Im not going to make any political statements on this one. Just thought that many of you might be interested in reading the article. Most of you know from my posts I don't have any party alligience so this to me is a matter of scientific reality. Not done by political cronies, rather by the neutral arm of US defense, the Pentagon.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1153530,00.html
I think this will be filed under the title "Military Intelligence" in my filling cabinet.
Was there a picture of an alien shaking hands with Bill Clinton on the cover of that paper?
Its just a joke, please don't flame.
... aka TRASH. Yes, these dire predictions have surfacedfrom time-to-time since the end of WWII. The only news is that I'm reading it here (the last place I expected to find it).
Is that a UK publication? Are they legitimate hard news or is it from a tabloid type publication?
As i read down, I was suprised to see Peter Schwartz's name. I don't want to divulge too much about him or me, so I can keep my identity anonymous, but I did work with him quite closely in the early 90's on some scenario planning projects for a major corporation (I was the head of strategy and planning). I also have his book sitting on my shelf.
He is well known for his work in constructing scenarios for all types of buisness (he's a partner at a small consulting company that specializes in this work). So while I don't doubt the scenarios were constructed that showed all the possibilities that were mentioned, I have major doubts the reporter described them in the context with which they were presented.
Schwartz doesn't try to predict the future, he only tries to construct a framework for studying the possible outcomes the future could include. As a result, I'm highly suspect of the statement "as early as next year widespread flooding by a rise in sea level will create major upheavals for millions." He's not a meterologist and wouldn't make a statement like that. What he would do is help people work through the implications if something like that were to happen.
You may not have a political agenda in posting this, but the reporter of this study definitely did. I can assure you, the full spectrum of scenarios relating to various outcomes of global warming were considered- some benign, some catastrophic. But the reporter makes the statement that Britain will be in the Ice Age by 2020. That's just not the way studies like that are conducted, nor the conclusions reached.
I'm sure there was a scenario studied that included what some scientists fear could be a stopping of the gulf stream if polar ice caps melt to the point of reducing the salinity of the Atlantic, which is part of what drives the stream (a type of convection process in the North Atlantic that keeps the flow going). IF that happens, then yes, England would freeze. But scnearios don't predict it will happen, they just study the possible range of consequences if certain things DO happen.
Scenarios also aren't scientific studies, even though they can use scientific evidence as a basis for the formation of the scenarios. They are planning exercises in exploring possibilities, not predicters of the future. They help people consider ramifications that may have otherwise eluded them, and by so doing, offer new perspectives and insights on how to proceed today.
So I can assure you the reporter made the story he was looking for out of this report. And he did so by ignoring the fundamental premise of the scenario creation and evaluation process.
My primary interest in the subject matter isn't that of ascertaining whether global warming in todays world is a direct result of human impact or just a natural evolutionary cycle.
Scientists from both sides have presented contrary views and my lack of scientific knowledge certainly doesn't allow for me to accept one side as absolute truth. Politics unfortunately is involved in molding the direction of this issue from both sides. That story just seemed more credible to me since it came from the Pentagon and not some political hacks and cronies trying to further an agenda.
You indicate you know some of the characters involved who may have a bias as well, and I have not reason to doubt you. Thanks for adding clarity to the subject matter.
Isn't that the same Pentagon that, together with the CIA, was so sure Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction? I seem to remember some other mistakes: Iraq wouldn't invade Kuwait; The Soviets were a fearful threat from about 1946 to about 1990.
I have a formerly secret Pentagon study dated 1989 about the dangers of the Soviet Manned Mars Landing Mission.
The Guardian is a left wing UK publication noted for its hostility to Blair, Bush, Americans, Capitalism, Technology; but maybe not sex.
As for Global Warming: In spite of all the propaganda there's no scientific consensus that Global Warming is occurring. Remember the people who tell you it’s going to be 5 degrees warmer in 2100 can’t get the temperature right for next week.
If global warming is occurring, there’s no consensus that people are the reason, as opposed to something like the sun is getting hotter. We’re pretty sure the sun is getting hotter, but over a few thousand year time span, we haven’t a clue how much hotter, or for how long. But we are pretty sure that the sun will be sufficiently hotter in a billion years or maybe sooner such that it will sterilize the Earth.
