free html hit counter Peak Oil Debunked: 216. U.S. MILITARY PLANS FOR GLOBAL WARMING APOCALYPSE

Wednesday, January 18, 2006


The Pentagon doesn't think Lovelock's global warming die-off scenario (see #215 below) is far-fetched. In fact, they've been planning for it for a while, as reported two years ago by Arianna Huffington:
The weapon in question is a new report on the grave and gathering threat posed by global climate change - and the potentially cataclysmic consequences of the Bush administration's obstinately ignorant approach to global warming.

And the thing that makes the report so frightening - and the prospective bludgeon so crushing - is that it wasn't authored by some crunchy granola think tank or a band of tree-hugging EarthFirsters, but by the U.S. Department of Defense.

That's right, the Pentagon - Rummy's playpen. In fact, the report, which was slipped to the press earlier this month after being kept under wraps by the White House for four months, was commissioned by Andrew Marshall, a legendary DOD figure, nicknamed "Yoda" for his sagacity. As head of the Pentagon's secretive Office of Net Assessment, Marshall has offered national security assessments to every president since Richard Nixon.

And this latest assessment pegs climate change as a far greater danger than even the scourge of international terrorism.

Dryly entitled "An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security," the report reads like the plot summary of the upcoming Dennis Quaid doomsday flick, "The Day After Tomorrow," in which global warming pushes the planet to the edge of anarchy and annihilation.

But this scenario is not science fiction. According to the Pentagon study, the question is not if abrupt climate change will happen, but when. It could be, according to the report's authors, as soon as the next three years, with the most devastating fallout potentially occurring between 2010 and 2020.

At that point, we could find ourselves in the midst of a new ice age in which mega-droughts devastate the world's food supply, drinkable water becomes a luxury worth going nuclear over, 400 million people are forced to migrate from uninhabitable areas, and riots and wars for survival become commonplace.Source
Here is the pdf of the report: An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security. More background on the report is available here.

Here's an eerie prediction from the report:
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.
They just got the date and the place mixed up slightly. It actually happened in 2005, in New Orleans. Check the report out. It's a real mind-bender, especially if you've been thinking peak oil is the big threat.

Even before Katrina and Rita, the Bush administration was privately worried about accelerating global warming:
David Keith never expected to get a summons from the White House. But in September 2001, officials with the President’s Climate Change Technology Program invited him and more than two dozen other scientists to participate in a roundtable discussion called “Response Options to Rapid or Severe Climate Change.” While administration officials were insisting in public that there was no firm proof that the planet was warming, they were quietly exploring potential ways to turn down the heat.Source
Scary stuff, indeed, folks. But let's keep one thing solidly in mind: This stuff has nothing whatsoever to do with peak oil. Peak oil is just a distraction compared to drought and other deadly weather phenomena.

In upcoming posts, I will describe some techno-fixes for rapid global warming, should it occur. Lovelock says the earth is a living creature named Gaia. She's sick and breaking out in a fever. We may have to give her an aspirin.
-- by JD


At Wednesday, January 18, 2006 at 10:39:00 PM PST, Blogger The Masked Lemming said...

JD, don't go doomer on us!!! did the doomers get to you?!!! Roland, quick post something about downloading our consciousness to computers and beaming them across the galaxy so JD calms down and realizes we have perfectly vialbe mitigations strategies available to us should setting up lunar bases not be a viable alternative for billions of us!!!

If all else fails, we can tap the Dyson Sphere idea. That seemed like a reasonable one that wouldn't cost too much.


At Wednesday, January 18, 2006 at 11:27:00 PM PST, Blogger Roland said...

OK Lemming, how about this:

Is this a scary scenario? Yes.
Would it mean the end of civilization? No.
Is it the only scenario? No.
Is it the pentagon always right? No.

Definitely no to the last one.

Nanotech has a big effect on this. It will allow us to produce solar cells very, very cheaply, halting Co2 emmissions. Also, we may extract some Co2 from the atmosphere to use in manufacturing stuff (although we can also get it from acetylene, methane hydrates or good old fossil fuels).

But what with the collapse of the sunspot cycle, a halt to emmissions, possible extraction of Co2 and the fact that global warming is supposed to make some places colder anyway, I think it's likely the world will be cooler in 100 years than it is now. I'm quite serious about that, although I can imagine I'm going to get ridiculed.

At Wednesday, January 18, 2006 at 11:56:00 PM PST, Blogger The Masked Lemming said...

Roland, thnak god for nanotech. I was getting scared there for a moment but then I realized nanotechnology is going to save us. Woohoo!!!

At Thursday, January 19, 2006 at 12:19:00 AM PST, Blogger Roland said...

It's not going to save us from short term (20+ years) effects of global warming, if they exist, and it's those we should be worried about. If the gulf stream shuts down next month we're in serious trouble.

But in the longer term, it's a phantom problem. 20-30 years in the future the sunspot cycle will be collapsing, and fossil fuel burning will be reduced greatly within a short time of each other. In that sense all the climate models based on increasing use of fossil fuels are off the mark (as Quantoken would probably agree, although for different reasons).

I'll leave the minutiae of climate science to others, but I am extremely skeptical of global warming as a candidate for the end of the world. It distracts from the real problems, like poverty and misuse of advanced technologies. If the Lemming wants to get into detail on those (such as prove why Nanotech is a fantasy and won't happen for a long time, etc.), then go ahead!

