[Coral-List] Global Warming Theory (Douglas Fenner) (Eugene Shinn)

Michael Risk riskmj at univmail.cis.mcmaster.ca
Fri Mar 6 08:30:33 EST 2009

Ack. Hello, Gino.

I suggest that those contemplating reading Gwynn Dyer's book be aware
that this is not your grandmother's climate change book.

Dyer, who is a Newfie, a highly-respected writer on military affairs
and ex-Navy (navies of Canada, the UK and the USA, if I recall) has
written a description of what the other books won't tell you. Except
perhaps Monbiot's "Heat."

It is a scary and scarifying look into the future. He takes several
scenarios, and writes of possible/probable outcomes. In his worst-case
scenario, in which humans do nothing to combat climate change: in 100
or so years, the human race is reduced to a few million people,
clustered around the North Pole, speaking only English and Russian-and
the oceans are starting to smell, because a Canfield Event (H2S
generation driven by breakdown in ocean stratification) is coming which
will take care of the remnants.

Strong stuff, I warn you, but maybe just what we need.


On Thu, 5 Mar 2009 07:13:16 -0800 (PST)
 Gino Sabatini <ginosabatini at yahoo.com> wrote:
> In 1995 a colleague and I were subcontracted by an engineering firm
> to report on the ecology and ecological sensitivity of the Arctic
> Ocean within the Canadian territorial waters. The engineering firm's
> client was the Canadian Coast Guard (Northern Dept). The Coast Guard
> had in the works the idea to acquire a nuclear submarine to patrol
> the Canadian Arctic waters. The idea was for the sub to be autonomous
> and stay offshore for a complete 60 days, minimum. The engineers were
> wondering if it would be possible to discharge effluents (black &
> grey waters at least) every so often. We were asked to describe
> "sensitivity" according to IUCN criteria. It was anticipated that
> "ice cover would be decreasing rapidly in the Arctic Ocean" and
> therefore ship traffic and natural resource exploitation would
> increase in the very near future. The project for this sub never went
> forward as far as I know. 
> I repeat... this was in 1995!!!
> The flatearth proponents need not believe scientists about climate
> change or global warming. They need only ask their military. 
> I would suggest all to take a look at Gynne Dyer's book (2008),
> Climate Wars. He interviewed the military on the subject. While Bush
> et al were negating the issue, the military was (is) "studying the
> matter".
> Gino Sabatini
> Biol Oceanographer, Consultant.
> Montreal, Canada.
> After following your discussion relating to climate change,
> I would like to insert an observation from a real world,
> non-scientific perspective. I seems to me, that among those of you
> who are the most respected in the marine sciences, the opinion that
> anthropogenic climate change is real and problematic strongly
> prevails.
> The problem is, that you are allowing the views of those like Gene's
> unidentified friend to win out in the court of public opinion. 
> I don't know how many of you caught George Will's recent columns
> on this subject, but these opinions are prevailing at least in part, 
> because of your collective passivity.  
> The climate change skeptics are not only well financed, but they are 
> better organized. As a result they are winning over too many converts
> to their
> doctrines. It is not only on this subject that your hesitancy to 
> collectively speak out is problematic. Your recent discussion on
> sustainable 
> seafood is yet another example. (I, for one, am tired of being
> labeled as somewhat 
> unstable because I avoid eating grilled grouper.) My point is that
> you have a
> responsibility to find a more effective way to aggressively promote
> these concepts.
> You cannot be satisfied to publish in scientific journals that are
> generally ineffective 
> in stirring public opinion.        
> Steve Mussman
> sealab at earthlink.net
> EarthLink Revolves Around You.
> _______________________________________________
> Coral-List mailing list
> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
> ________________________________
> From: George Ducott <jobdoctor1 at cox.net>
> To: Simon Donner <simon.donner at gmail.com>
> Cc: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2009 10:07:54 PM
> Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Global Warming Theory (Douglas Fenner)
> (Eugene Shinn)
> Please read this.
> George Ducott
> VVAW Member
> re. Warming is real and is here.
> From: Vietnam Veterans Against the War <vvaw at vvaw.org>
> Date: Sun Feb 29, 2004  2:05:13  PM US/Pacific
> To: vvawnet at vvaw.org
