Secret Pentagon report suppressed by US officials

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

02/25/2004 11:18:18 PM · #1

A secret pentagon report has come out that the US doesn't want you to know about regarding global warming and it's future impact. An article by the London Observer has reported receiving a document that US defense officials have suppressed of a commissioned report by the Pentagon stating that within 20 years, and maybe sooner, there will be major climactic changes that will result worldwide wars (even nuclear), rioting and resource shortages. The report goes on to say that this is an even greater threat than terrorism.

You can see the article HERE

Here are some excerpts:

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.

and goes on to say:

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.

and further:

An imminent scenario of catastrophic climate change is 'plausible and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately', they conclude. As early as next year widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions.

pitsaman

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

02/25/2004 11:20:06 PM · #2

Which lense I need to cpture that?

Mousie

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

02/25/2004 11:22:00 PM · #3

Originally posted by pitsaman:

Which lense I need to cpture that?

Wahahahaha!

TommyMoe21

Canon EOS-7D Mark II

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

02/25/2004 11:25:55 PM · #4

Originally posted by pitsaman:

Which lense I need to cpture that?

A waterproof one?

nborton

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

02/25/2004 11:28:38 PM · #5

seems odd that other countries haven't be getting very concerned. as in concerned that they will be flooded next year.

Russell2566

02/25/2004 11:48:08 PM · #6

25 years ago everyone was bitching about gloabal cooling and complaning about the fact that the government wouldn't go spread ash over all the glaciers to help melt them. They are all f-ing checken littles...

I'm not saying pollution isn't damaging earth and needs to be slowed down, but I am saying that I'm tired of a bunch of jobless nuts running around telling me the world is gonna end within 20 years.

Olympus 14-45mm f/3.5-5.6 Zuiko Digital ED

02/26/2004 12:03:16 AM · #7

This is a Pentagon commissioned report, not a bunch of "jobless nuts."
I believe that the two people who investigated and wrote up the report were an intelligence analyst and a businessman, not exactly a bunch of liberal pinkos.

Originally posted by Russell2566:

jdw91479

Olympus E-300 EVOLT

02/26/2004 12:03:18 AM · #8

No one really mentions that the mean temperature of the earth has actually been decreasing in the last few years..

or that the temperature raising just one degree gives longer time for crops to grow and actually produces more food for the world.

jab119

02/26/2004 12:59:13 AM · #9

the end of the world has been coming for a long time, many many times it has been said and many many times we woke up just fine....if it ends it ends, if it does not, guess that means more time for pictures......

James

02/26/2004 01:45:09 AM · #10

Originally posted by pitsaman:

Which lense I need to cpture that?

BHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

02/26/2004 01:51:30 AM · #11

just watch this

Azrifel

Fujifilm X100VI

02/26/2004 01:29:43 PM · #12

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

A secret pentagon report has come out that the US doesn't want you to know about regarding global warming and it's future impact.

It also predicts that the western part of The Netherlands will be flooded within three years. Hey!!!!!!!!!! That's where I live!

Hmmm, this is just some Bush/Blair propaganda. Probably they try to convince the UN that they have to invade The Netherlands to save us poor and wet Dutchmen. The real reason of the invasion is of course to stop our gay marriage laws and marihuana policies. :)

Seriously though, I will try to read it. Will be very interesting to see what will happen. We could use a good flood to clean the streets of all that dog poo.

Message edited by author 2004-02-26 13:30:10.

Azrifel

Fujifilm X100VI

02/26/2004 01:37:23 PM · #13

BTW, if major European cities will get flooded because of the rising sea, that also means that major American cities will be flooded. New York, parts of San Francisco, LA, San Diego, Miami and a lot of Florida, New Orleans etc.

Parts of Hong Kong, Tokio, Sydney....

GoldBerry

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

02/26/2004 01:49:14 PM · #14

life ends, it's inevitable, respect what we have and enjoy the present. That's pretty simple don't you think? Yeah, I know, it's a rose-colored-view of the world, but it all comes back to people not being able to face their own mortality...oh wait, is that another can of worms I hear opening? Sorry, forget I said anything!

