Local View: U.S. military: Global warming is real
Skeptics of human-caused climate change unremittingly contend that the science is inconclusive and the debate still is unsettled. The U.S. military, on the other hand, entertains no such doubts.
As far back as 2003, during the first term of the Bush/Cheney Administration, a specially commissioned Pentagon report titled “An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and the Implications for United States Security” warned that rapid climate change could “potentially de-stabilize the geo-political environment, leading to skirmishes, battles and even war” over scarce food, water and energy supplies. The threat of climate change, the report went on to state, needed to “be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a U.S. national security concern.”
By the time the Defense Department’s Center for Naval Analyses released its landmark 2007 report, “National Security and the Threat of Climate Change,” the Bush/Cheney Administration had officially acknowledged the reality of global warming — although it continued to question whether humans were the cause. The 11-member Military Advisory Board of retired three-star and four-star admirals and generals who headed up the Center’s study, however, unanimously accepted the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change, concluding that “the evidence is sufficiently compelling and the consequences sufficiently grave” to warrant the military’s urgent attention.
In 1974, the CIA endorsed global cooling – right before temperatures started going up.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1945
http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf
So the military are as stupid as the scientists they believe? Who knew?
Dave N~ No, the military are told to do these studies. Whether or not such things actually pan out, one has to plan for all contingincies. What can’t be helped is that people pushing a particular ideaology, then take such studies and use them to push their agendas.
Any perceived threat means more money for the military.
Ah – Bingo, we have a winner!
And the millitary is not democracy. And you’ll say but they are a panel of retired BLA BLA BLA as the story goes but. they don’t use the term sign your life away for nothing when you enlist. And another note to add to that, that is why when you do enlist they send you as far as they can from your place of residence. So if the need to drop the hammer on the citizens they have people in that area with potentially no ties to the locals there and would follow orders without second guessing. If you get what I’m saying!
could and potentially put together, Nice combo, just like probably likely. Isn’t that almost wonderfull!
Theoretically Potentially almost wonderful.
I have not seen their :Gae” plan for when the next massive meteor strikes the globe or when the next major volcano erupts and either does far more damage than any change in weather patterns. Both are certain future events, not flights of fantasy like AGW.
You got that right.
Yeah, it is within the realm of possibility that, in theory, conceivably, Yellowstone could potentially erupt, perhaps. Well, maybe. If it does, we might as well call it quits.
Every male in my extended family has served in the military. My brother’s job at the Pentagon was to create and maintain ‘scenarios’. These were anything from North Korean aggressions to natural disasters. Their motto is a familiar one, ‘Fail to plan, plan to fail’.
It would be irresponsible for those in charge of scenario studies to not at least put a contingency plan in place. The vast majority of scenarios never occur. But should one of these problems arise, it is as simple as going to a bookshelf, removing the proper volume and following a predetermined procedure.
Using the military as ‘proof’ of anything climate related simply shows more ignorance of the subject at hand.
Excellent: ‘Fail to Plan, Plan to Fail.’ That’s written down. Got to be remembered, a rule to follow.
Yes, lost of emergencies should be planned for, and ‘shelved.’ Of course, if you forget where the bookshelf is…
It is well known that a lack of threats will help maintain or increase the military budget.
Not.
As usual, follow the money.
The fact that the military also has (quite secret) contingency plans to invade Canada means that the goofy Canucks are a definite, clear, and credible threat to our security. We’d better nuke them to be on the safe side.
I have often reminded my dear friends of the Great White North, that they lie just the other side of the world’s longest undefended international border, from the greatest military might ever known.
Tread lightly and keep those prices down. Eh?
If you do invade us northerners, make sure you comply with our language laws …
Si, señor, muy bien. Voy a tratar de cumplir con las leyes de su pidgin español raro.
Si
Don’t say “si”, say “oui”.
Trivia question … what cartoon was that from?
Qu’est que c’est,
panthère rose, Et ne dites pas «si», dire «oui».
connerie est ce qu’il est.
La Pantera Rosa, y decir no “si”, decir “sí”.
mierda es lo que es.
Lucky for Canadians, our military is planning for sunny weather. Snow is a major set back for our invasion plans.
Our lack of jackets, snow shoes and mittens, is keeping you safe.
Yeah but you have them pocket warming packs.
http://www.tuffrhino.com/PhotoDetails.asp?ShowDESC=N&ProductCode=WP1300
Anyone have a reference for the first time the CIA endorsed warming? I would bet it is right where the temperature shifted the other way, around 2000. A google search from 1998 to 2004 didn’t show much except pay per view articles.
As far back as 2003, during the first term of the Bush/Cheney Administration, a specially commissioned Pentagon report titled “An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and the Implications for United States Security” warned that rapid climate change could “potentially de-stabilize the geo-political environment, leading to skirmishes, battles and even war” over scarce food, water and energy supplies. The threat of climate change, the report went on to state, needed to “be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a U.S. national security concern.”
After reading this paragraph, looks more like they were talking about a cooling planet. But then that’s just my tarnished opinion.
Admirals and generals are not climate scientists. They are making plans just in case the climate changes, which it always does.
One of the worst kept secrets is that almost everyone above Lt. Col. is pure Peter Principle.
My father would have agreed with you. He had virtually no use for generals and low tolerance for most colonels. Dad never made full bird because he refused to play the political games, he spoke the truth and pissed a lot of superior, in rank only, officers.
I feel safe…now