is a “futurist”, co-founder of the Global Business Network consulting firm and big in the “scenario planning” gig (Wikipedia). Randall also worked at GBN.

Excerpt from the Executive Summary.

The research suggests that once temperature rises above some threshold, adverse weather conditions could develop relatively abruptly, with persistent changes in the atmospheric circulation causing drops in some regions of 5-10°F in a single decade. Paleoclimatic evidence suggests that altered climatic patterns could last for as much as a century, as they did when the ocean conveyor collapsed 8,200 years ago, or, at the extreme, could last as long as 1,000 years as they did during the Younger Dryas, which began about 12,700 years ago. {Perhaps caused by an asteroid impact.}

In this report, as an alternative to the scenarios of gradual climatic warming that are so common, we outline an abrupt climate change scenario patterned after the 100-year event that occurred about 8,200 years ago. This abrupt change scenario is characterized by the following conditions.

  • Annual average temperatures drop by up to 5°F over Asia and North America and 6°F in northern Europe.
  • Annual average temperatures increase by up to 4°F in key areas throughout Australia, South America, and southern Africa.
  • Drought persists for most of the decade in critical agricultural regions and in the water resource regions for major population centers in Europe and eastern North America.
  • Winter storms and winds intensify, amplifying the impacts of the changes. Western Europe and the North Pacific experience enhanced winds.

The report explores how such an abrupt climate change scenario could potentially de-stabilize the geo-political environment, leading to skirmishes, battles, and even war due to resource constraints such as {these}.

  • Food shortages due to decreases in net global agricultural production.
  • Decreased availability and quality of fresh water in key regions due to shifted precipitation patters, causing more frequent floods and droughts.
  • Disrupted access to energy supplies due to extensive sea ice and storminess.
From the body of the report.

By 2005 the climatic impact of the shift is felt more intensely in certain regions around the world. More severe storms and typhoons bring about higher storm surges and floods in low-lying islands such as Tarawa and Tuvalu (near New Zealand).

In 2007, a particularly severe storm causes the ocean to break through levees in the Netherlands making a few key coastal cities such as The Hague unlivable. Failures of the delta island levees in the Sacramento River region in the Central Valley of California creates an inland sea and disrupts the aqueduct system transporting water from northern to southern California because salt water can no longer be kept out of the area during the dry season.

After roughly 60 years of slow freshening, the thermohaline collapse begins in 2010, disrupting the temperate climate of Europe, which is made possible by the warm flows of the Gulf Stream (the North Atlantic arm of the global thermohaline conveyor). Ocean circulation patterns change, bringing less warm water north and causing an immediate shift in the weather in Northern Europe and eastern North America.   {It lists many many more bad things that happen.}

The Weather Report: 2010-2020.

Drought persists for the entire decade in critical agricultural regions and in the areas around major population centers in Europe and eastern North America. Average annual temperatures drop by up to 5°F over Asia and North America and up to 6°F in Europe. Temperatures increase by up to 4°F in key areas throughout Australia, South America, and southern Africa. Winter storms and winds intensify, amplifying the impact of the changes. Western Europe and the North Pacific face enhanced westerly winds. …

2012: Severe drought and cold push Scandinavian populations southward, push back from EU. Flood of refugees to southeast U.S. and Mexico from Caribbean islands.

2015: Conflict within the EU over food and water supply leads to skirmishes and strained diplomatic relations 2018: Russia joins EU, providing energy resources.

2020: Migration from northern countries such as Holland and Germany toward Spain and Italy.

{And many many more bad things happen around the world. It gets even worse after 2020.}

—————– End of excerpt. —————–
Climate scientists lept into action!

The Schwartz – Randall report is an example of the climate alarmists’ typical exaggeration of scientists’ confidence in unvalidated theories (i.e., theories far out of consensus). So climate scientists responded to misuse of science by condemning it. Just kidding! I cannot find any who condemned it, because alarmists are honorary members of the Climate Science Club – with all sins forgiven.

While climate scientists were MIA, some journalists provided a balanced analysis. Such as this at the NY Times by Andy Revkin.

Notes from the past

A doomster vision of the future was popular back in 1971, just as it is today. On 15 January 1971 Americans watched a TV show by a hot new director, the 24-year old Steven Spielberg: “L.A. 2017.”  We learned that in 46 years pollution would destroy the Earth’s ecology and force the remnants of humanity to live underground.

Before we panic about DoD’s 2003 climate study, remember that they eagerly join every parade that might give them more money. Such as the CIA’s paean to global cooling: “Potential Implications of Trends in Population Growth, Food Production, and Climate“ in August 1974.

“{A} number of climatologists are in agreement that the northern hemisphere, at least, is growing cooler. …According to Hubert Lamb – an outstanding British climatologist – 23 out of 27 forecasting methods predicted a cooling trend through the remainder of this century. …A number of meteorological experts are thinking in terms of a return to a climate like that of the 19th century.”

