Jump to content

Climate Change Hoax or Nah?


Kults

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Kults said:

Britain in Siberian climate by 2020 y’all

 

Maybe the Doomsday cult was right about the Hale-Bop comet too! 

 

 

 

CE01C71D-1E3D-43B4-9827-53401D92447C.jpeg

Actually published: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver

 

Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us

This article is more than 15 years old

· Secret report warns of rioting and nuclear war
· Britain will be ‘Siberian’ in less than 20 years
· Threat to the world is greater than terrorism

 

Pentagon outside Washington, DC (Photo by SAUL LOEB / AFP) Pentagon outside Washington, DC (Photo by SAUL LOEB / AFP) Photograph: Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images

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.

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.

Last week the Bush administration came under heavy fire from a large body of respected scientists who claimed that it cherry-picked science to suit its policy agenda and suppressed studies that it did not like. Jeremy Symons, a former whistleblower at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), said that suppression of the report for four months was a further example of the White House trying to bury the threat of climate change.

Senior climatologists, however, believe that their verdicts could prove the catalyst in forcing Bush to accept climate change as a real and happening phenomenon. They also hope it will convince the United States to sign up to global treaties to reduce the rate of climatic change.

A group of eminent UK scientists recently visited the White House to voice their fears over global warming, part of an intensifying drive to get the US to treat the issue seriously. Sources have told The Observer that American officials appeared extremely sensitive about the issue when faced with complaints that America's public stance appeared increasingly out of touch.

One even alleged that the White House had written to complain about some of the comments attributed to Professor Sir David King, Tony Blair's chief scientific adviser, after he branded the President's position on the issue as indefensible.

Among those scientists present at the White House talks were Professor John Schellnhuber, former chief environmental adviser to the German government and head of the UK's leading group of climate scientists at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. He said that the Pentagon's internal fears should prove the 'tipping point' in persuading Bush to accept climatic change.

Sir John Houghton, former chief executive of the Meteorological Office - and the first senior figure to liken the threat of climate change to that of terrorism - said: 'If the Pentagon is sending out that sort of message, then this is an important document indeed.'

Bob Watson, chief scientist for the World Bank and former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, added that the Pentagon's dire warnings could no longer be ignored.

'Can Bush ignore the Pentagon? It's going be hard to blow off this sort of document. Its hugely embarrassing. After all, Bush's single highest priority is national defence. The Pentagon is no wacko, liberal group, generally speaking it is conservative. If climate change is a threat to national security and the economy, then he has to act. There are two groups the Bush Administration tend to listen to, the oil lobby and the Pentagon,' added Watson.

'You've got a President who says global warming is a hoax, and across the Potomac river you've got a Pentagon preparing for climate wars. It's pretty scary when Bush starts to ignore his own government on this issue,' said Rob Gueterbock of Greenpeace.

Already, according to Randall and Schwartz, the planet is carrying a higher population than it can sustain. 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.

Randall told The Observer that the potential ramifications of rapid climate change would create global chaos. 'This is depressing stuff,' he said. 'It is a national security threat that is unique because there is no enemy to point your guns at and we have no control over the threat.'

Randall added that it was already possibly too late to prevent a disaster happening. 'We don't know exactly where we are in the process. It could start tomorrow and we would not know for another five years,' he said.

'The consequences for some nations of the climate change are unbelievable. It seems obvious that cutting the use of fossil fuels would be worthwhile.'

So dramatic are the report's scenarios, Watson said, that they may prove vital in the US elections. Democratic frontrunner John Kerry is known to accept climate change as a real problem. Scientists disillusioned with Bush's stance are threatening to make sure Kerry uses the Pentagon report in his campaign.

The fact that Marshall is behind its scathing findings will aid Kerry's cause. Marshall, 82, is a Pentagon legend who heads a secretive think-tank dedicated to weighing risks to national security called the Office of Net Assessment. Dubbed 'Yoda' by Pentagon insiders who respect his vast experience, he is credited with being behind the Department of Defence's push on ballistic-missile defence.

Symons, who left the EPA in protest at political interference, said that the suppression of the report was a further instance of the White House trying to bury evidence of climate change. 'It is yet another example of why this government should stop burying its head in the sand on this issue.'

Symons said the Bush administration's close links to high-powered energy and oil companies was vital in understanding why climate change was received sceptically in the Oval Office. 'This administration is ignoring the evidence in order to placate a handful of large energy and oil companies,' he added.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.

This was researched in the mid-late 2000s and they were right, the Southern Annual Mode has paired with the Indian Ocean Dipole creating dry winters and increasingly hot summers in Australia. Now we are burning and as of today, Canberra, the capital of Australia has the worst air quality of any city in the world.

