So I guess that all this silly talk of Global Warming are just the figments of the delusional imaginations of all those misguided Left-wing Liberal Tree-hugging Hippie Scientists, then...   

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's about it

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Narachon - what you don't understand this is all about dosh, plain and simple. The environmentalists have politicized hard science - its not about if smth is valid or not - its progressing their own agenda. It doesnt mean we can't protect the environment within reason, but not to level some of these radicals would like us to do.

Give State of Fear - M Criton a read. It's a work of fiction, but there is alot of hard science on this issue in it, not to mention the theme running through it that science has been politicized. Well worth a read.

So I guess that all this silly talk of Global Warming are just the figments of the delusional imaginations of all those misguided Left-wing Liberal Tree-hugging Hippie Scientists, then...   

That's about it

Narachon - what you don't understand this is all about dosh, plain and simple. The environmentalists have politicized hard science - its not about if smth is valid or not - its progressing their own agenda. It doesnt mean we can't protect the environment within reason, but not to level some of these radicals would like us to do.

britmaveric- What I don't understand is what you mean by the word "dosh" ....

Is that a British word for Politics?

Anyway, I'll have the last laugh when my place the Poconos mountians here in NY becomes nice oceanfront property in fifty years......

Give State of Fear - M Criton a read. It's a work of fiction, but there is alot of hard science on this issue in it, not to mention the theme running through it that science has been politicized. Well worth a read.

Well Do. The last Crichton book I read was "Andromeda Strain" back when I was a wee little lad....Or was that his "Jurassic Park"?

dosh=money

dosh=money

In that case, I'd like a big bowl of Dosh, with a side order of Quid, please....

So I guess that all this silly talk of Global Warming are just the figments of the delusional imaginations of all those misguided Left-wing Liberal Tree-hugging Hippie Scientists, then...   

That's about it

Narachon - what you don't understand this is all about dosh, plain and simple. The environmentalists have politicized hard science - its not about if smth is valid or not - its progressing their own agenda. It doesnt mean we can't protect the environment within reason, but not to level some of these radicals would like us to do.

Give State of Fear - M Criton a read. It's a work of fiction, but there is alot of hard science on this issue in it, not to mention the theme running through it that science has been politicized. Well worth a read.

The truth is neither you nor I fully know what the real score is, neither does Crichton, Bush or anybody else. Too many variables to keep track of at the same time.

Of course environmentalists aren't all good, of course scientists are bought all the time (unless it is already covered in Crichton's work, which I havent read, have a look at what the 'Global Climate Coalition' was up to before they were found out - exactly - buying scientists to produce research to counter the theory of global warming) but they are certainly not all in on whacko conspiracy theories either.

My personal opinion is that we are definitely on the wrong track now if we want to make sure our planet is liveable and nice in another 100 years, an important goal if any. As to how, how much and what parts of the environment we need to protect, that is a different matter.

The point of my post was about risk-management and its role in complex analysis. Too many sheep out there think that if risk isn't "proven," whatever that means, that there is no risk.

Congrats to Boon Mee on catching me in a spelling error (and nothing else of any substance). Be sure I'll return the favour when appropriate!

Congrats also to the Moog, who certainly has shown he isn't bitter at losing our last several dozen arguments by waiting... waiting... waiting... to dredge up some apparently unflattering statement I made long ago out of context. Incidentally, it *IS* probably true that the next flu epidemic will be both traumatic and inevitable. We simply don't have the resources or the knowledge to prevent it; we can only prepare for it and do the best we can. Arctic [thanks, Boon Mee!] ice *might* be something we can actually do something about. That spells out the difference in my attitude. Bird flu isn't something that we're doing to ourselves!

Any other trolls like to take a swing?

"Steven"

Here's some more food for thought on Global Warming causes, boys...

Study: Sun's Changes to Blame for Part of Global Warming

By Robert Roy Britt

LiveScience Managing Editor

posted: 30 September 2005

01:12 pm ET

Increased output from the Sun might be to blame for 10 to 30 percent of global warming that has been measured in the past 20 years, according to a new report.

Increased emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases still play a role, the scientists say.

But climate models of global warming should be corrected to better account for changes in solar activity, according to Nicola Scafetta and Bruce West of Duke University.

The findings were published online this week by the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

Scientists agree the planet is warming. Effects are evident in melting glaciers and reductions in the amount of frozen ground around the planet.

The new study is based in part on Columbia University research from 2003 in which scientists found errors in how data on solar brightness is interpreted. A gap in data, owing to satellites not being deployed after the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster, were filled by less accurate data from other satellites, Scafetta says.