If you are still calm, remember Peak Oil? DoD’s Office of Force Transformation hired LMI Government Consulting to produce “Transforming the Way the DoD Looks at Energy” (January 2007). Only massive transfusions of cash could save our military from peak oil. The doomsters were ecstatic! To avoid embarrassment, all online copies have been put down the memory hole.

Conclusions

The best guides we have are the reports of the IPCC and major climate agencies. The IPCC’s scientists assign a confidence level to each of their findings. Most are “medium”; few are “very high” (see their recent Special Report) – because we have much to learn about climate dynamics. This is the key fact that alarmists and their journalist enablers conceal from us.

For More Information

Ideas! For your holiday shopping, see my recommended books and films at Amazon. Also, see a story about our future: “Ultra Violence: Tales from Venus.

Important: the Climate Emergency is a moral panic.

If you liked this post, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. For more information about this vital issue see the keys to understanding climate change. Also, see all posts about uncertainties in climate science, and especially these …

  1. Focusing on worst-case climate futures doesn’t work. It shouldn’t work.
  2. Roger Pielke Jr.: the politics of unlikely climate scenarios.
  3. A look at the workings of Climate Propaganda Inc.
  4. The Extinction Rebellion’s hysteria vs. climate science.
  5. Listening to climate doomsters makes our situation worse.
  6. See how climate science becomes alarmist propaganda.
  7. The climate crusade marches across America!
  8. Toxic climate propaganda is poisoning US public policy.
Activists don’t want you to read these books

Some unexpected good news about polar bears: The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened by Susan Crockford (2019).

To learn more about the state of climate change see The Rightful Place of Science: Disasters & Climate Change by Roger Pielke Jr., professor for the Center for Science and Policy Research at U of CO – Boulder (2018).

The Rightful Place of Science: Disasters and Climate Change

Available at Amazon.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
103 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
December 29, 2019 10:13 pm

Just imagine how much money has been diverted from things that can really help humanity to pay for production of such drivel!!!

Arbeegee
Reply to  tomwys
December 29, 2019 11:43 pm

Has anyone ever calculated how much treasure and effort has been expended to date to reduce carbon dioxide, and whether any of that has made any measurable reduction of CO^2’s rate of increase?

Pumpsump
Reply to  Arbeegee
December 30, 2019 2:39 am

Never in the field of human endeavour has so much been paid by so many to achieve so little

Couldn’t resist, apologies to WC

StephenP
Reply to  Pumpsump
December 30, 2019 7:22 am

I would have thought April 1st was the right day for this.

Reply to  StephenP
December 30, 2019 9:31 am

Were these guys promoted to Field Marshall rank?

Imagine if these frauds were serving the medical advisement for a superpower, or likewise for financial planning?

We’d be dead from the wrong drugs if we’d not choked on handfulls or be living under a bridge with millions in abandoned houses.

Ignore all of it or simply state the obvious: they are horribly inept and buffoonishly inaccurate in every aspect.

Reply to  Arbeegee
December 30, 2019 5:41 am

For Arbeegee:

A 2018 report by the German National Audit group reported that Germany’s wind power program was a huge disaster that squandered almost a trillion dollars.
https://www.thegwpf.com/germany-risks-complete-loss-of-control-of-energiewende-federal-audit-office-warns/

Multiply that trillion by about ten to include the full global-scale scam – so ~~10 trillion dollars of scarce resources have been wasted on the global warming/green energy scam.

Add to that many millions of Excess Winter Deaths due to high green-energy costs, and other deaths due to radical green opposition to dispatchable energy systems for energy-starved Africa.

This is the radical green’s climate holocaust, continuing their slaughter of innocents that started with their ~30-year effective ban of DDT in Africa, which doubled the deaths from malaria from ~1 million to ~2 million per year – and most of these deaths were children under five, just babies for Christ’s sake. Add to that radical-green opposition to golden rice – killing and blinding more children.

More at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07/31/a-list-google-private-jet-and-megayacht-climate-summit/#comment-2758861

Sommer
Reply to  Arbeegee
December 30, 2019 7:38 am

Keep an eye on this project out of Canada. Does anyone think they’ve done a cost/benefit analysis?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/new-industry-develops-around-sucking-carbon-dioxide-out-of-atmosphere-1.5410203

Reply to  Sommer
December 30, 2019 9:41 am

I wonder if we could get crowd funding to start a class action lawsuit against individuals who have the misguided arrogance and stupidity to attempt to deplete life giving and sustaining CO2? If they were proposing to suck the Columbia River dry to reduce a fear of hypothetical concernfuture flooding, I imagine the public wouldn’t tolerate that. Or maybe they would? Acupuncture, healing hands, medical marijuana, chiropractic, homeopathy, climate alarmism and more are all thriving in the land that reason abandoned.

RonPE
Reply to  Sommer
December 30, 2019 7:42 pm

Farming? Gardening?? Forestry??? / sarc

JerryC
Reply to  Arbeegee
January 1, 2020 5:04 am

Right now the planet collectively spends about $1 trillion per year. The data for what was spent 20 years or more ago is a bit scetchy

KaliforniaKook
Reply to  JerryC
January 1, 2020 5:52 pm

“Right now the planet collectively spends about $1 trillion per year.”

