Interesting how the term has changed from "Global warming" to 
"Climate change", at least in the US. That was partly a sort of 
imposed euphemism by the Bush Administration, when they could bring 
themselves to mention it at all, when various official reports could 
no longer be suppressed and so on. And now "Climate change" seems to 
mean a sudden Ice Age rather than a Greenhouse Effect, especially 
with Hollywood chucking its weight in with this apparently very silly 
movie. The Pentagon report focused more on possible abrupt effects of 
climate change, not necessarily that such effects were more likely 
but that they could be more catastrophic and more difficult to plan 
for. A new Ice Age is one possible scenario; it starts off with 
rising temperatures anyway, as does Global Warming, but which it will 
be is not yet certain. Both at the same time? I don't think so.

Anyway, both the Observer report and associated reports have been 
posted previously (no reason not to do it again though):
Weathering the Crisis - World Bank, Pentagon: global warming red alert
Pentagon Goes Crazy for Massive Climate Change

This is part of a previous discussion here, between me and MM, which 
you might find interesting:

>>Interestingly, as a followup, the one response I got there was that
>>the possibility of global cooling is not getting enough attention.
>>The author nearly descended into vituperation (obviously my little
>>post must have been super-provocative), though that was not directed
>>precisely against me either.
>That was the view in the late 60s, and indeed much earlier, up to as 
>much as a century ago I think. Since the early 1980s at least more 
>and better data, better ways of crunching it, further studies, have 
>increasingly indicated the opposite, now overwhelmingly so. I don't 
>think global cooling has been entirely disproved, but it's heavily 
>In 1982 a book appeared called The Survival of Civilization, written 
>by a strange person named John D. Hamaker, which predicted global 
>cooling. He paints a picture of rising CO2 levels triggering a 
>sudden and catastrophic ice age. He sees it as a regular phenomenon, 
>tracing it back through the last 17 ice ages, or something like 
>that. The mechanism is that the topsoil runs out of minerals, 
>leading to a decrease in the amount of biomass and a consequent 
>release of CO2 into the atmosphere, which at first triggers warming 
>and then an ice age. The ice grinds up a huge amount of surface rock 
>into dust, as glaciers do but on a much vaster scale, finally 
>retreating to leave a remineralised soil behind via the rock dust. 
>It's quite a persuasive picture, and he does have his evidence for 
>it. He reckons this time we've simply hastened the onset of the 
>process with our fossil-fuel CO2 releases. He also proposes 
>arresting the process by remineralising the land worldwide with rock 
>dust. He even designed a handy machine to grind up rocks on the spot.
>I read the book at the time (a convert friend sent it to me). It's a 
>cranky book but there's quite a lot of sense in it, particularly 
>about soil mineralisation, but I didn't accept the main conclusion 
>that a rapid transition to a new ice-age was imminent: "The broad 
>truth is that without radical and immediate reform (particularly in 
>this nation [the US]), civilization will be wrecked by 1990 and 
>extinct by 1995." Well, maybe he just got the timing wrong. Or was 
>he right and we just didn't notice? :-)
>He was ignored by the science community (which probably means he's 
>either a misguided nut or a great prophet). And now it's become a 
>bit of a cult book on the Internet, bad timing notwithstanding.
>You can find it online (pdf) here, FWIW:
>or here:
>So we'll fry or we'll freeze, or something. But certainly something. 
>And it definitely makes sense to cut the fossil fuels, but fast.
>>I'll try to keep an eye on various opinions as to climate change and
>>form my own opinions, (though I'm generally of the working view that
>>there seems to be enough evidence of man-induced change to warrant
>>action immediately), but it just seems to be this very very very
>>touchy area.
>>A lot of the touchy part is that many anti-environmentalists are
>>convinced that environmentalists have, for centuries, been using
>>concerns about this or that "threat" as a pretext for an
>>anti-industrial agenda.
>There is such a history. During the so-called industrial revolution 
>in Britain the industrialists (upstarts) were pitted against the 
>land-owning class (the aristocracy, basically), and those were the 
>issues, pretty much. But I don't think it has much relevance to the 
>issues at stake today. I think there's been just too much "Wise 
>Use"-type right-wing "think-tank" spin in the US and too much 
>polarization as a result. It works very well, it's almost impossible 
>to have a sensible discussion (we've seen it here, often), and with 
>the row raging on and attention successfully diverted, "business as 
>usual" is just so much easier.
>>But for me, I'm willing to grant that.  Let's
>>say that's the history of some of the matter, for some or many
>>environmentalists, and that, furthermore, I'm not inherently
>Neither are environmentalists, by and large, though they have their 
>polarized, knee-jerk elements too, but that's more of a result than 
>a cause.
>>But so what?  Is this a scientific discussion?  Or an interpersonal
>>motivational-analysis, I want to ask them?
>Ask them! But maybe don't expect a majority of sensible answers.
>>Because I want to know
>>about global warming, real or alleged, and it's very tough to get
>>straight answers when folks are so angry.  In my view, the
>>anti-environmentalists need to stop assuming that everyone who might
>>see global warming is looking for an anti-industrial pretext.  I'm
>>just trying to pay attention to the science, as best I can, between
>>the screaming matches.
>Try to find a non-US forum, or at least a forum where Americans are 
>heavily outnumbered. That's not anti-American, it's just that 
>America, Americans, American media, have been exposed to a LOT more 
>anti-global warming and more recently anti-human caused global 
>warming anti-science and sheer BS than anyone else has. Virtually 
>everywhere else the debate is much more practical and science-based, 
>much less emotional and polarised, less side-tracked, just more 

Best wishes


>This is a subject that I have studied in the last few months.
>Climate change (will happen, but a matter of when).  This is another of
>when not if.  It has happen in the past and sign are starting to point
>to the process is already starting.  The Pentagon secret report
>l states that climate change is the greatest threat to national security
>in the 21st century, even greater than terrorism and war.  Woods Hole
>igwin.html and NASA
> are
>already mapping changes in the Gulf Stream, which could trigger a new
>ice age in Europe.  In the past this happens very quickly, minutes and
>hours not months or years.  That doesn't mean that we won't get any
>warning.  Weather doesn't happen in a blink of the eye, but an ice age
>may move very quickly, so you have to watch the weather maps.
>I think it is important to note that ice ages come and go thru out
>history with or without the help of man.  There also seems to be large
>one and small ones.  At this point there is no way to predict which the
>next one will be.
>If one hits your area you should have 3-9 months before snow and ice
>over takes the system to clean it off the roads.  So it isn't the panic
>rush that "The Day after tomorrow" pictured.  I think it will happen in
>the 3-10 year time frame instead of the 20-30 year others are saying.
>Good luck!
>Darryl Wagoner - WA1GON
>Past President - Nashua Area Radio Club
>"Evil triumphs when good men do nothing."  - Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
>Join the TrustedQSL mailing list.  An Open Source solution.
>Post message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subscribe:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>List owner:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kim & Garth Travis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2004 9:17 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: [biofuel] climate changes
> >
> > This is something I have been watching for a few years now, but I
> > completely understand what exactly is being predicted.  My
> > to
> > date is:  The earth for now is getting hotter and melting the polar
> > caps.  This is releasing tons of cold fresh water into our oceans and
> > will disrupt the various currents that move the heat from the equators
> > the poles.  Once this disruption happens, we are in an ice age and
> > quickly most of the northern hemisphere will be covered with glaciers.
> > the same time the equator regions will get extremely hot and have
> > vicious storms.  All of this is expected in the next 10 to 30
> > years.  Unless by some miracle the human race smartens up.
> >
> > So, if you were about to relocate in semi retirement, where would you
> > to try and live out your life?
> >
> > Bright Blessings,
> > Kim

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:

Biofuels list archives:

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

Reply via email to