Patents4u

Canon EOS-40D

02/26/2004 01:54:04 PM · #15

I just fired all of my employees and replaced them with carpenters and welders. Am building a big boat. Gotta go, much to do.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

02/26/2004 02:14:58 PM · #16

Yes, but you would go to the doctor if you were sick with a serious illness, wouldn't you?

Originally posted by GoldBerry:

RonB

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

02/26/2004 04:22:57 PM · #17

Gee, part of that Guardian News article says ( and I quote ):

"By 2020 'catastrophic' shortages of water and energy supply will become increasingly harder to overcome, plunging the planet into war. They warn that 8,200 years ago climatic conditions brought widespread crop failure, famine, disease and mass migration of populations that could soon be repeated."

I don't know who got blamed 8,200 years ago for causing that catastropic "global warming" thing, though apparently whoever it was didn't listen to the warnings to do something or to stop doing something, 'cause, sure enough, it happened.

Come on folks, THINK. Climate change DOES HAPPEN - with or without mankind doing ( or not doing ) anything extraordinary. What was the total world population 8,200 years ago? How much pollution do you think they could possibly have added to the atmosphere? How much impact could they have possibly had on 'global warming'? But it still happened, didn't it?

Sure, we should do what we can to minimize our individual and our corporate pollution - air, water, and earth. But ALL that we can do would be like a drop in the bucket against what good ol' Mother Nature has dished up, and apparently is preparing to dish up again ( that is, if you believe the pundits ).

And what's with this putting the blame on Bush? It seems that some people are desperate to blame something, anything, on President Bush. I guess they hope that if they accuse him of enough stuff, ( never substantiated mind you, just innuendo ), that everyone will find some pet cause that they would LIKE to feel he doesn't support strongly enough. ( I hear that he doesn't like broccoli - how does that news strike you vegans? ).

Ron
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"No one every went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American People" HL Mencken

nborton

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

02/26/2004 08:20:17 PM · #18

I never realized Bush had so much power.

02/26/2004 10:18:23 PM · #19

The report itself doesn't say anything about Bush but rather what a likely scenario will look like should climatic changes occur. It's the article that is editorializing.

Nobody said that Bush was responsible for global climate changes, but that he's not doing anything about it now, whereas a majority of other nations in the world are trying to.

wkmen

Olympus SP-570 UZ

02/26/2004 10:33:08 PM · #20

What majority of nations?
China, Argentina, Mexico, Chile, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, India, Russia?
No, no, no, no, etc.

Then again, look at the volume of detritus that a single volcano throws into the atmosphere - Thera pre-historically, Krakatoa in recorded history, Pinatubo and Mt St Helens a couple of decades ago. Much more than "we" produce over many years totalled. Did the climate change catastrophically? Nope.

Should we reduce our volumes pollution? Yup, and "we" are - look at any river in the US now, or the Great Lakes, and compare it to 30, 50 or 70 years ago. Drive through manufacturing cities and do you wish you could hold your breath for 30 minutes, like we used to wish 30 and 40 years ago?

Now, we're not perfect, but just because we don't sign up to a treaty that confiscates unrelated tax money and gives it as grants to others, we are "anti-environment"? That's just crazy. The proof on the ground and in the air, in the USA, is that things have gotten a whole lot better since the mid-70's. Others should follow our example.

02/26/2004 10:43:00 PM · #21

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Yes, but you would go to the doctor if you were sick with a serious illness, wouldn't you?

exactly.

and nborton, yes, he does seem to have an incredible amount of power.

"absolute power corrupts absolutly"

02/26/2004 11:04:03 PM · #22

As far as natural disasters that we have no control over, well, we had a lot more forests in the past than we do now to help do the necessary biochemical air purification. In addition, those events are episodic and occur sporadically so that the biosphere has time to adapt and do it's work to make this a liveable planet.

And as far as I know, Bush is very anti environment and is trying to roll back environmental laws that have improved things, such as the Clean Air Act. I don't believe things have improved that much, because here in the northeast of the US we have a big problem with acid rain that is from the coal power plants in the midwest.

Originally posted by wkmen:

jab119

02/26/2004 11:09:09 PM · #23

The president of the US does not have that much power.....alot of people need to take a little refresher and read up on who has what power in the USA, and who controls who....

James

02/26/2004 11:12:30 PM · #24

jab, we know the pres isnt 'suppost' to have that much power, thats why its so shocking.