We’re pretty sure none of the proposals out there to do something about global warming—like the Kyoto Treaty—will really make any difference. Even the proponents say, "At least it's a start."
If global warming does occur, there’s no consensus that this will be a bad thing. Maybe the effect will be to stave off the coming Ice Age. Ice Ages started occurring only about three million years ago because the Earth has been getting cooler. Why? We are clueless. The Earth didn’t have polar caps only 30 million years ago, and got on just fine.
Today the Earth is clearly too cold for life. Tens of millions of square kilometers of the Earth’s surface are lifeless because of cold. But, every increase in temperature (holding the amount of water constant) results in an increase in the quantity and variety of life. And higher temperatures increase evaporation from the oceans and raise the amount of water available for life on a global basis.
This scientific problem, which could be of great significance, has been politicized to such an extent that it’s hard to see the facts for the hyperbole. The Guardian article, and others of its elk of which there are far too many, are a real disservice to development of public understanding of these issues.
How cold is it?
Cheers!
The author, based on my experience with him, isn't inherently biased. His objective is to work through possible outcomes by going down the various possible paths.
Scenarios aren't low-medium-high sort of case studies, rather, they are groupings of things that are likely to happen toegether, or in some cases, unlikely to happen together, but still worth considering as possible paths to the future.
If the French had used scenario planning during the 1930's when they were planning the Maginot Line, for example, they would have considered the scenario "What if Hitler just goes around it?" Instead, they only considered the various questions of how big a force might they have to face, all coming from the same direction, and having to go through the Maginot Line to get to Paris. Wrong question, wrong plan, wrong result. Sadly, the term, "thinking outside of the box" hadn't been invented yet, and the French made assumptions that fit nicely with the paradigm of the French power establishment of the time.
So the point of these studies is not to predict, but to prepare. That's why the author, Schwartz, was undoubtedly neutral as he did this study, but the reporter cherry-picked the findings to present HIS agenda.
the French did consider that scenario. At the point where the Germans attacked if I remember correctly they had to bring up their troops through mountaineous terrain with no primary and few secondary roads and then cross a major river into French territory. The French analysis was that even if the Germans brought up troops they couldn't cross the river without artillery support. They couldn't bring up the artillery without being detected by the French giving the French plenty of time to bring up reinforcements. The Germans brought up their troops. They didn't bring up artillery. They called for the Stukas (dive bombers). The French had failed to consider the possibility of what came to be called blitzkrieg (literally "lighting war"): the close support of ground troops with air power. Considering a scenario doesn't mean that you will get it right.
In a similar fashion most Americans think we were the first with the hydrogen bomb. In fact we were the first to explode a hydrogen device, but it was a big as a house and the physicists concluded that there was no way to shrink it down to something that could be carried by an airplane. Then the Russians dropped one from a plane. Whoops! Back to the drawing board. I think it was Teller who discovered where we went wrong the first time.
In both cases, "It isn't what you don't know that hurts you. It's what you know that ain't so."
-- Modified on 2/23/2004 10:55:00 PM
Mathesar is correct that it was the advent of the "blitzkrieg" in WWII that permitted the Germans to successfully attack France by first invading the Belgian and Dutch lowlands.
The strategy of this two-front war was initially developed by Count Alfred von Schlieffen, who proposed an essentially defensive force (left flank) on the Franco-Germany border, and a strong offensive force on the right flank that would first cross the lowlands, and then wheel around to encircle Paris. Supposedly, von Schlieffen's last words on his death bed were to "keep the right wing strong". Von Schlieffen's plan was actually implemented by Germany during World War I, to disasterous results leading to extensive trench warfare which the German's ultimately lost.
Since Generals always prepare to fight the last war, the French could hardly be faulted for not recognizing that the novel use of the "blitzkrieg" in WWII would successfully empower the original von Schlieffen strategem. No more than the German's could envision that the Allies' improvements on the Nazi's "blitzkrieg" techniques would eventually seal their doom.
One should also note that our yearly spending of $300+ billion per year on defense (mostly against a Soviet enemy that no longer exists) did not prepare us on 9/11 for a successful attack from a real enemy. It's always the unexpected that trips you up.