The US Government budget is greater than $4 trillion. US GDP is greater than $19 trillion.

Methinks your statement is a tad low unless you’re talking what we spend on avoiding Global Warming and associated studies. In that event, I’d like to see the source of your information. Just curious.

Ian Cooper
Reply to  tomwys
December 30, 2019 12:07 am

My first thoughts exactly! Drivel is the only thing that is getting out of control (I’ll see your 4 exclamation marks and raise you two)!!!!!!

John Galt
Reply to  Ian Cooper
December 30, 2019 6:58 am

So we have only (2) days to go?

I thought Alexandria Ocrazio-Kotex said we have 12 years.

On the outer Barcoo
Reply to  John Galt
December 30, 2019 7:42 am

AOC is probably wondering: “Who is John Galt?”

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  John Galt
December 30, 2019 10:05 pm

I think that we have to wait until the end of 2020 just to be sure. So that would be 368 days.

Patrick Healy
Reply to  John Galt
December 31, 2019 7:13 am

John Gault,
Yes that is how I read it.
Tonight is the night when its all over.
Good job I had a nice game of golf in brilliant sunshine at Carnoustie this morning, if may well be my last.
Btw for my sins of emissions I did some penance by visiting the deranged Gruniard (guardian to those not aware of their grammatical deficiencies).
They are now saying their ‘forecasts’ back in 2004? have been fully proven to be correct and if anything understated.
So Manhattan is now underwater, both polar icecaps have melted, polar bears have gone awal, the Maldives have sunk, we are in a permanent drought, the Amazon is deforested, and my grandchildren do not know what snow is.
I kid you not there is an article over there saying all that has come to pass. Obviously no one has discovered a cure for stupid. A happy New year to Anthony and all his wonderful bloggers who help to keep this old wrinkly sane.

Al Miller
Reply to  tomwys
December 30, 2019 7:11 am

tomwys: precisely the point I like to make repeatedly…the harm being done by funneling scarce resources to the “climate crisis” is a crime against humanity.

John Francis
Reply to  Al Miller
December 30, 2019 4:00 pm

This is worse. Global warming causes a decrease in temperature! Now they have all the bases covered! Nothing can falsify their ridiculous forecasts.

Phil
December 29, 2019 11:05 pm

Academic studies should always be welcomed. However, there needs to be a much higher bar before these things are allowed to influence public policy.

Reply to  Phil
December 30, 2019 6:24 am

Phil,

That’s an important point! This was two futurists talking to some scientists – nothing like the rigor of a good academic study.

But the news articles I cite quoted people who expected it to influence national policy and the next election. Fortunately, it didn’t.

Bryan A
December 29, 2019 11:44 pm

Been there, saw the movie, and all I have to show for it is this cruddy t-shirt

rah
December 29, 2019 11:57 pm

If the US actually had a news media someone from the Pentagon, or some author that was with the DoD and wrote that stuff would be summoned before the cameras to explain. Because that won’t happen, and never does when it comes to such outrageous bull hockey, they will be free to waste our tax dollars on some new bull. It is however another arrow in the quiver of any skeptic debating any alarmist in the future.

ren
December 30, 2019 12:09 am

It’s interesting that people pretend they don’t know about changes in solar activity.
comment image

icisil
Reply to  ren
December 30, 2019 5:09 am

Looks like spotless days are going to end pretty high this year. I lost count, but I think it’s above 280 now with one day to go.

Bryan A
Reply to  icisil
December 30, 2019 8:41 am

There were 2 separate spot groups from Cycle 25 a few days ago which were predicted to remain for up to 3 cycles but barely stuck around for 3 days post report.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/12/24/reverse-polarity-sunspots-appear-on-the-sun-ending-a-39-day-stretch-of-spotless-days/

icisil
Reply to  Bryan A
December 30, 2019 11:34 am

I’m confused. This guy says here that there were 277 on 12/23

https://twitter.com/ThiagoMaia2503/status/1209242620746186752

But says here that there were 280 on 12/30, and there were 2 days with spots

https://twitter.com/ThiagoMaia2503/status/1211702987481063426

7 days between 12/23 and 12/30, minus 2 days = 5 days + 277 = 282 (not 280)

mothcatcher
December 30, 2019 12:23 am

Immediately liked the accuracy of this report.
……..”Tuvalu and Tarawa (near New Zealand)”
[actual distances between 2000m – 3000m]
So the rest is likely to be right, as well

Louis Hunt
Reply to  mothcatcher
December 30, 2019 2:05 am

Tuvalu is 3,765 km from New Zealand. (I wasn’t sure if you intended “m” to be meters or miles.)

mothcatcher
Reply to  Louis Hunt
December 30, 2019 2:33 am

Yep, sorry
I used the wrong micrometer

tty
Reply to  Louis Hunt
December 30, 2019 2:42 am

Well that’s only a little bit more than the distance from L A to Washington DC. They are nearby, no?

