Climate Change Threatens Global Security

dirty coalEven as the Bush government continues its criminal climate change obstruction [search], yet another U.S. institution has entered the fray regarding the seriousness of dramatically reducing carbon emissions to mitigate against the worst possible impacts of sudden or abrupt climate change. This time is is eleven former high-ranking U.S. military and international security issue specialists warning that “climate change threatens to prolong the war on terrorism and foster political instability that some governments will be unable to cope with… it has the potential to create sustained natural and humanitarian disasters on a scale far beyond those we see today.” In the United States this is likely to play itself out with severe fluctuations in water from drought to flooding. These are the sort of fighting words of apocalyptic warning that have gotten me in trouble for years in my personal writings. Through its disruption of ecological systems, economies and societies; climate change has the potential to gravely impact international security [search]. This is why on the spurring of the UK, climate change will shortly be taken up by the Security Council of the United Nation. People from Al Gore to Military personnel can see the threat to our very being, yet from 1990-2005 U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Up 16%. What a myopic, slovenly country that can know all the implications of inaction, studying them with weekly new reports of ever more detail and certainly, and yet fail so utterly to make the changes in energy sources, conservation and efficiency necessary to avert global crisis. Yet a nascent protest movement is emerging in the U.S. [more] that by taking to the streets just may be enough to stop the U.S. from hindering efforts to save the Planet.

You may also like...

11 Responses

  1. Peter Carter says:

    Hi Glenn did you get that IPCC 4 missed out Carbon Feedback entirely? which makes it all pretty useless.
    Not only that they made no mention of any non linear changes.
    Editorial: Carbon omissions 10 March 2007 From New Scientist;jsessionid=OPHOFNCLOOFE
    The Chair of IPCC WG 1 said in Paris that unless the world changed its GHG emissions we were headed for + 6.4oC by 2100
    But with carbon feed backs (inevitable now) we are headed for +8oC by 2100 if we continue with business as usual
    The graphs and model are on the Hadley Climate Center site.
    We are currently headed for + 8oC by 2100. hadleycentre/models/carbon_cycle/index.html

  2. Glenn D says:

    Dr Barry
    All indication's show that the North Atlantic current has stopped, { Rerouted ). It loop's back south check latest D.E.O.S. SCAN'S. It's northern flow is minute……… A new current direction seem's to be forming ……….. !Will it start back up ( Reroute North Again )Only time will tell……..

  3. Glenn D says:

    Dr. Barry
    Since 2004, the North Atlantic current has shut down 4 time's. 3 time's since Dec 11 2006. Before that,it completely shut down in 1200 A.D.. The start of the Little Ice Age, which lasted some 500 year's . Before that, it was some 10,000 ago. The start of the Younger Dreyus Ice Age which lasted for a thousand year's. If this year's winter, is a Bi-Product of the faltering of the North Atlantic current. Then this is the greatest threat to humanity since the beginning of time……. !

  4. Carmelo Lisciotto says:

    Dr. Barry, I'm confused as to the correlation of a potential “Little Ice Age” and climate warming?
    Carmelo Lisciotto

  5. Dan Steeves says:

    Will the people of America (not to mention other developed nations)drastically reduce the use of their automobiles and other gadgets for the sake of saving earth

  6. Joe Glass says:

    Trouble is, as highlighted by a blog I came across this week called The Difference, there are also “weekly new reports of ever more detail and certainty” that projected climate changes have been widely exaggerated and that man's contribution is but negligible – such as today's report that 3.5 million years ago the Antarctic was 2-3C warmer than today, with the ice possibly even having withdrawn onto the Antarctic landmass.

  7. Today's (Apr 22, 07) Sunday Washington Times has an Op-Ed by two scientists now working on climate change and international security at Washington DC think tanks. It ties with the IPCC, the CNA report, and Congressional hearings this week.

  8. Dzingirai Murambadoro says:

    Commenting on the protest movement that is taking to the streets:
    The idea of taking to the streets across the nation is a laudable action. At least it delivers the message to the legislators to take action which according public response is overdue. The fact that this has made sense to the ordinary man really emphasizes the gravity of the climate change issue -; we cannot keep this under the carpet anymore.
    It is critical for the US to take a lead in climate change mitigation since even some nations that have committed to cap their CO2 may get discouraged if the largest emitter is not part of whole deal. Alternatively, if the US a different approach (accommodative of the economy), it will be important to show convincing results (even in the short term) to the world that we are pulling in the same direction.
    Though the effects of climate change 'will come upon us extremely slowly' but the pace will be so fast that we will have no time for adaptive mutation to cope with the new climate world (if that will come before our extinction).
    Our legislators should be aware that soon after the 'the poorest of the poor in the world' have been hit by climate change; the next victims will obviously be the next in the hierarchy (who would have taken the place of today's poor by then).
    Now that the reality of climate change is glaring at us, wouldn't it be praiseworthy if we genuinely ask our legislators to consider promoting an efficient public transportation system the next time we take to the streets.

  9. Cranky Constitutionalist says:

    Why is it that you all feel entitled to a static global climate? There has never been a static global climate in the history of the Earth, why is it you want one now?
    RESPONSE: Cranky, do as much trolling and baiting as you want, but I encourage people to ignore you. Do you know anything about the climate change issue? It's not that we want a static climate, it is that the climate is changing many times faster than it has in the past, in a manner that is destroying ecosystems. Have you every studied any ecology to know where your food, water and air come from? Go and find some skeptics to play with, your dogmatic ignorance is not welcome here.
    Dr. Glen Barry

  10. Cranky Constitutionalist says:

    Come on Dr. Barry, if you wanted to effect a real and lasting change in GHG emissions you would be less concerned about taxes on corporations that emit GHG and more concerned about shifting our infrastructure from burning fossil fuels and alcohol to a completely GHG emissionless power source. The technology has been around for 70 years and is very mature, safe and clean. Skip the taxes, the subsidies, the clearing of rainforests to plant sugarbeats and sugarcane, the livestock feed shortages, the third world economic destruction and all the other stuff that will only delay the implementation of shifting our infrastructure to nuclear energy and H2 fuel cells. 20% of the USA's electricity comes from 102 nuclear power plants, imagine if over the last 30 years we had been building more with a goal of 600 power plants. We could have been fossil fuel free already. The only byproduct of nuclear power is a little bit of radioactive waste and residual heat. Why is NO ONE from the global warming alarmist camps talking about real change instead of taxes? There is only one answer to that question and it doesn't take a climatologist to see it. My question is the one that global warming alarmists DON'T want asked. Which is why you say I am not welcome here and call me ignorant. I say “ignorant” is treating the symptom when you have the cure in your pocket.

  11. Mike says:

    Dr. Frederick Seitz, a past president of the National Academy of Sciences, and a professor emeritus at Rockefeller University, who compiled the Oregon Petition:
    “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.