> Subject: [vvawnet] The Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will
> destroy  
> us
> ====
> Forwarded from networker Dwayne Knox to all on VVAWNET:
> Guardian Unlimited
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>     * 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
> Mark Townsend and Paul Harris in New York
> Sunday February 22, 2004
> The Observer
> 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.
> © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004
> <http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/ 
> 0,6903,1153513,00.html>
> *************************************************************
> Copyright material is distributed without profit or
> payment for research and educational purposes only,
> in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107.
> Reference: <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml>.
> *************************************************************
> -- 
> *************************************************************
> National Office
> Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Inc.
> PO Box 408594
> Chicago, IL 60640 (773) 276-4189
> e-mail: vvaw at vvaw.org
> http://www.vvaw.org
> Fighting for veterans, peace and justice since 1967
> *************************************************************
> On Mar 3, 2009, at 9:25 AM, Simon Donner wrote:
> > An important note on the lists of "scientists" who don't believe in
> > global warming:
> >
> > The goal of the list-makers is ostensibly to show there are more
> > "scientists" who doubt the IPCC consensus than who participate in
> the
> > IPCC. This misses the point of the IPCC effort entirely. The IPCC
> was
> > not created to get the views of ~2000 scientists but to have ~2000
> > climate scientists summarize the conclusions of the entire
> scientific
> > community.
> >
> > I use the following medical analogy to  describe the process in
> class
> > and in public presentations (this is a quote from a story on
> > worldchanging.com):
> >
> > Let’s say you are worried about your health. Maybe you’ve noticed
> an
> > elevated body temperature, and it is beginning to affect the way
> you
> > function.
> >
> > You go to the doctor. The doctor gives you a diagnosis, based on
> her
> > or his expertise. To be safe, you might get a second opinion. Most
> of
> > the time, that’s enough.
> >
> > But this diagnosis is a frightening one. And you want to be
> thorough.
> > So you make a call to the United Nations.
> >
> > The UN assembles a team of a couple thousand of top doctors from
> > around the world, with a range of specialties. The team of doctors
> > does a comprehensive review of all the scientific literature on
> your
> > condition and charges medical centers around the world to run
> > sophisticated computer models simulating your health. The
> information
> > is assembled into a massive technical report. A draft report is
> then
> > made available for any doctor in the world to review. Thousands of
> > people review aspects of the report and provide criticism that is
> > factored into the final draft. The team of doctors then meets with
> > representatives from different countries around the world to
> produce a
> > summary of the report in less technical language that reflects the
> > most important and statistically significant findings. Five years
> > later, you are given that summary.
> >
> > That is how the IPCC “Summary for Policymakers” reports are
> produced.
> >
> > They are the end-point of an exhaustive review of scientific
> > literature by a group of top scientists and a long peer review
> > process. They are not alarmist. The findings contained in the
> reports
> > actually tend to be quite conservative, because they arise out of a
> > wide body of research and adhere to strict statistical conventions.
> > For example, the projections for sea level rise are lower than in
> many
> > climate studies because of reported uncertainty in the
> understanding
> > of ice sheet dynamics.
> >
> >
> > -- 
> > Simon Donner
> > Asst. Professor
> > Dept. of Geography
> > University of British Columbia
> > http://www.simondonner.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > Coral-List mailing list
> > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Coral-List mailing list
> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> http://coral.aoml.noaa..gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
> _______________________________________________
> Coral-List mailing list
> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list

Mike Risk
Marine Ecologist
PO Box 1195
Durham Ontario
N0G 1R0

More information about the Coral-List mailing list