H.R.
Reply to  tty
December 30, 2019 6:27 am

Nearly next-door neighbors.

L.A. residents are always popping over and asking D.C. swampers if they can borrow a cup of sugar. Seems there’s a lot of sugar in D.C.

Carbon Bigfoot
Reply to  H.R.
December 30, 2019 7:10 am

Follow Tom Steyer’s money -made his money in coal and is now is running for President to protect his investment in solar.
http://leftexposed.org/2018/01/tom-steyer/

Reply to  mothcatcher
December 30, 2019 6:27 am

+1!

It’s like the famous cover of the New Yorker: “View of the World from 9th Avenue.” What’s important is close. Those unimportant things in the distance are crowded together.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/View_of_the_World_from_9th_Avenue

Drake
Reply to  Larry
December 30, 2019 1:02 pm

Funny drawing, it has Las Vegas NORTH of Utah. I guess it really shows a New Yorker’s perspective, including IGNORANCE of the location of the states. On purpose? Don’t really know.

Reply to  Drake
December 30, 2019 2:26 pm

Drake,

I’m pretty sure that it was intentional, for the reason you gave.

Sunny
December 30, 2019 12:25 am

May we have a post on greta’s dad interview on bbc radio please, I read on twitter that her mother only stopped flying so she could stay at home with greta and her dad said its not about the climate, its all in greta’s head

Annual average temperatures increase by up to 4°F in key areas throughout Australia, South America, and southern Africa.

Why only “key areas” why not the whole world??

miha
Reply to  Sunny
December 30, 2019 1:27 am

According to Lloyd Evans in The Spectator (UK edition) and, we must add, the rest of us, the greatest irritant in modern life is the criminal ineptitude of Greta Thunberg’s truancy officer.

Why doesn’t he or she act IMMEDIATELY!

Scissor
Reply to  miha
December 30, 2019 5:19 am

Girls are required to attend school in Mecca?

pigs_in_space
Reply to  Sunny
December 30, 2019 1:29 am

I listened to that utter crap over breakfast this morning,
Poor darling mummy couldn’t sing any more, and poor darling daddy decided to stop eating meat, so they could make silly little daughter well again instead of sending her packing back to school!

ANYWHERE ELSE, but Sweden, they would be committing a criminal offence.

FFS, is this a national broadcaster or some agony aunt page in the SUN?
Lucky I ate no cornflakes this morning or I would have been spitting them out for this hour long piece of utter shite posing as national news.

It was NON STOP, much like the FUD anti Brexit campaign which the lefty agenda ridden, publicly subsidised BEEB (swear word), which they unleashed then have realised it also failed.

STOP funding the BBC.
We know it’s now the ONLY WAY!

Sunny
Reply to  pigs_in_space
December 30, 2019 3:20 am

pigs_in_space

I only read a few twitter comments, and some were “stop all oil use” and the others were saying that gretas parents are idiots…

Personally I would put all three in jail, her parents for not sending her to school, and greta for the mass anxiety and depression she has caused! Greta is a repetitive robot she has been screaming the same thing for years, and has offered no science, no facts.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Sunny
December 30, 2019 4:02 am

Put all three in jail? There will soon be calls that Greta is just a child. How DARE you want to put her in prison.

Paul S
Reply to  Patrick MJD
December 30, 2019 8:29 am

Arrest the parents, separate the family and put Greta in a cage. Pray the parents don’t drink out of the toilet

Scissor
Reply to  Sunny
December 30, 2019 5:29 am

Seems to me those aren’t serious offences, at least not where I live, and for the most part her anxiety causing speeches should be legal. People don’t have to listen to her or believe her, and there certainly aren’t enough jails for all the gullible ignorant people.

Sunny
Reply to  Scissor
December 30, 2019 7:18 am

Scissor

In the uk, parents are fined if a child misses school for more then a few days without a medical certificate… Greta has missed over a year of school, she travels all over europe and the usa on boats and trains which are fossil fuel made and powered, yet screams the same old drivel over and over again. A person no matter how old our young should be silenced if they cause mass anxiety and depression among children

Tom Higley
Reply to  Sunny
December 30, 2019 6:27 am

@Sunny:

Greta is just a victim of Stockholm syndrome. /sarc

She is a child with a mental disability whose brain has been pumped full of crap for monetary gain by her parents. Even though she is easy to dislike, she is a brainwashed minor.

Sunny
Reply to  Tom Higley
December 30, 2019 7:14 am

Tom Higley

That may be so, but she is being treated as a saviour by the media and the hundreds of thousands of people who like her twitter posts.. To us she may be ill, but she is dangerous and pushes the climate scam to new heights…

John M
Reply to  pigs_in_space
December 30, 2019 7:20 am

Here’s the headline from CNN:

“Greta Thunberg’s dad did not support her climate activism. Then he saw how it helped her beat depression”

So she’s OK, but now she’s a carrier?

Lizzie
Reply to  pigs_in_space
December 30, 2019 10:27 am

If Greta were German, they would have removed her from the home as they have done with home schoolers.