The Duke analyses examined solar changes over 22 years versus 11 years used in previous studies. The cooling effect of volcanoes and cyclical shifts in ocean currents can have a greater negative impact on the accuracy of shorter data periods.

"The Sun may have minimally contributed about 10 to 30 percent of the 1980-2002 global surface warming," the researchers said in a statement today.

Many questions remain, however. For example, scientists do not have a good grasp of how much Earth absorbs or reflects sunlight.

"We don't know what the Sun will do in the future," Scafetta says. "For now, if our analysis is correct, I think it is important to correct the climate models so that they include reliable sensitivity to solar activity. Once that is done, then it will be possible to better understand what has happened during the past hundred years."

Only if LOS has some sort of efficient trash collection system so folks don't have to burn everything. That's my chief peeve about rural Thailand.

So what now?

Send a UN Petition to the Sun to ask for it to reduce it's Solar Emissions?

So what now?

Send a UN Petition to the Sun to ask for it to reduce it's Solar Emissions?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, just wait a few generations and when the "global warming" effect turns full cycle and the Arctic ice cap starts to engulf Scotland, everyone'll be reminiscing about the good old days of the early 21st century...

Here's some more food for thought on Global Warming causes, boys...

Study: Sun's Changes to Blame for Part of Global Warming

By Robert Roy Britt

LiveScience Managing Editor

posted: 30 September 2005

01:12 pm ET

Increased output from the Sun might be to blame for 10 to 30 percent of global warming that has been measured in the past 20 years, according to a new report.

Increased emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases still play a role, the scientists say.

But climate models of global warming should be corrected to better account for changes in solar activity, according to Nicola Scafetta and Bruce West of Duke University.

The findings were published online this week by the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

Scientists agree the planet is warming. Effects are evident in melting glaciers and reductions in the amount of frozen ground around the planet.

The new study is based in part on Columbia University research from 2003 in which scientists found errors in how data on solar brightness is interpreted. A gap in data, owing to satellites not being deployed after the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster, were filled by less accurate data from other satellites, Scafetta says.

The Duke analyses examined solar changes over 22 years versus 11 years used in previous studies. The cooling effect of volcanoes and cyclical shifts in ocean currents can have a greater negative impact on the accuracy of shorter data periods.

"The Sun may have minimally contributed about 10 to 30 percent of the 1980-2002 global surface warming," the researchers said in a statement today.

Many questions remain, however. For example, scientists do not have a good grasp of how much Earth absorbs or reflects sunlight.

"We don't know what the Sun will do in the future," Scafetta says. "For now, if our analysis is correct, I think it is important to correct the climate models so that they include reliable sensitivity to solar activity. Once that is done, then it will be possible to better understand what has happened during the past hundred years."

Only if LOS has some sort of efficient trash collection system so folks don't have to burn everything.  That's my chief peeve about rural Thailand.

Sounds plausible but does not negate anything of the general theory of global warming being mainly due to human activities (10-30% is not a little, but it is still not the major cause).

Agree that better waste collection is necessary here, but there is great difficulty in controlling people and changing attitudes of rural dwellers who are under-educated, not so few are ethnic minorities, and often wary of trusting authorities (for good reasons).

/soapbox/

IMO, a far more interesting issue in the longterm is the rapid transformation of population-rich societies like India and China into modern consumers of refrigerators, air conditioners, computers, TV sets and cars, as well as the effects of increasing global jet travel. This will probably cause a greater long-term impact on the environment than the burning of rice husks and forests.

Yet, this is the way we are going, instead of trying to restrict 'developed' socities and curbing consumption and wasteful production.

Burning wood and grass are activities that have occurred naturally with the Earth since before humankind, but the use and extraction of dangerous substances as well as the subsequent advanced processing into complex compounds we are capable of today, is something the Earth and the environment will probably find it harder to adapt to (provided that the Earth should still be inhabitable to us, of course - it may be able to adapt by exterminating us or forcing us to colonize other planets - but the main problem will be the same - if we dont learn to take care of what we have now, we'll be forced to move from planet to planet, gradually exhausting their resources and leaving wastelands behind us, which is hardly the best way IMO).

It's all commendable and fascinating to create biospheres and altered gravity environments in order to test man's ability to sustain himself outside of Earth, but in the end it must be better to prioritize being responsible stewards of this Earth that made us and gave us birth as a species; the planet which has created every single atom and molecule in our bodies. We are just much better suited to be here, through evolution, than to build colonies on other planets... and I'd like my great grandchildren to be able to have the choice to stay here instead of being forced to take off to some transparent and vulnerable tent on Mars.

