Military Report Questioning Global Warming Frightens Alarmists
If you needed any more proof climate alarmists are an extraordinarily deluded bunch that will do anything to protect their dogma, you got it Saturday when a 56-page report on military strategy incited ire because it included two paragraphs on global warming that don't perfectly fit Nobel Laureate Al Gore's agenda.
In fact, all the brouhaha was largely about one sentence: "In many respects, scientific conclusions about the causes and potential effects of global warming are contradictory."
Seems innocent enough, don't you think?
Well, not according to the Boston Globe's Bryan Bender, or any of the folks he chose to question about it:
A new US military report has come under scrutiny for asserting that the scientific data on what is causing global warming is "contradictory" - a position one leading specialist said indicates the government still hasn't fully embraced the urgency of climate change. [...]
But a section of the 56-page report on climate change and natural disasters prompted criticism yesterday from some leading specialists who said that spreading the inaccurate perception that the causes of climate change remain an open question could result in government agencies not taking the issue seriously enough.
The report, titled Joint Operating Environment 2008, states that "the impact of global warming and its potential to cause natural disasters and other harmful phenomena such as rising sea levels has become a prominent - and controversial - national and international concern. Some argue that there will be more and greater storms and natural disasters, others that there will be fewer."
It adds: "In many respects, scientific conclusions about the causes and potential effects of global warming are contradictory."
That last line in particular was singled out at a panel discussion hosted yesterday by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank, on the topic of climate change and national security.
Those interested can watch a video of this hilarious discussion here (h/t American Thinker's Marc Sheppard).
Sadly, the Globe chose only to get the opinion of alarmists:
Sharon Burke, a former Pentagon and State Department official who is now a specialist at the Center for a New American Security, said the report was factually "wrong" and "out of line," saying that there is a wide consensus that human activity, namely the production of greenhouse gases, is responsible for global warming.
Other specialists had similar reactions when they read the report.
"It's very wrong," said Kerry Emanuel, a professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology whose work was cited in the military report. "The jury is not out" on what is causing global warming, he added. "I don't know where that statement came from, but it's pretty bizarre."
Emanuel also took issue with the report's assertions about future storm intensity.
"Everyone pretty much agrees that the intensity of events could go up with global warming, although we argue how much," he said in an interview.
Well, actually, not everyone agrees with this. Not even close.
In fact, there's now over 31,000 scientists that have signed a petition questioning man's role in global warming. Unfortunately, Bender chose not to cite any of these folks.
I wonder why.
Yet, maybe more comical was how the much larger section of this report that involved the military's view of energy production went totally ignored:
To meet even the conservative growth rates posited above, global energy production would need to rise by 1.3% per year. By the 2030s, demand would be nearly 50% greater than today. To meet that demand, even assuming more effective conservation measures, the world would need to add roughly the equivalent of Saudi Arabia's current energy production very seven years. [...]
By the 2030s, oil requirements could go from 86 to 118 million barrels a day (MBD). Although the use of coal may decline in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries, it will more than double in developing nations. Fossil fuels will still make up 80% of the energy mix in the 2030s, with oil and gas comprising upwards of 60%. The central problem for the coming decade will not be a lack of petroleum reserves, but rather a shortage of drilling platforms, engineers and refining capacity. Even were a concerted effort begun today to repair that shortage, it would be ten years before production could catch up with expected demand. The key determinant here would be the degree of commitment the United States and others would display in addressing the dangerous vulnerabilities the growing energy crisis presents. [...]
None of the above provides much reason for optimism. At present, the United States possesses approximately 250 million cars, while China with its immensely larger population possesses only 40 million. The Chinese are laying down approximately 1,000 kilometers of four-lane highway every year, a figure suggesting how many more vehicles they expect to possess, with the concomitant rise in their demand for oil. The presence of Chinese "civilians" in the Sudan to guard oil pipelines underlines China's concern for protecting its oil supplies and could preview a future in which other states intervene in Africa to protect scarce resources.
The implications for future conflict are ominous. If the major developed and developing states do not undertake a massive expansion of production and refining capabilities, a severe energy crunch is inevitable. While it is difficult to predict precisely what economic, political, and strategic effects such a shortfall might produce, it surely would reduce the prospects for growth in both the developing and developed worlds. Such an economic slowdown would exacerbate other unresolved tensions, push fragile and failing states further down the path toward collapse, and perhaps have serious economic impact on both China and India. At best, it would lead to periods of harsh economic adjustment. To what extent conservation measures, investments in alternative energy production, and efforts to expand petroleum production from tar sands and shale would mitigate such a period of adjustment is difficult to predict. One should not forget that the Great Depression spawned a number of ferocious totalitarian regimes that sought economic prosperity for their nations by ruthless conquest, while Japan went to war in 1941 to secure its energy supplies.One other potential effect of an energy crunch could be a prolonged U.S. recession which could lead to deep cuts in defense spending (as happened during the Great Depression). Joint force commanders could then find their capabilities diminished at the moment they may have to undertake increasingly dangerous missions. Should that happen, adaptability would require more than preparations to fight the enemies of the United States, but also the willingness to recognize and acknowledge the limitations of America's military forces. The pooling of U.S. resources and capabilities with allies would then become even more critical. Coalition operations would become essential to protecting national interests.
So, the U.S. military believes that the expansion of oil exploration, drilling, and refining, as well as the additional production of coal and natural gas, are essential to protecting our national security interests.
Yet, the Globe completely ignored this revelation and preferred instead to focus on one sentence in this 56-page strategy analysis which said "scientific conclusions about the causes and potential effects of global warming are contradictory."
Anybody smell some hypocrisy?
After all, the key to this absurd myth is that carbon dioxide is destroying the planet. Therefore, our salvation supposedly depends on the immediate reduction in the burning of fossil fuels. However, the military views a dramatic expansion in the production of such fuels is essential to national security.
Though Burke did mention this point at Friday's conference, and, of course, disagreed with it, Bender chose not to share it with his readers.
Why? Is protecting the global warming myth more important to Bender than protecting our nation?