Robert W Turner
Reply to  Sunny
December 30, 2019 11:11 am

Because of the suspension of the laws of physics.

Luke
December 30, 2019 12:27 am

What word besides hoax is actually more descriptive?

Scarface
Reply to  Luke
December 30, 2019 1:18 am

Fraud would cover it nicely.

Greg Woods
Reply to  Scarface
December 30, 2019 3:09 am

or Scam

Sommer
Reply to  Greg Woods
December 30, 2019 7:42 am

Racketeering?

Ron Long
December 30, 2019 2:12 am

Scientists like Peter Ridd and Susan Crockford, who step up and tell the truth, are punished by the corrupt system for it, deserve a medal and our support. Instead we are treated daily to a parade of talking heads on TV telling us how bad things are and that anyone that disagrees is a denier. I check in on Watts regularly to get some straight reports and great comments. Press On!

Y. Knott
December 30, 2019 3:23 am

This report is 100% FACTUAL – just you wait ’til 2035!

Saint Greta has spoken. Or was that Saint Alexandria? – I keep getting those two mixed-up…

John Endicott
Reply to  Y. Knott
December 30, 2019 10:20 am

I don’t know why. Just remember, only one of them looks like donkey from shrek and it’s not the girl in pigtails.

Papertiger
December 30, 2019 4:33 am

Remember back long ago when thermohaline was a thing? So they set up a bunch of whirlygigs on bouys across the Gulf Stream to “confirm” what they already knew in their black little hearts. That doomsday was a coming. Nothing to do except kiss your babies and practice the dog paddle. We were entertained by newish terms like Sverdrup and Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation.

Then all of a sudden they just shut up about it. Found out that the Gulf Stream doesn’t care a drip about fresh water pulses or ice berg. Worst still (from their doomsday rooting perspective) they found out the heat transport of the ocean doesn’t care a fart about all of the world’s electrical plants combined, transports 600 times as much energy as they produce day in and day out.

Jerks. Nuts to them.

Sara
December 30, 2019 4:38 am

A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, — oh, REALLY??????

If it’s so !SECRET!, how come those bozos got their hands on it??? Secret report, my Fat Aunt Harriet!

Geez, these guys aren’t even good at creating fiction. Now wonder the Gruaniad is falling on its face!!!!!!!!! (Enough exclamation points?

And if they can’t read a calendar, 2020 is day after tomorrow, so that whole thing’s a floppy laugh generator. They don’t even try.

commieBob
December 30, 2019 4:42 am

There is a major point in Dr. Lindzen’s recent paper. The globe does not warm uniformly. Proxy evidence from past epochs indicates that there is little change at the equator. Thus, the difference between the equator and poles decreases with warming.

The “meridional (north south) heat transport in the atmosphere and ocean” moves heat from the equator to the poles. With a decreased temperature difference, there is decreased circulation. Lindzen is highly critical of the models that ignore that simple concept.

Lindzen doesn’t say it explicitly but the winds that power extreme weather events are a result of the meridional circulation. Predictions of increased severe weather, therefore, contradict basic science.

commieBob
Reply to  commieBob
December 30, 2019 5:27 am

Here’s a good link on how hurricanes form. It points out that hurricanes form because of a greater difference in temperatures between the poles and equator.

Sheri
Reply to  commieBob
December 30, 2019 5:48 am

Now you’re just being insulting to the gods of science. Come on. You now can waste away because we are all going to die. Enjoy the end, instead of fighting it.

By now, it’s obvious this is NOT global in any way, negating the entire theory. However, since the gods of science insist, using this as an excuse to waste and party seems the only way to honor their superiority. Forget facts. “Gods” never lie.

Carl Friis-Hansen
Reply to  commieBob
December 30, 2019 5:49 am

Already back in the film in 2007 “The Great Global Warming Swindle” Tim Ball and others said the exact same thing about the Pole Equator difference.

Tom Abbott
December 30, 2019 5:45 am

“An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and
Its Implications for United States National Security.

By Peter Schwartz and Doug Randall for NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
Commissioned by DoD’s Office of Net Assessment.”

So it was NASA Climate people who wrote this scaremongering report.

That makes me feel a little better. I would hate to think that those working in our military would be so ignorant as to write such a report filled with unsubstantiated speculation, based on more unsubstantiated speculation. Military people need to be able to discern reality in order to keep us safe. This scaremongering climate assessment is far from reality.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 30, 2019 7:09 am

Tom,

“So it was NASA Climate people who wrote this scaremongering report.”

No. Schwartz and Randall were (as indicated above) “futurists”. DoD contracted with NASA’s JPL to produce the report, and JPL sub-contracted it to Schwartz and Randall. At that time they were employees of a consulting firm (it’s not clear if they got the contract, or if the firm did).

The report does not say that anyone other than Schwartz and Randall were involved in its preparation.

Sheri
December 30, 2019 5:45 am

Don’t be a climate “denier”. Go out and party hardy, waste tons of resources. It’s the only rational result. To do otherwise would be to call our scientists liars and deny the godhood of science. So, PARTY!!!!! Be a true believer.

