PDA

View Full Version : Remembering the 'Secret' Report


yass
04-03-2010, 05:56 AM
I don't know how many of you remember this. I caught it by looking for dreams... at the time I was searching out trying to find prophetic dreams because I had a prophecy thread going at a group of mine (msn groups, which have long since been closed).

It was buried hundreds, perhaps thousands of hits in the 'dream' search... and when I'd try to google it (through google news)... it absolutely just didn't appear. I saw a few stories which made mention of the "Secret Report" but they neither elucidated nor elaborated on just what that report was.

Now, you might wonder how a dream search would turn up this report? Well, it was posted at Common Dreams News Center... is how.

Published on Sunday, February 22, 2004 by the
Now the Pentagon Tells Bush:
Climate Change Will Destroy Us
Secret Report Warns of Rioting and Nuclear War; Threat to the World is Greater than Terrorism
by Mark Townsend and Paul Harris in New York


Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters..

Key findings of the Pentagon Report
· Future wars will be fought over the issue of survival rather than religion, ideology or national honor.

· By 2007 violent storms smash coastal barriers rendering large parts of the Netherlands inhabitable. Cities like The Hague are abandoned. In California the delta island levees in the Sacramento river area are breached, disrupting the aqueduct system transporting water from north to south.

· Between 2010 and 2020 Europe is hardest hit by climatic change with an average annual temperature drop of 6F. Climate in Britain becomes colder and drier as weather patterns begin to resemble Siberia.

· Deaths from war and famine run into the millions until the planet's population is reduced by such an extent the Earth can cope.

· Riots and internal conflict tear apart India, South Africa and Indonesia.

· Access to water becomes a major battleground. The Nile, Danube and Amazon are all mentioned as being high risk.

· A 'significant drop' in the planet's ability to sustain its present population will become apparent over the next 20 years.

· Rich areas like the US and Europe would become 'virtual fortresses' to prevent millions of migrants from entering after being forced from land drowned by sea-level rise or no longer able to grow crops. Waves of boatpeople pose significant problems.

· Nuclear arms proliferation is inevitable. Japan, South Korea, and Germany develop nuclear-weapons capabilities, as do Iran, Egypt and North Korea. Israel, China, India and Pakistan also are poised to use the bomb.

· By 2010 the US and Europe will experience a third more days with peak temperatures above 90F. Climate becomes an 'economic nuisance' as storms, droughts and hot spells create havoc for farmers.

· More than 400m people in subtropical regions at grave risk.

· Europe will face huge internal struggles as it copes with massive numbers of migrants washing up on its shores. Immigrants from Scandinavia seek warmer climes to the south. Southern Europe is beleaguered by refugees from hard-hit countries in Africa.

· Mega-droughts affect the world's major breadbaskets, including America's Midwest, where strong winds bring soil loss.

· China's huge population and food demand make it particularly vulnerable. Bangladesh becomes nearly uninhabitable because of a rising sea level, which contaminates the inland water supplies.
A secret report, suppressed by US defense 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 defense is a priority.

The report was commissioned by influential Pentagon defense 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 Defense 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 Center 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 defense 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 Defense's push on ballistic-missile defense

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 skeptically in the Oval Office. 'This administration is ignoring the evidence in order to placate a handful of large energy and oil companies,' he added.

[url]http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0222-01.htm (]Observer/UK[/url)

yozhik
04-03-2010, 06:24 AM
Among the key findings;
· Between 2010 and 2020 Europe is hardest hit by climatic change with an average annual temperature drop of 6F. Climate in Britain becomes colder and drier as weather patterns begin to resemble Siberia.

... and yet we have Copenhagen and the Al Gore et all circus, screaming at us to pay more taxes to prevent warming??

:mad:




EDIT
It does, however, go some way to explaining the New World Airport in Denver - 17 years in the making and a $4.5bn over budget spending spree - for an airport that, prima facie, was never needed and in an area that renders it useless because of high winds, utilising technology that has no relevance to current airport requirements [kevlar roof designed by NASA costing over $1bn, fuel lines capable of pumping 1000 gallons/min, labyrinth of conveyor belt system [19 miles of it] and cargo delivery on a scale never seen before at a regular airport, fibre optic communications core made of 5,300 miles of cable]

pi3141
04-03-2010, 06:33 AM
'Symons said the Bush administration's close links to high-powered energy and oil companies was vital in understanding why climate change was received skeptically in the Oval Office. 'This administration is ignoring the evidence in order to placate a handful of large energy and oil companies,' he added'

Its crazy isn't it, ok the science on warming is in debate - among some, but twice presidents have ignored warnings from their own people. Once by Reagan and the Jason study on climate change and also Bush.

What do we pay them for? The world has obviously been affected by pollution and they sit by and do nothing just to placate big business.

Crimes against humanity.

pi3141
04-03-2010, 06:36 AM
EDIT
It does, however, go some way to explaining the New World Airport in Denver - 17 years in the making and a $4.5bn over budget spending spree - for an airport that, prima facie, was never needed and in an area that would render it useless because of high winds, utilising technology that has no relevance to current airport requirements [kevlar roof designed by NASA costing over $1bn, fuel lines capable of pumping 1000 gallons/sec, labyrinth of conveyor belt system and cargo delivery on a scale never seen before at a regular airport]


I just watched the Rabbit Hole, Lucas at Brave New Books vids posted by another member. It does make you wonder - the world doomsday seed bank. Why build it if we don't need it. Somethings up.

yozhik
04-03-2010, 06:49 AM
I just watched the Rabbit Hole, Lucas at Brave New Books vids posted by another member. It does make you wonder - the world doomsday seed bank. Why build it if we don't need it. Somethings up.

Yep.
Watched it too.

Raises more than an eyebrow!
... and begs that exact [simple and obvious] question;
Why build it if we don't need it.

Or, to ask it another [simple] way, which may get some interesting answers;
What, exactly, do we need it for?

pi3141
04-03-2010, 07:04 AM
Or, to ask it another [simple] way, which may get some interesting answers;
What, exactly, do we need it for?

Yep, thats the question.

passing
04-03-2010, 08:02 AM
Yep, thats the question.

Isn't it supposed to be in case foods get bad mutations/diseases and become useless or dangerous?

Sounds like planning for post-apocalypse too, though...

pi3141
04-03-2010, 09:14 AM
Isn't it supposed to be in case foods get bad mutations/diseases and become useless or dangerous?

I guess thats what they say its supposed to be for, how would foods get bad mutations? GM cross fertilisation? Pollution, poisons and pesticides? Or just an act of nature?

So perhaps they are saying we need a back up in case they mess it all up?

Why does it need to be underground in a hollowed out mountain in Norway, a small inaccesible country, which may be more inaccessible if there is a global catastrophe. Why not just keep them in a newly built wing at Kew gardens or something?

passing
04-03-2010, 09:34 AM
I guess thats what they say its supposed to be for, how would foods get bad mutations? GM cross fertilisation? Pollution, poisons and pesticides? Or just an act of nature?

So perhaps they are saying we need a back up in case they mess it all up?

Why does it need to be underground in a hollowed out mountain in Norway, a small inaccesible country, which may be more inaccessible if there is a global catastrophe. Why not just keep them in a newly built wing at Kew gardens or something?

There are smaller versions dotted around... there's an organic garden centre which stores and sells seeds not far from me...

I'm not able to rule out some kind of sinister future plan, but over time pesticides change as pests change, and yes hybrid and GM plants are around... I suppose there's an influence from radiation, have you seen pictures of the weird things around Chernobyl?

Have you heard about the banana situation? I can't remember the time-scale but fairly recently the main strain of banana exported around the world became unuseable and they had to choose a more resistant but less tasty strain... Mass-production has dangers...

informationx
04-03-2010, 09:43 AM
These guys are rather inconsistent lol

· Between 2010 and 2020 Europe is hardest hit by climatic change with an average annual temperature drop of 6F. Climate in Britain becomes colder and drier as weather patterns begin to resemble Siberia.

· By 2010 the US and Europe will experience a third more days with peak temperatures above 90F. Climate becomes an 'economic nuisance' as storms, droughts and hot spells create havoc for farmers.

nicolaj
04-03-2010, 10:03 AM
These guys are rather inconsistent lol

· Between 2010 and 2020 Europe is hardest hit by climatic change with an average annual temperature drop of 6F. Climate in Britain becomes colder and drier as weather patterns begin to resemble Siberia.

· By 2010 the US and Europe will experience a third more days with peak temperatures above 90F. Climate becomes an 'economic nuisance' as storms, droughts and hot spells create havoc for farmers.

I noticed that also

:rolleyes:

yass
15-12-2010, 09:17 PM
You see the goverments don't plan on any 'end of the world in 2012'. They plan on years and years of war.

yass
15-12-2010, 09:42 PM
This is strange. I thought I'd bumped this from Earth Changes.:confused:

Oh, well... :o:rolleyes:

gestaltdude
16-12-2010, 12:37 AM
Its crazy isn't it, ok the science on warming is in debate - among some, but twice presidents have ignored warnings from their own people. Once by Reagan and the Jason study on climate change and also Bush.

What do we pay them for? The world has obviously been affected by pollution and they sit by and do nothing just to placate big business.

Crimes against humanity.

The governments always commission studies then ignroe them when the results dont turn out the way they want. half the time the result is built in at the beginning of the study, but every once in a while one will slip a real result through. Just think of the studies into the effects of marijuana, gays in the military, the AIDS studies in the early 80's. The only times these things are used is when it suits their agenda.