 

 

 

Anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases have driven and will continue to drive widespread climate change at the Earth’s surface. But surface climate change is not limited to the effects of increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. Anthropogenic emissions of ozone-depleting gases also lead to marked changes in surface climate, through the radiative and dynamical effects of the Antarctic ozone hole. The influence of the Antarctic ozone hole on surface climate is most pronounced during the austral summer season and strongly resembles the most prominent pattern of large-scale Southern Hemisphere climate variability, the Southern Annular Mode. The influence of the ozone hole on the Southern Annular Mode has led to a range of significant summertime surface climate changes not only over Antarctica and the Southern Ocean, but also over New Zealand, Patagonia and southern regions of Australia. Surface climate change as far equatorward as the subtropical Southern Hemisphere may have also been affected by the ozone hole. Over the next few decades, recovery of the ozone hole and increases in greenhouse gases are expected to have significant but opposing effects on the Southern Annular Mode and its attendant climate impacts during summer.

 

Full article here: https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo1296.epdf?referrer_access_token=C0xlCJQ59k4jKget0jah79RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0MdEGsHzwtY-DZofNG_AxjXBq8p6BXRxguBmEup-ln0aFmJqH8D9gUQ3AFcr3qjks0HkPfEY60my9CX8dw3nWPUlhAaqFbOyN-_IgTi1gaislF3SG_clQXtyVm7FMrsNqhPaUdWoQ3PoLCs2Ik1E4MOOFyw7w-LG4ujGjI7scA4rbCCW4FRv-thbr44YqnSvldWMqop2xh8F58A9q0cFZx-A0AbAKBIVkciUOGcP_VZc9RGPuTWoP3AXCunkOeq2QU%3D&tracking_referrer=blogs.scientificamerican.com

 

 

Shorter, less complex non-scholarly article here:

Australia’s Angry Summer: This Is What Climate Change Looks Like

The catastrophic fires raging across the southern half of the continent are largely the result of rising temperatures

 

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/australias-angry-summer-this-is-what-climate-change-looks-like/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Map of Australian bushfires today:

 

image.png.808ba620856b032f94a0130d89753db3.png

 

 

California's largest fire is about 750,000 hectares.

 

We're at 5 million hectares so far.

 

We are told that Saturday is going to eclipse the catastrophic conditions we've seen so far this season.

 

Peak fire season in Australia is January and February.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an environmental scientist responding to the claims all over Australia right now that "the greenies are stopping the precautionary burnoff of bushlands in winter because of ideology". Feel free to look the guy up if you have any doubt about him or his claims: https://www.npr.org/2020/01/02/793134288/the-state-of-wildfires-raging-across-australia

 

 

 
I see that the #AustraliaBurning crisis has officially reached the 'drink uncle' stage, where people loudly proclaim that we could have avoided all of this if 'the greens' hadn't stopped hazard reduction. Which is weird for a bunch of reasons
 
Unlike approx 100% of these muppets, I actually work in the field, have done for more than a decade. In that time I have worked on projects that: - upgraded 70km+ of fire trails - cleared firebreaks for 300+ School Bushfire shelters - lots of Asset Protection Zones
 
I normally work next to env assets - Canberra water catchments, national parks, etc But my favorite was a school bushfire shelter design that needed to thin forest that was habitat for the Eltham Copper Butterfly (pic from https://abc.net.au/science/scribblygum/june2003/)
 
So did this all-powerful cabal of greenies stop us from protecting a critical safety asset? Fuck no. This is life safety for school kids. We were able to selectively thin the shrub layer to retain their habitat, but there was definitely an impact.
 
I keep hearing people talk about how the RFS cannot do hazard reduction burns because of all the paperwork. I have done some of this paperwork in the past. It is overwhelmingly about safety. Our window to safely burn is rapidly diminishing. Yes, this is climate change.
 
This is a beautiful Hyacinth orchid [there's a pic of a flower] growing in an Asset Protection Zone I was assessing recently. Did I sign the death warrant for this delightful forest friend? You bet your ass I did - there are houses 30 metres away, and this an existing APZ.
 
Will these mythical 'green police' force stop me? Nope. Under a Bushfire Hazard Reduction Certificate works are exempt from environmental legislation. Almost every state has a cut-out like this. Bushfire safety works literally switch off all of this 'green tape'.
 
So in over ten years of upgrading bushfire infrastructure I have never been stopped from implementing life safety. These people telling you about the all-powerful greenies are generally two things: - climate denying bullshit artists - after something else (land clearing etc)
 
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing about this post is not the whole "OMG climate change is real" thing. It's about how people can make up utter bullshit to satisfy their hating and other lazy cunts on the internet - who get off on blaming other people because makes them feel like the smart guy in the room - repeat that bullshit without having any idea WTF they're talking about.

 

It's just so fucking internet.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/3/2020 at 7:18 AM, Hua Guofang said:

It's just so fucking internet.

This seems to be your new go to. 

 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/03/climate/trump-nepa-climate-change.html

 

Quote

WASHINGTON — Federal agencies would no longer have to take climate change into account when they assess the environmental impacts of highways, pipelines and other major infrastructure projects, according to a Trump administration plan that would weaken the nation’s benchmark environmental law.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Dirty_habiT said:

Man that baby kangaroo photo is pretty sad if it's real.  😕  It looks real.