Sweet Old Bob
December 30, 2019 5:59 am

Yawn. Time to move the goalposts again .

old white guy
December 30, 2019 6:02 am

This pretty much confirms my opinion that the thing which will destroy us is insanity.

Derek Wood
December 30, 2019 6:03 am

Wow! Bullshit on speed!

Steven Mosher
December 30, 2019 6:29 am

people dont know how to read these types of scenarios.

FFS, we have ones for defense that were just as crazy.

FOR A REASON

Here is what the authors say

“Abstract : The purpose of this report is to imagine the unthinkable to push the boundaries of current research on climate change so we may better understand the potential implications on United States national security. We have interviewed leading climate change scientists, conducted additional research, and reviewed several iterations of the scenario with these experts. The scientists support this project, but caution that the scenario depicted is extreme in two fundamental ways. First, they suggest the occurrences we outline would most likely happen in a few regions, rather than on globally. Second, they say the magnitude of the event may be considerably smaller. We have created a climate change scenario that although not the most likely, is plausible, and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately.”

John M
Reply to  Steven Mosher
December 30, 2019 7:12 am

Guess the media missed that part.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
December 30, 2019 7:17 am

Steven,

“people dont know how to read these types of scenarios.”

“People” read them quite clearly (despite your contempt for them). The intent of the report is clear from the way the report was used. See the news coverage – which is all that the public and decision-makers see.

If the major media journalists mislead the public, the authors and the powerful funding agencies (NASA and DoD) could have issued denials and requested corrections. They didn’t. Silence means assent.

“FFS, we have ones for defense that were just as crazy.”

Absurdly false. These reports (I cite 3 in this post) serve their purpose. As I said, the officials running DoD “eagerly join every parade that might give them more money.” Successfully so, as the military machine gets the billion dollars needed each year to keep it fed.

beng135
Reply to  Steven Mosher
December 30, 2019 7:31 am

The “scenario” is not even remotely plausible. The world might begin falling apart, but not from “climate change” — it would be from reasons most reasonable people would easily recognize, like the current large-scale attempt to dismantle democracy coupled w/huge government monetary debts.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Steven Mosher
December 30, 2019 7:31 am

Yes, it is the military’s job to look at all sorts of scenarios that would involve a threat to the nation but most of those are based on the facts.

They probably even have a plan to defend against invaders from outerspace, but they don’t go around pushing it to the public as a plausible future. If they did, you would have to question their mental stability considering our lack of knowledge of aliens from outerspace.

Similarly, the U.S. military also considers what might happen if the climate scaremongers are right, but that doesn’t mean the U.S. military thinks it is a plausible future, which is the implication from the articles written about the study, as evidenced by the Guardian headline of 2004 (above).

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Steven Mosher
December 30, 2019 7:43 am

If you toss ten thousand darts at the target, you are a lot more likely to get one prediction correct.

Success!

Mark Broderick
Reply to  Steven Mosher
December 30, 2019 7:58 am

For once I agree with you. The DOD has a chit load of crazy “scenario studies” ready, just in case ! ( they even have one for us crazy Canucks attacking the U.S.A. ) LOL

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Steven Mosher
December 30, 2019 9:41 am

Here is what the authors are really saying…

“Abstract : The purpose of this report is to imagine the unthinkable to push the speculative bullshit of current research on climate change so we may create ridiculous propaganda about imaginary potential implications on United States national security. We have interviewed leading climate change bullshit merchants, conducted additional research on completely unrelated, but scary sounding, scenarios, and reviewed several iterations of the scenario with these bullshit merchants. The bullshit merchants support this project, but caution that the scenario depicted is extreme in two meaningless ways. First, they suggest the occurrences we outline would most likely happen in a few regions, rather than globally, as if that really means anything. Second, they say the magnitude of the event may be considerably smaller, to cover their asses about how truly ridiculous this all is. We have created a climate change scare story that although not remotely likely, is plausible when presented to useful idiots who will bray like psychos about it endlessly, and will thereby lend support for lots of needless spending (by us, of course) on nonexistent threats to United States “national security” in ways that should be implemented immediately so we can start getting the money.”

David S
December 30, 2019 7:43 am

They used Tarot Cards and Ouija Boards to make the predictions.

Reply to  David S
December 30, 2019 2:20 pm

David,

“They used Tarot Cards and Ouija Boards to make the predictions.”

No, they did not. They talked to scientists, found a legitimate theory, than wrote a report that describes its potential impacts – and counted on journalists to exaggerate its likelihood.

This is SOP, generating a large fraction of the doomster headlines that fill the news. Journalists do this because we love these stories. If we wanted sober analysis, that’s what they would give us.

Why doomster stories are so popular: we want to believe America is doomed.

We love scary stories. The reason why reveals a secret about America.

So many of our hit films show dystopias. This shows how we’ve changed.

DocSiders
December 30, 2019 8:53 am

No doubt this Pentagon Propaganda Group is still employed in Government or by the Big Military Industries or receiving generous retirement benefits for providing such important and accurate information.