-- Modified on 2/24/2004 6:40:59 AM
-- Modified on 2/24/2004 6:45:57 AM
You do scenario planning so you WON'T be fighting the last war. The failures of the French in this regard were the failures of planning.
Yes, planning for Stukas, which were already five years old, had been used in war, and were nearly obsolete by the beginning of hostilities. And planning for Blitzkreig, which while new in concept, was now a possibility due to the advances in technology.
Scenarios are about exploring the possibilities- even the ones that seem unlikely. Blitzkreig was a tactic, going through a soverign nation was a strategy. Both were possibilites that should have been foreseen in the planning process. Why? Because even though they hadn't happened, doesn't mean they couldn't happen- especially when the technolgy already existed.
Debating this wasn't the point of my post. I was trying to use an example to explain the purpose of scenarios.
Forest/trees- think about it.
Sorry Cogito, I wasn't responding to your post, only Mathesar's.
Now that's an oxymoron. You do realize that a large portion of the military leans towards the right, don't you? Republicans far outnumber Democrats. The Pentagon reflects that as well.
Wow. Neutral arm of US defense. I haven't chuckled that hard in a long time!
I didn't realize how funny that would sound until you mentioned it
I stated neutral because the contents of this issue have always been discarded by people as diatribes of the extremist left. The Pentagon putting out such a report led me to believe that this was objective analysis. Certainly the Pentagon is not a left leaning groupI would expect such a report from Greenpeace headquarters and not from the Pentagon.
I am not a scientist so I don't know with certainty who is right either way. Which is why an article coming from the Pentagon on an environmental issue makes it seem more believable.
It's literally like Greenpeace endorsing the oil industry's fidnings on the environment. You can imagine the shockwaves that would cause
...I read a scientific article that stated that temperate periods proceed an ice age. If that is true, then it would be interesting to contemplate what impact a coming ice age would have upon the earth and it's inhabitants. Could nature be set to clean up all of the mess that we have made???
-- Modified on 2/23/2004 4:14:44 PM
I've been sipping Stoli O of late but prefer Kettle for my tini.
Olives of course!...I'm one of those guys who likes Vodka with my olives.
Cheers!!
with this Doom and gloom news....We might have to start up some new subject matter...BOOZE!
I'll drink to that but then again I'll drink to just about anything.
-- Modified on 2/23/2004 4:31:56 PM
I say ole' chap,I'm for happy endings and I prefer my Beefeater martini, shaken not stirred, and always "half full"
Tally-Ho!
The important quote from the article to note is:
--------------
The result is an unclassified report, completed late last year, that the Pentagon has agreed to share with FORTUNE. It doesn't pretend to be a forecast. Rather, it sketches a dramatic but plausible scenario to help planners think about coping strategies. Here is an abridged version:
--------------
Mathesar
It seems to me there is a confluence of forces that are of real concern: population growth and increase of consumer demand as 3rd world countries gain wealth, environmental impact of these new consumer cultures, proliferating technology of weaponry, disparity of wealth, genetic engineering, nanotechnology. These just can't be swept aside as the ravings of liberals - not by thinking people.
We have limited background in managing forces of this power, and this is the concern I have: we're outgrowning our wisdom. Our political and social systems change slowly, but technology and populations don't.
The scenario of climate change is not just a problem because of the climate change, but because there are lots of very big weapons running around. How do we control them? Can we control them?
I wish I believed otherwise, but I think the 21st century is going to be a very difficult time.
The poem is particularly chilling when read in the context of the world situation today.
You have just made a very intelligent, thorough, acute, and deep analysis of very complex changes taking place around the world. Brilliantly, you said "we're outgrowing our wisdom." That just about captures the essence of modern day reality.
Had you said that all you liberals are immoral, socialist, degenerate, communist lovers or said to the opposing side that all of you are right-wing, extremist, evil, backward fanatics, then you would have the masses following you. Unemotional and unbiased thought in todays society is equivalent to showing a vampire the cross
These days the only viable arguments are that all you liberals are commie socialists and all you republicans are backward fanatics. To move the argument beyond that would be like moving Mt. Everest. Good luck
(Someone please tell him that I refuse to quit I'm too legit to spit.)
This month is going to be good.
Cuz those other centuries were all so easy peasy....!?!
Just a joke