/soapbox/

^Regarding the sun, exactly. It just means that humans need to be *that much more* careful about the impact *we* may be having, and actually increases the risk of overall environmental breakdown, which simply makes the pro-environmentalist argument stronger.

You're also right to point out the dangers of India and China. We won't be able to control or stop them, and their largest energy deposits will be in the form of wood and coal- megatons of carbon to be dumped back into the atmosphere.

Quick Question for those who don't know about the carbon cycle: Where do trees get the carbon they use to build sugars, cellulose, and other solid hydrocarbons?

"Steven"

Quick Question for those who don't know about the carbon cycle:  Where do trees get the carbon they use to build sugars, cellulose, and other solid hydrocarbons?

"Steven"

Uhhmmm.... I'll take "Local Grocery Store" for 500, Alex!

.... a far more interesting issue in the long-term is the rapid transformation of population-rich societies like India and China into modern consumers of refrigerators, air conditioners, computers, TV sets and cars, as well as the effects of increasing global jet travel....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

...You're also right to point out the dangers of India and China.  We won't be able to control or stop them, and their largest energy deposits will be in the form of wood and coal- megatons of carbon to be dumped back into the atmosphere....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have flown to Delhi once, and just before the plane landed - while still a long way up - it detoured around a huge black cloud. We could - or maybe I imagined it - smell the smoke in the plane even at the height we were at - 10 or 20,000 feet. This black smoke formed a huge cloud in the sky and I could see that it came from just two or three huge chimneys a long way down. That was about 20 years ago. I don't know if the factory or industrial plant is still chucking it out, but that's the sort of pollution that's much worse than a few aerosols or diesel trucks.

free energy machines are just around the corner.

http://freeenergynews.com/

It is polluting chemicals and manufactured goods that we should worry about.

^Regarding the sun, exactly.  It just means that humans need to be *that much more* careful about the impact *we* may be having, and actually increases the risk of overall environmental breakdown, which simply makes the pro-environmentalist argument stronger.

You're also right to point out the dangers of India and China.  We won't be able to control or stop them, and their largest energy deposits will be in the form of wood and coal- megatons of carbon to be dumped back into the atmosphere.

Quick Question for those who don't know about the carbon cycle:  Where do trees get the carbon they use to build sugars, cellulose, and other solid hydrocarbons?

"Steven"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

OK, here's a quick question.If CO2 is one of "the" most man made produced green house gas and our forests that would normally chew this up are being reduced, then where does it go?It's heavier than air, so shouldn't we be suffocating about now?

The theory that forests act as the world's 'lungs' has been refuted, I remember reading somewhere - the same info said that while trees do take up carbon dioxide, they release it to the same degree.

Instead, deforestation is fought with arguments stressing the need for biodiversity, as well as preserving plants and wildlife that might prove the missing link in our quest to find a cure for cancer, etc.

In response to chuchok -

I don't know exactly, but I guess the gas does not just sit there, it probably forms compounds with the air and water...?

old forests are 'carbon neutral' - they give off as much co2 as they absorb since the trees and leaves that are made of carbon stripped from the co2 in the atmosphere (releasing oxygen) decay producing co2 again. Cutting a forest releases this stored up carbon. Planting new forests, of which the enviromentally hostile Chinese are by far the worlds leader in, will soak up and sequester co2 thus releasing oxygen. There are other ways of storing co2 - called 'sequestering' such as pumping it into old oil reserves, or man made trees with plastic leaves that can be taken off and buried.

The real destination of the co2?

Plankton on the sea surface soak it up, but unlike land, the carbon gets eaten and goes through the food chain and sinks to the bottom of the ocean where it remains as frozen methane. You see, on land the biological system keeps recycling, but the ocean does not.

Now there is a lot of research into finding ways to mine this methane, which causes 50 times the green house effect of co2, though with the negative affect for only about 30 years.

Destruction of marine habitat does not grab the news like the heron, or panda bear, but is far more important for our planet. Over fishing, oil and paint (special paint that prevents cockles from attaching) pollution etc will all ruin the co2 dump of the world.

Coral reefs take up CO2. Some aquarium hobbyists who keep live coral will use CO2 injection systems to boost coral growth.

The filtration room. The CO2 cannister is bottom right underneath the bench.

Have we seen America's future through the eyes of hurricanes Katrina and Rita?

Kevork Djansezian, Associated PressA shrimp boat is washed ashore in Empire in Plaquemines Parish, La., after hurricanes Katrina and Rita devastated the area.      Monster storms drowning cities and obliterating coastlines. Jobs vanishing and prices rising as ports and pipelines close. Millions fleeing, but many are trapped and die. Chaos reigns, paralyzing government and leaving the world's wealthiest society humbled and frightened.