Well Done (slimy) Unelected Bureaucrats…the enemies of Freedom and Our Constitution.

Reply to  DocSiders
December 30, 2019 2:25 pm

Docsiders,

“Well Done (slimy) Unelected Bureaucrats…the enemies of Freedom and Our Constitution.”

This kind of threat exaggeration is how DoD keeps its massive funding (that’s why they do so much of it). How important is that to our national defense? Everybody must decide that for themselves. My guess is that many of the people reading WUWT consider it to be preserving our “Freedom and Our Constitution.”

That’s how the government got the money to wage the Cold War against the Soviet Union.

“Mr. President, if that’s what you want there is only one way to get it. That is to make a personal appearance before Congress and scare the hell out of the country.”

— Senator Arthur Vandenberg’s advice to Truman about starting the Cold War. Truman did so in his famous speech on 12 March 1947. From Put Yourself in Marshall’s Place by James Warburg (he helped develop the US WWII propaganda programs).

F. Ross
December 30, 2019 9:07 am

REPENT! The end is nigh.

…and if not nigh then at least pretty soon.
Oh good, I can hardly wait.

John F. Hultquist
December 30, 2019 9:08 am

Above, beng135 wrote: “ The “scenario” is not even remotely plausible.

Consider “ARkStorm”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARkStorm

I recall this was a topic on WUWT a few years ago.
The event would be similar to exceptionally intense California storms
that occurred between December 1861 and January 1862, …

So we think about things not remotely plausible (never known to have happened, I guess) and basically ignore something that has happened. Same with human poo on the sidewalks and streets of major cities.

beng135
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
December 31, 2019 7:33 am

John, the 1861-62 event wasn’t “climate-change”, it was weather. One has to get the basic premise correct first in dealing with/solving issues/problems.

December 30, 2019 9:09 am

There’s only cooling for the future. As I have shown in my papers the solar irradiance AND solar wind determine the temperatures in earth. People usually forget to look at solar wind when they look at the sun. They only take into account the solar activity and solar irradiance. As I have shown the solar wind is decisive. It manipulates the geomagnetic field and cloud covering. Temperatures oscillate according to the sun. By adding the AMO index oscillation (that counts for internal system variability) to the two solar constituents, we get an extremely accurate temperature projection. As soon as AMO turns negative we shall experience a strong cooling.

Clyde Spencer
December 30, 2019 9:23 am

I’d like to know what in the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory mission statement justifies their employing climate alarmist futurists. If the DOD wanted phantasmagorical scenarios, they should have just gone directly to the Global Business Network. JPL appears to be experiencing mission creep. However, it may be symptomatic of the general NASA problem of being an organization that has outlived its usefulness and is looking for relevance through subcontracting.

Randle Dewees
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
December 30, 2019 9:47 am

Mission Creep?

Hah, it’s called filling your time sheet. Over here in NAVAIR we’d get an “Alignment” lecture every few years about how we are, going forward, just supporting the “War Fighter”. Not doing all that extraneous stuff we are currently working on. Thing is, the budgets never changed after the lectures, and therefore neither did we.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
December 30, 2019 2:17 pm

Clyde,

“I’d like to know what in the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory mission statement justifies …”

There are several answers.

First, JPL was founded in 1936 – and has long since expanded beyond “jet propulsion.” It’s current mission statement describes it as a broad R&D center for NASA.

“JPL is a federally funded research and development center managed for NASA by Caltech. …Today JPL continues its world-leading innovation, implementing programs in planetary exploration, Earth science, space-based astronomy and technology development, while applying its capabilities to technical and scientific problems of national significance.”

https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/about/

Second, like all R&D centers – it depends on others to give it funding for R&D projects. That is, they survive by doing what other agencies (those with money) want done. As with this report.

“If the DOD wanted phantasmagorical scenarios, they should have just gone directly to the Global Business Network.”

DoD Office of Net Assessment has developed a big reputation since 1973 by knowing how best to do these things. I’m certain that the mechanics of these projects is more complex than it seems to outsiders. I suggest that their judgement about these mechanics is probably better than yours or mine.

December 30, 2019 9:40 am

“In 2007, a particularly severe storm causes the ocean to break through levees in the Netherlands making a few key coastal cities such as The Hague unlivable.”
The writer has no idea about the situation in The Hague, the city is protected by dunes.

GP Hanner
December 30, 2019 9:49 am

A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer. Huh. A real whistle blower who could recognize a heap’n help’n of nonsense coming out of “experts.” Wonder who commissioned that boondoggle.

Reply to  GP Hanner
December 30, 2019 2:04 pm

GP,

“Wonder who commissioned that boondoggle”

The Guardian (and other news articles) states that it was personally commissioned by Andrew Marshall, director DoD’s Office of Net Assessment from 1973 to 2015. A very influential man, in his day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Marshall_(foreign_policy_strategist)

December 30, 2019 10:19 am

Sorry, I can’t afford the time to read a seventeen-year-old report about doom that I am NOT experiencing now. (^_^)

Maybe I can print it out, cut the pages into strips, and twine those around the empty toilet paper spool in my bathroom.