At Thursday, January 19, 2006 at 12:25:00 AM PST, Blogger JD said...

Hey Lemming: What kind of guns do you got?

At Thursday, January 19, 2006 at 1:09:00 AM PST, Blogger The Masked Lemming said...

Gaia? F**K that b*tch!!! We humans rule. We'll take what we want from her and then when we're done we'll go to the moon!!! -TML

At Thursday, January 19, 2006 at 1:26:00 AM PST, Blogger Omnitir said...

… and when we get to the moon we can plant a flag as a sign of our contempt for nature! :P

But seriously, I’m with Roland on the global warming issue. I don’t think it’s an immediate thread, but more of a long term issue. I don’t think we will need to really worry about it for another few decades, by which time we will have vastly improved technology and science to deal with the problem.

But here’s the real issue: should we try to slow down, reduce greenhouse gas emissions etc. in an effort to reduce the damage we cause to the environment? The obvious answer would be yes, but it’s more complicated then that. By slowing down so to speak, we are limiting ourselves and slowing down development and progress. So if we declare a certain limit to pollution emissions, this might result in a certain technology that could be beneficial taking far longer to be developed then would otherwise happen.

An example of this is computer monitors. With the push to reduce pollution from the old CRT monitors, resources were put into making CRT’s more environmentally friendly. While this gave us cleaner CRT’s, it held off the progress of LCD’s for several years. So if we just focused of progress instead of environmentally friendly goals, we would have had the far cleaners and lower power LCD’s far sooner.

So perhaps the best thing for the environment from this point is to actually progress as fast as possible, aiming for new technologies to come online in time to save our hides?

At Thursday, January 19, 2006 at 1:28:00 AM PST, Blogger Jan-Willem Bats said...

"They just got the date and the place mixed up slightly. It actually happened in 2005, in New Orleans."

Dutch water-engineers had a good laugh at that report.

At Thursday, January 19, 2006 at 2:03:00 AM PST, Blogger Roland said...

if we declare a certain limit to pollution emissions, this might result in a certain technology that could be beneficial taking far longer to be developed then would otherwise happen.

The obvious answer is to push ahead with renewable energy. We're still using 19th century technology here, and Global Warming is a symptom of that. Let's move into the 21st century and fix the global warming problem and the technology problem at the same time.

At Thursday, January 19, 2006 at 2:03:00 AM PST, Blogger Roland said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At Thursday, January 19, 2006 at 2:04:00 AM PST, Blogger Roland said...

Gaia? F**K that b*tch!!! We humans rule. We'll take what we want from her and then when we're done we'll go to the moon!!! -TML

No offense, but can you not post these kinds of comments?

At Thursday, January 19, 2006 at 4:57:00 AM PST, Blogger JD said...

Don't sweat it Roland. The Lemming is now banned. He will be allowed to post on the topic of his gun collection, however.

At Thursday, January 19, 2006 at 6:21:00 AM PST, Blogger JD said...

Omnitir: I like your idea. You're thinking one step ahead.

At Thursday, January 19, 2006 at 1:16:00 PM PST, Blogger El Gato con Bolas said...


You are leaving the solution to the market, not more, not less.

Markets seek efficiency through price signals.

Motivation is profit.

Year after year we're polluting more and more, not less.

Profit goal doesn't need to be compatible with any other goal (e.g. GW solution).

It's an old discusion.


At Friday, January 20, 2006 at 2:13:00 AM PST, Blogger popmonkey said...

short memories perhaps? this was a huge news story 2 years ago.

after several rounds through the AP and other news networks this report turned out to be a study of a worst case scenario study that the pentagon commissioned.

the pentagon has a record of running through worst case scenarios in order to understand the various levels of preperations required. during the cold war varied global nuclear war scenarios from limited to full committment were constantly played out, for example.

here's one of the authors of the paper you quoted talking about how the paper came to be and his views of CC. i had it bookmarked :D

i personally think of climate change is the biggest problem we have today. but i don't think we're about to go through something as abrupt as this study suggested. and neither do the paper's authors.

At Friday, January 20, 2006 at 4:38:00 PM PST, Blogger Thomas said...

How strange...

The military entertained a scenario where the outcome would require a substantial increase in military spending..?

Not that I don't believe in the theory of halting the North Atlantic conveyor blet, or Dennis Quaid for that matter;-)

Abrubt and devastating climate change has happened before. Ice core measurements in Greenland show a temperature increase of 14°C (25°F) over a period of just 8 years at the end of the last ice age. However these events remain unpredictable. My position in the global warming debate is the prudent one. Is it worth lowering the risk of severe man-made climate change at the cost of only buying a new cell phone once instead of twice a year? 'Cause that's the kind of cost, we're talking about. I think so.


At Tuesday, January 31, 2006 at 2:32:00 AM PST, Blogger Override367 said...

I guess that's why they call it a "worst case" scenario, and even in this "worst case" scenario it seems the human race doesn't go extinct.

The worst case peak oil scenario is that we all die, every one of us, every man woman and child on planet earth.

BTW the pentagon also has studies on the earth being hit by asteroids, massive volcanos, california being ripped off the continent by an earthquake, the tooth fairy turning out to be a malevolent and quite real demon bent on world domination, and France declaring war on Canda.

At Wednesday, February 18, 2009 at 4:39:00 PM PST, Anonymous Anonymous said...

screw that its a stupid idea wat if u hit the moon it might blow up


Post a Comment

<< Home