      Natural disaster in the United States has morphed to a dangerous new level. Some experts say the nation can expect to be pummeled by more of these mega-catastrophes over the next 20 or 30 years in a nasty conspiracy of unfavorable weather patterns, changing demographics and political denial.

      A month after Katrina and one week after Rita, it's not clear how the United States will play the new hand that nature has apparently dealt.

      "Are we prepared to lose a major city every year?" asks Carnegie Mellon University risk strategist Baruch Fischhoff. "It's cowardice not to ask the question, and cowardice on the public's part not to get engaged in the answer."

full article : http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/1,1249,615154734,00.html

I wonder how much the melting of ice and redistribution of water around the world will affect the earthquakes. There is a phenomenon in which large slabs of ice which melt or slide away from a land mass subject to slipping then release the mass, which is free to slip and slide again (earthquakes). The level of the water table seems bound to be involved in this, as well.

Climate change is cyclic - I'm afraid. We've seen much warmer avg mean tempertures long ago. However it doesnt mean we can't be environmentally sound to a point. Debate is far from over I'm afraid.

Too true Brit. I listened to a discussion on this on BBC Radio 4 (I think) between a few University Professors in an attempt to talk scientifically rather than politically - it worked to some extent. The most convincing to me was one guy that explained that there are thousands, literally, of 'variables' that go to affecting climate. Human society affects just a few, and no where near that of the natural world, our planet itself and outside influences - like the sun. The Mariana Trench for example kicks out million of tons daily of some of the most noxious gaseous mixtures we could imagine - at super heated temperatures - these gases for the most part don't get above the thermal layer, but some of it will and is released into the atmosphere.

Some of the others also talked of sun spots and the like and cycles. El Nino (can't do the squiggle) goes in cycles as does global temperature shifts and even changes to the Earth's magnetic field (including poles occationally flipping completely!). All this is out of our control.

As someone said, we were skating on the Thames a centuary ago. Two thousand years ago, we were growing Olives and Wine in the British midlands - the Romans - the temperature was about that of today's Mediteranean areas.

I really think that global warming is a red herring. I am far more worried about Global Dimming, polution, over population and over hunting/fishing.

Global Dimming is somewhat hidden by Global Warming. Basically, it is particles of 'soot' in the atmosphere that block out the sun causing changes in weather patterns. This is what caused, it is believed, the forming of the deserts millenia ago (from volcanos) as rains fell early due to being weighed down with the sediment - this is happening more and more often and the believed cause of droughts in some parts of Africa and India and floods in other parts.

Polution needs to be controlled to stop us poisoning ourselves, our food and our environment. Its is needed so that the ecology that ahs built up in certain areas over millions of generations, is not wiped out wholesale - causing irrepairable damage to the food chain etc - by severe changes in weather patterns.

I wonder how much the melting of ice and redistribution of water around the world will affect the earthquakes. There is a phenomenon in which large slabs of ice which melt or slide away from a land mass subject to slipping then release the mass, which is free to slip and slide again (earthquakes). The level of the water table seems bound to be involved in this, as well.

I would guess that it would be both pro and con. Water levels rising could cause extra stresses I suppose, but it could also release pressure from other areas. I think most eathquake zones that would worry mankind would be in areas that are water or land rather than ice - Indian and Pacific Oceans for example.

One danger though is the Ross Ice Shelf - Antartica. This block opf floating ice has been trapped against the two main islands of the South Pole for about 10-12,000 years. Growing thicker as time passes. It is theoretically possible that if it should become detatched and float North with the warm currents, it cause cause a shift in the Earth's axis - now that could be devastating!

On a related note, that well-known liberal institution, the Pentagon, has apparently warned Bush that the highest risk to the U.S. security is not terrorism, but- wait for it- climate change!

I'm sure they've just been brainwashed by the liberal media.

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.

The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.

'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.'

The findings will prove humiliating to the Bush administration, which has repeatedly denied that climate change even exists. Experts said that they will also make unsettling reading for a President who has insisted national defence is a priority.

The report was commissioned by influential Pentagon defence adviser Andrew Marshall, who has held considerable sway on US military thinking over the past three decades. He was the man behind a sweeping recent review aimed at transforming the American military under Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Climate change 'should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern', say the authors, Peter Schwartz, CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of the California-based Global Business Network.

Yup, Royal Dutch Shell- nothing but a bunch of treehuggers and anarchists.

Pentagon Report quoted here:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/internation...1153513,00.html

On a related note, that well-known liberal institution, the Pentagon, has apparently warned Bush that the highest risk to the U.S. security is not terrorism, but- wait for it- climate change!