Reply to  Robert Kernodle
December 30, 2019 2:08 pm

Robert,

“Sorry, I can’t afford the time to read a seventeen-year-old report ”

That’s a common response. But it isn’t a good one, imo. We can’t see the context for today’s reports without seeing the pattern – understanding which comes from history.

The 3 reports here show how DoD uses threat exageration to get funding, tapping current anxieties. Almatmists are their allies, as each report gets big press — cited as evidence that even authoratative souces such as the US military see the seriousness of the threat.

Seeing this context allows us to better evaluate the next such report.

Remembering is learning.

Reply to  Larry
December 31, 2019 11:54 am

You make a fair point, Larry.

We need people like you to research the history of deception — I’m just not one of them. (^_^) … at least, not at the moment.

Thanks for your efforts to summarize what I don’t have time to delve into in depth.

RobR
December 30, 2019 10:27 am

There is no shortage of Naval Flag Officers who buy into, (or at least give lip service to) CAW doomsday scenarios. Naturally, the solution requires accelerated ship-building programs.

This, from the folks who gave us the completely useless Littoral Combat Ships. They were wrong in both accounts, and badly miscalculated Blue Water-Capable ship requirements.

Meanwhile, the highly-touted polar meltdown has failed to materialize, leaving Coast Guard Sailor’s with an insufficient number of ancient under-powered ice breakers.

It doesn’t take a genius to know a rogue nation will possess nuclear capable ICBM’s in the near future. Naval weapons capable destroying such weapons must be a top priority.

Dean Sorley
December 30, 2019 1:14 pm

While its a amusing read, when put into the context of scenario planning, and with the right up front qualifications (which you never see in other doomster reports) its probably a reasonable report. Hell these guys make pretend planet ending nuclear war.

They go to pretty big lengths in the actual report to say its an extreme scenario and it is specifically designed to be an alternative to gradual change scenarios.

Its the idiotic reporters who pick this up and run with it which are the ones who should be pilloried.

Reply to  Dean Sorley
December 30, 2019 2:02 pm

Dean,

I”Its the idiotic reporters who pick this up and run with it which are the ones who should be pilloried.”

There are two indications that your are wrong. First, if that we so, then the authors and the powerful funding agencies – NASA and DoD – would demand corrections. They didn’t.

Second, as I note, DoD funds many such reports. Global cooling, peak oil, whatever – each gets a structurally similar “study” – and the resulting alarmist news coverage. DoD never protests – because that is the desired result.

People familiar with DoD – such as the Chuck Spinney, Winslow Wheeler, the people at the Straus Military Reform Project (part of the Project On Government Oversight) – have documented this as part of DoD’s skillful use of threat exaggeration to maintain funding.

This has been successfully used for 7 decades. Sadly, it works almost every time.

DDP
December 30, 2019 2:49 pm

Of course, it’s purely coincidental that this paper was written and prepared within 12 months of the release of ‘The Day After Tomorrow’.

Although, I did find the crap about Russia joining the EU funny. The author must have been absolutely wasted by the time he wrote that gem on his napkin whilst waiting for another bottle of tequila.

December 30, 2019 3:40 pm

“2020: Migration from northern countries such as Holland and Germany toward Spain and Italy.”
Actually the reverse is happening: migration from Africa and the Middle East via Greece, Italy and Spain to Holland and Germany.

Mike Sphar
December 30, 2019 5:30 pm

I remember when the levee near Isleton across the Sacramento River from Rio Vista broke and flooded Brannon island (I think that was the island name) Had to drive around the flooded area for about six months instead of on Hwy 12. This was back in the early 1970s as I was stationed at Travis on active duty in those earlier years. This was my route to go weekend skiing in the Sierra, approaching 50 years ago. If it happened today as forecasted above, some farmers would be ticked off and the tremendous amount of cross state trucking would be disrupted. Climate Catastrophists can only dream…

“Failures of the delta island levees in the Sacramento River region in the Central Valley of California creates an inland sea and disrupts the aqueduct system transporting water from northern to southern California because salt water can no longer be kept out of the area during the dry season.”

So beyond the pale …

Herbert
December 30, 2019 9:10 pm

Proving that sometimes Military Intelligence is an oxymoron.

Hans
December 31, 2019 1:29 am

Finally, an excellent missive from “Larry the Cable Guy.”

Unfortunately, he is still being duped into using wikipedia.commie
as legitimate reference.

Gunga Din
December 31, 2019 2:24 pm

Sounds like this DoD report is a wealth of failed political science predictions.

PS I thought Tuvalu needed a “Super Moon” to flood?

Rudolf Huber
January 4, 2020 3:03 pm

I remember the hysteria at the time. It was nowhere near of what we see today but I was also concerned. Not as much as going to the streets but at the time a younger me wanted to believe in those glossy reports. How naive I was. All predictions made by the alarmist camp were always wrong. Why believing them now especially as they refuse to deliver us any solid proof.

%d bloggers like this: