In 2003 the Pentagon commissioned a report declaring that "because of the potentially dire consequences" global warming "should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a U.S. national security concern."

Excerpts from the executive summary:

_________________

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

October 2003

There is substantial evidence to indicate that significant global warming will occur during the 21st century... global warming could lead to a relatively abrupt slowing of the ocean's thermohaline conveyor, which could lead to harsher winter weather conditions, sharply reduced soil moisture, and more intense winds in certain regions that currently provide a significant fraction of the world's food production. With inadequate preparation, the result could be a significant drop in the human carrying capacity of the Earth's environment.

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...

As global and local carrying capacities are reduced, tensions could mount... Nations with the resources to do so may build virtual fortresses around their countries, preserving resources for themselves. Less fortunate nations especially those with ancient enmities with their neighbors, may initiate in struggles for access to food, clean water, or energy. Unlikely alliances could be formed as defense priorities shift and the goal is resources for survival rather than religion, ideology, or national honor...

There are some indications today that global warming has reached the threshold where the thermohaline circulation could start to be significantly impacted...

This report suggests that, because of the potentially dire consequences, the risk of abrupt climate change, although uncertain and quite possibly small, should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a U.S. national security concern.

_________________

http://www.global2000.at/files/Pentagon_Studie.doc

All you have to do is look at the institutions doing the research on global warming, and the involvement of major defense contractors in this effort in case you might be swayed by arguments of "liberals" versus "conservatives." The active funding by the federal government, the need for security clearance for much of the work, and the involvement and oversight of defense contractors make framing the issue as one of conservatives versus liberals almost laughable.

Look no further than this board;

-- droogoy writes;

(to lock them all up, like the Holocaust deniers in Germany and the UK)

You don't have a single number or formula relationship, total speculation dressed as science and the grab for authority begins?

...I know how this goes.

PepsiCola,

I apologize for calling you a knucklehead....I take attacks on my country personally.

Warming on 11 year hiatus

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/06/20/warming-on-11-year-hiatus/

investch: "The Earth is actually in a cooling cycle, largely unpredicted since 1998."

Lie.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/Fig1_2007annual.gif

There is no question that the Federal Government has been actively undertaking global warming research. I gave one example of a NOAA facility, the GFDL. It is a matter of national security, or else defense contractors would not be involved in the day-to-day operations and the public relations effort. This is easy enough to check.

The Armed Forces have continency plans in the event the potato salad runs out at a summer barbecue. They have entire rooms full of people that sit around and write "contingency plans". They have entire manuals devoted to how to tie your shoes.....get real would you?

but causation is the leap that justifies the act. Of course it breaks down against individual vs. collectivism.

Study is worth while but science is proved not simply speculated.

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm

Try this one it's more narrow and focused.

Cooling, means nothing as a broad trend claim. Shows no causation but it is a fact.

You're right, and in theory I love your context.......or do I? .

You're incoherent.

"wiped out a decade of global warming" is scientifically preposterous. I'll let NASA explain why the putatively devastating chart (even the Hadley Center says it was misused) circulating in the clogged Turkish Toilet of the blogosphere does not erase "a decade of global warming."

The past year (2007) witnessed a transition from a weak El Nino to a strong La Nina (the latter is perhaps beginning to moderate already, as the ocean waters near Peru are beginning to warm). January 2007 was the warmest January in the period of instrumental data in the GISS analysis, while, as shown in Figure 1, October 2007 was # 5 warmest, November 2007 was #8 warmest, December 2007 was #8 warmest, and January 2008 was #40 warmest. Undoubtedly, the cooling trend through the year was due to the strengthening La Nina, and the unusual coolness in January was aided by a winter weather fluctuation.

I have no doubt there is "change" but I'm not a simple minded spectator at an ancient Aztec harvest human sacrifice. If we throw children into a pit it might coorelate with a good crop but doesn't cause one.

Rather than invest money wisely into the impacts of change we must waste our resources on the effort to change the climate do to moonbat agenda and claims. We kill 300 Polar Bears a year since the population has doubled in 30-40 years but we ban oil projects that might only impact a few dozen adversly. We're talking about trillions in malinvestment on cap and trades. Effectively, millions will suffer underdevelopement from lower growth chances and economic abuse. There will be fat cat winners in the fraud but the poor of the will suffer the most.

The irony of socialist thinking, it makes society more elite despite every claim to the contrary.

How many ways can you have it? Aren't the oceans impacted by your trend claim or are you claiming warming really causes cooling?

It's all a topic change, the trend line since 1998 is cooler. It's a fact not a hyperbolic claim of causation, disaster or anything else. Is it key that the MMGW crowd debates dishonestly to achieve their goal?

Liberals define "science". If you are against "science" if you're against liberal/socialist agenda setting.

It's a Fascist article that follows a largely evil and Fascist movement.

Let's forget about hurricane or earth quake relief, let's bet the farm on "prevention". It's moonbat agenda even if you bought into the premise of man making a big difference in the climate.