I'm sure they've just been brainwashed by the liberal media.

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.

The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.

'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.'

The findings will prove humiliating to the Bush administration, which has repeatedly denied that climate change even exists. Experts said that they will also make unsettling reading for a President who has insisted national defence is a priority.

The report was commissioned by influential Pentagon defence adviser Andrew Marshall, who has held considerable sway on US military thinking over the past three decades. He was the man behind a sweeping recent review aimed at transforming the American military under Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Climate change 'should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern', say the authors, Peter Schwartz, CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of the California-based Global Business Network.

Yup, Royal Dutch Shell- nothing but a bunch of treehuggers and anarchists.

Pentagon Report quoted here:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/internation...1153513,00.html

Published Sunday February 22, 2004 - really old news which has been shown to be another inept swipe at Dubya from the far-left al-Guardian 'newspaper'

On a related note, that well-known liberal institution, the Pentagon, has apparently warned Bush that the highest risk to the U.S. security is not terrorism, but- wait for it- climate change!

I'm sure they've just been brainwashed by the liberal media.

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.

The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.

'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.'

The findings will prove humiliating to the Bush administration, which has repeatedly denied that climate change even exists. Experts said that they will also make unsettling reading for a President who has insisted national defence is a priority.

The report was commissioned by influential Pentagon defence adviser Andrew Marshall, who has held considerable sway on US military thinking over the past three decades. He was the man behind a sweeping recent review aimed at transforming the American military under Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Climate change 'should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern', say the authors, Peter Schwartz, CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of the California-based Global Business Network.

Yup, Royal Dutch Shell- nothing but a bunch of treehuggers and anarchists.

Pentagon Report quoted here:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/internation...1153513,00.html

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Published Sunday February 22, 2004 - really old news which has been shown to be another inept swipe at Dubya from the far-left al-Guardian 'newspaper'

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So, did the pentagon sponsor the study? did the guardian misrepresent the study? What's up? What is the basis for your discrediting this?

Perhaps the question Boon Mee should be asking is, "Why wasn't this (isn't this) news in America? Why do Americans have to read "liberal" British news to find out what the Pentagon is really telling Bush?"

Presumably Boon Mee doesn't think that the Guardian would actually LIE about the report (and be open to tremendous lawsuits). So, that means Boon Mee must concede that such a report really exists and has been accurately quoted. Since Boon Mee cannot fit this report into his world view, it goes into the category of "old news and in the liberal media," which bizarrely means it no longer is of any importance, even though it was released by the Pentagon.

"Steven"

While The Observer sensationalized the story with its erroneous claim that the report was "secret" and "suppressed by U.S. defense chiefs" when in fact it had already been publicly discussed....

http://www.grist.org/news/muck/2004/02/25/pentagoners/

Well the Pentagon has scenarios for every possible event that might occur including alien invasions. It's part of contingency planning, and really it doesn't mean much of anything.

Check out the above link - they have a link to the actual document. Make up your own mind.

While The Observer sensationalized the story with its erroneous claim that the report was "secret" and "suppressed by U.S. defense chiefs" when in fact it had already been publicly discussed....

http://www.grist.org/news/muck/2004/02/25/pentagoners/

Well the Pentagon has scenarios for every possible event that might occur including alien invasions. It's part of contingency planning, and really it doesn't mean much of anything.

Check out the above link - they have a link to the actual document. Make up your own mind.

Well done, Brit.

From the link...

"While The Observer sensationalized the story with its erroneous claim that the report was "secret" and "suppressed by U.S. defense chiefs" when in fact it had already been publicly discussed, the document is worthy of even the British press' flair for melodrama"...

And one wonders why the report does not fit the Objective world view.

Here's a link to the actual report:

http://www.grist.org/pdf/AbruptClimateChange2003.pdf

Here's an explanation of what the study is all about and is the first thing in the report...at the top...Somehow the Guardian missed seeing this (selective blindness) probably because reporting this destroys the sensationalism which they profit from:

Imagining the Unthinkable

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.

As you can see this report depicts the theoretic worst case possible scenerio and does not represent what the Pentagon is thinking is likely to happen or that it will happen. I'm surprised that Boon Mee gets so excited by things like this...things like this are what the Guardian is all about....I think Boon Mee should get excited if he should ever find something cridible published there.

I'm surprised that Boon Mee gets so excited by things like this...things like this are what the Guardian is all about....I think Boon Mee should get excited if he should ever find something cridible published there.

I don't - it's the selective blindness w/respect to some posters on here as to the veracity of al-guardian (like al-Jazerra)...