U.S. Intel Agencies Believe in Climate Change

David

Opinions are my own...
PREMO Member
Although there are still some naysayers about global climate change -- despite the peer-reviewed world scientific community's conclusion that it is real and man-made -- the National Intelligence Council is not among the disbelievers. The Council -- a consortium of the nation's intelligence agencies -- recently released a report called Global Trends 2025.

Some of their conclusions, from a Reuters report:

Global warming will be felt, and water, food and energy constraints may fuel conflict over resources.

"Types of conflict we have not seen for a while -- such as over resources -- could reemerge," it said.

They also believe the U.S. is seeing its last days as the world's economic superpower:

The U.S. dollar's role as the world's major currency would weaken to become a "first among equals," the report said.

UPDATE 2-US clout down, risks up by 2025 -intel outlook | Reuters

Here's a link to the NIC page discussing the report. The page has a link to a PDF copy of the report.

NIC 2025 Project

http://www.dni.gov/nic/PDF_2025/2025_Global_Trends_Final_Report.pdf
 
Last edited:
Although there are still some naysayers about global climate change -- despite the peer-reviewed world scientific community's conclusion that it is real and man-made -- the National Intelligence Council is not among the disbelievers.

If you are saying that the NIC is not among the disbelievers that the global climate is changing, then of course they aren't. I don't think any reasonable mind is. The climate is changing for various reasons, that's what it does.

If you are saying that the NIC is not among the disbelievers that most of the global climate change is man-made, then I didn't see anything in the Reuter's summary, or the report in general that supports that assertion. In fact, they seem to imply that actions taken as a result of the perception of man-made climate change could have dangerous consequences for the global economy.

The report does evince concerns over the availability of water, food and other vital resources; however, they don't seem to attribute those concerns to man-made climate change. There is little doubt that climate changes in general, and probably to a greater degree the human over population of the planet, are legitimate causes of those concerns.

To be clear, man certainly does have an effect on the environment. It is even possible that man's actions are a significant cause of the current global climate changes; nonetheless, I didn't see where that report comes to that conclusion or even supports it. If you see a passage that you believe does just that, then perhaps I missed it. Please point it out to me and I'll happily look at it again.

Most of the other issues they discuss are just common sense possibilities for what may happen in the future, based on current political, economic and social dynamics. Interesting to read, but not much that someone wouldn't already anticipate.
 

MyPersonalDecoy

New Member
wow u mean the climate is changing? It must be due to pollution and global warming. Isn't that what caused the end of the Ice Age? Stupid cavemen.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
If climate change is solely man-made, how do they explain the climate change on Mars? Or before there were humans on this earth?

I think it's disingenuous to blame mankind alone for climate change, and arrogant for humans to think they can control the global climate.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
...

despite the peer-reviewed world scientific community's conclusion that it is real and man-made

This is not true. Some, even many, believe this, but science is based on facts, not beliefs. A belief is an hypothesis and there is a process to prove or disprove an hypothesis.

Does man contribute to climate 'change'? Probably. But, to what degree and what are practical solutions and are any 'solutions' even necessary?

Given the dramatic and random and decidedly un-made made transformations, climate changes, this planet has been through over millions of years, to think of ourselves as anything more than we are, potential threats to one another, is, simply an hypothesis and a pretty dramatic one at that. The science sure isn't there.

It always interests me that when faith is brought up, rain for 40 days, parting of the seas, famines, the wiping out of cities by the hand of God, better be good or we're gonna suffer and even if there is no hell, why take a chance, many people see those things as obvious matters of faith, not fact, yet when we're talking about man made global warming they instantly have the faith and use the same logic and same arguments that faith does.

Besides, what if man made global warming is good for the planet? All we do know is that some of the major proponents of the planet killing man theory use faulty data, illogical arguments, fear and outright lies to push their views. That's supposed to be frowned on by thinking people.

So, green? Sure. Less pollution? Sure. Wiser use or resources? Absolutely. As long as it makes sense and can be done in a rational and reasonable fashion.
 
Last edited:

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
So, green? Sure. Less pollution? Sure. Wiser use or resources? Absolutely. As long as it makes sense and can be done in a rational and reasonable fashion.

And let's not forget the law of unintended consequences. Thanks to Rachel Carson and all those omigod eco-hippies, how many millions of people in third world countries have died of malaria?
 
If climate change is solely man-made, how do they explain the climate change on Mars? Or before there were humans on this earth?

I think it's disingenuous to blame mankind alone for climate change, and arrogant for humans to think they can control the global climate.

Bingo. Nature is going to do what Nature is going to do. I see this nonsense on the ocean beaches of Long Island. They build little tiny rock walls that are supposed to hold back the fury of Nature, and them complain and get Federal dollars to try to do more. Nothing but waste. If they would only look at aerial photos from as far back as they are available to now, they'd see that those little rock walls do nothing over the course of time.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
...

And let's not forget the law of unintended consequences. Thanks to Rachel Carson and all those omigod eco-hippies, how many millions of people in third world countries have died of malaria?

...see, that in and of itself is an excellent example of unintended consequences; Carson NEVER intended to touch off the absolutism that followed in the wake of Silent Spring. It was an alarm book, but in her own words she simply wanted reasonable and responsible chemical use in nature. She never supported the hysterical bans that she is credited/accused of initiating.

Her book, a The China Syndrome; anyone that wanted third world populations to be held in check by disease and for the oil and coal industries to flourish could not have done better that what the greens themselves perpetrated.

Do we really want irrationality and hysteria to set policy again? With that record of 'achievement'?

Good post!
 

Cyrano

New Member
I’ve posted a few words on this subject previously:
“Basing one’s opinion on Global Warming based on a short human life span with an imperfect memory living in a limited location is an opinion not a fact.
Global warming involves rather small temperature changes over a long period and cannot be dismissed by a single day/month or even a year’s weather.
Most scientists are in agreement that the planet is getting warmer and the majority of them believe humans are at least partly responsible see this NOAA website Global Warming Frequently Asked Questions . Many of the naysayers work for front groups for CO2 producing industries like oil companies.
Finally I think its best to err on the side of caution since this is the only planet currently available to us.”

A few additional words on this subject:
The amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere has been rising during the Industrial Revolution which began in 1850 from 280 Parts Per Million (ppm) in 1850 to 364 ppm in 1998. Humans have been increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in air by burning of fossil fuels, by producing cement and by carrying out land clearing and forest combustion. About 22% of the current atmospheric CO2 concentrations exist due to these human activities.
The following website denies human involvement in Global Warming:
CO2 Science
However if you check Source Watch: Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change - SourceWatch you can see that one of their contributors is Exxon Mobil!

The atmosphere is very big but not infinite and small changes (a few degrees) can have big effect. For example the makers of Ice Wines are worried about global warming On Wine: Global warming | Napa Valley Register.
Bottom line:
In matters of science I’ll go with the scientists not the politicians.
Cyrano,
“Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts” Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan

"Contrary to popular belief, everyone is NOT entitled to their own opinion...If you don't know the facts, your opinion doesn't count." Andy Rooney
 
Top