It is, the devastation to wildlife is immeasurable.

 

The fire fighters and people going back to their properties tell of the psychological trauma of hearing burned animals screaming. Either as their burning or after fire has passed and they're too injured to move but not to die quickly. It's a fucking nightmare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kults said:

Untitled.jpg

 

Yup, and because we are in the worst drought on record, caused by weather conditions that - as I've documented up the page if you ever want to consider reading has possibly been due to human induced changes in the arctic - means that the fires have been so large and widespread.

 

You don't really think the argument is that climate change started all the fires, do you? The scientists have been saying for decades that CC will make our fire season longer and more intense. And it has.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.cato.org/blog/one-statistic-climate-catastrophists-dont-want-you-know

 

Quote

Climate change is a constant of nature and everyone agrees that fossil fuels have some impact on our naturally variable, volatile, and often vicious climate.

The question is whether it will have a catastrophic impact—one so bad it justifies restricting the only practical way to get energy in the foreseeable future to the 3 billion people who have next to none of it: fossil fuels. (No country relies on the sun and wind for energy, but rich countries can afford to pay tens or hundreds of billions to install and accommodate allegedly virtuous wind turbines and solar panels on their grids.)

The real issue is climate catastrophe. I’m not a climate-change skeptic. I’m a climate catastrophe skeptic—and here’s one graph that shows why you should be, too.

No, it’s not showing temperatures have gone up half a degree in the 80 years we’ve used a lot of fossil fuels, which is barely more than they went up the prior 80 years. Nor does it show temperatures have flattened in the past eighteen years—while  the world’s leading climate catastrophists predicted dramatic, accelerating, runaway warming.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Hua Guofang said:

It is, the devastation to wildlife is immeasurable.

 

The fire fighters and people going back to their properties tell of the psychological trauma of hearing burned animals screaming. Either as their burning or after fire has passed and they're too injured to move but not to die quickly. It's a fucking nightmare.

That sounds fucking terrible.  The thing that I think is unfortunate, outside of the obvious here, is that even if they can catch whoever "is responsible".... there is no amount of punishment that could make them truly pay for what was damaged.  I think this is some death sentence type shit.... for real.  Like, don't wet the sponge on the electric chair type shit.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dirty_habiT said:

That sounds fucking terrible.  The thing that I think is unfortunate, outside of the obvious here, is that even if they can catch whoever "is responsible".... there is no amount of punishment that could make them truly pay for what was damaged.  I think this is some death sentence type shit.... for real.  Like, don't wet the sponge on the electric chair type shit.

Yeah, some were lit by idiots, some dry lightening and some they don't know.

 

But there have been a bunch lit in residential areas - grass fires, essentially - by fucking loonies. Most of the people who do light these fires are clearly suffering from psych issues when you see them in person. There are always the instances where its some volunteer fire fighters that light the fire so they can fight it (be needed, part of a team, whatever). That shit is not just a rumour, they arrest people like that almost yearly.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Hua Guofang said:

There are always the instances where its some volunteer fire fighters that light the fire so they can fight it (be needed, part of a team, whatever). That shit is not just a rumour, they arrest people like that almost yearly.


Yep, 24 people arrested for lighting fires so far this season, most are probably just idiots who ignored total fire bans and lit bbqs or something stupid
but the volunteer fire fighters who do it deliberately would have to be the worst, absolute scum, they've already caught one this year who apparently lit seven fires just so he could go back and fight them
Some sort of fucked up hero complex.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/nov/27/teenage-volunteer-firefighter-charged-with-arson-alleged-to-have-lit-seven-nsw-bushfires

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fire chief is repeating what the scientists have been saying, climate change makes longer, hotter summers and increases the impact of bushfires.

 

 

 

Fire Chief Shane Fitzsimmons dismisses Sen. Barnaby Joyce's claim bushfires caused by 'green caveats'

https://7news.com.au/sunrise/on-the-show/shane-fitzsimmons-dismisses-barnaby-joyces-claims-bushfires-caused-by-green-caveats-c-637354

 

New South Wales Rural Fire Service boss Shane Fitzsimmons has shot down Barnaby Joyce's claim that 'green caveats' stopped his team from conducting hazard reduction burns, leading to the bushfire crisis.

In an appearance on Sunrise, the former National party leader blamed environmental groups and red tape for allowing a build up of 'fuel' in national parks and bushland.

However RFS Commissioner Shane Fitzsimmons told Sam and Kochie that was not the case.

"We are environmentally conscious and law-abiding, but I've got to say, the environmental clearances are not our problem."

"Our biggest challenge with hazard reduction burning is the weather and the windows available to do it safely and effectively. "

Mr Fitzsimmons also said that climate change had contributed to the unprecedented number of blazes burning across Australia this season.

"There's no doubt that we see longer, hotter fire seasons, which correlate with shorter periods where you would typically get your safest period for burning," he said.

"As a society we've gotta to have a meaningful argument about what it mean to hazard reduce and manage risk."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...