Tuesday, February 24, 2004
That scary Pentagon report on climate change
I've hit the snooze button too many times before posting this, so this post is sorta stale, but here it is anyway:
Normally brilliant friends like Lanny Cardow have lapped up the leftist spin after an alarmist -- actually, apocalyptic -- news report in Britain's leftwing newspaper, the Observer (Sunday Guardian) claimed that a report said climate change would lead to catastrophe and anarchy and nuclear war in the future. Lanny went so far as to call it "A bad day for those (like JBro) who have dismissed global warming as an imaginary threat envisioned by leftist scientists. Now even The Pentagon has recognised the threat of climate change."
Some clips from the article: "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 report says.
Later on: 'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.'
And especially, uh, interesting: "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."
While this report made for a great story, it might be accused of being, to coin a term, "sexed-up."
First, it is universally acknowleged that the Sunday newspapers in London are somewhat unreliable. The burden of proof is lower for stories, and they tend to be a tad sensationalist. (Even reporters who work for them will admit this privately.)
Second, it must be made clear is that this report does not represent the official view of the Pentagon. The report was commissioned by a Pentagon official, Andy Marshall, who runs the Office of Special Plans, an outfit dedicated to conceptualizing and planning for a wide range of future scenarios.
Third, one must go a ways down to find the most important paragraph, which makes it easy to miss:
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.
A little research shows that these are two very curious individuals. They are FUTURISTS. It is their job to think up wacky -- even unlikely -- future scenarios. The company where they work, the Global Business Network, is an entity that is dedicated to thinking up these "scenarios."
Mr. Randall is obviously brilliant (Wharton MBA) but no mention of any experience on the global warming file. Check out his bio here. Some highlights: "Doug has published articles, book chapters, and white papers on scenario-based planning, the Internet...Doug served as a Vice President at Snapfish, a photo-processing company with a strong Internet presence. While there, he was responsible for customer acquisition, signing over 50 strategic partnerships...He works on a variety of projects often related to information technology, consumer electronics, financial services, and global sustainability."
The other co-author, Peter Schwartz, listed as a "CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell group," is a co-founder of this so-called futurist company, GBN. (Note: Another of GBN's founders, Stewart Brand, is also a founder of the Whole Earth Catalog, which says the catalogue "found immediate success with the youth movement, selling millions of copies and quickly becoming the unofficial handbook of the counter-culture." That publication eventually morphed into Whole Earth Magazine, but only after a short stint as Co-Evolution Quarterly, which "furthered social change and new movements by introducing ideas such as the gaia hypothesis, watershed consciousness, whole system thinking, and voluntary simplicity to readers." And get this, again from the mags own site: "An early issue was edited by the Black Panther Party, another by beat poets Lawrence Ferlinghetti and Michael McClure.")
Anyway, the point is that this report represents nothing concrete or scientific at all, and the authors are a little out there. It's like playing craps. It is unlikely it will ever happen. But unfortunately, Lanny took the bait. Others falling into the trap include AFP, the Sydney Morning Herald, and, of course, Greenpeace.
The whole "secret" report is online here.)
Thanks to Tim Blair (who notes that this story wasn't even a "scoop" at all for the Observer, Fortune magazine had it last month) and Lorne Gunter, one of Canada's smartest and hard-working columnists, for all the help with this.
UPDATE: Lorne has in fact done his Edmonton Journal column on this subject, but it doesn't appear to be online.
UPDATE II: No!!!! AH took the bait too!!
UPDATE III: Check out Iain Murray's excellent NRO piece about the report here.
|
I've hit the snooze button too many times before posting this, so this post is sorta stale, but here it is anyway:
Normally brilliant friends like Lanny Cardow have lapped up the leftist spin after an alarmist -- actually, apocalyptic -- news report in Britain's leftwing newspaper, the Observer (Sunday Guardian) claimed that a report said climate change would lead to catastrophe and anarchy and nuclear war in the future. Lanny went so far as to call it "A bad day for those (like JBro) who have dismissed global warming as an imaginary threat envisioned by leftist scientists. Now even The Pentagon has recognised the threat of climate change."
Some clips from the article: "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 report says.
Later on: 'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.'
And especially, uh, interesting: "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."
While this report made for a great story, it might be accused of being, to coin a term, "sexed-up."
First, it is universally acknowleged that the Sunday newspapers in London are somewhat unreliable. The burden of proof is lower for stories, and they tend to be a tad sensationalist. (Even reporters who work for them will admit this privately.)
Second, it must be made clear is that this report does not represent the official view of the Pentagon. The report was commissioned by a Pentagon official, Andy Marshall, who runs the Office of Special Plans, an outfit dedicated to conceptualizing and planning for a wide range of future scenarios.
Third, one must go a ways down to find the most important paragraph, which makes it easy to miss:
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.
A little research shows that these are two very curious individuals. They are FUTURISTS. It is their job to think up wacky -- even unlikely -- future scenarios. The company where they work, the Global Business Network, is an entity that is dedicated to thinking up these "scenarios."
Mr. Randall is obviously brilliant (Wharton MBA) but no mention of any experience on the global warming file. Check out his bio here. Some highlights: "Doug has published articles, book chapters, and white papers on scenario-based planning, the Internet...Doug served as a Vice President at Snapfish, a photo-processing company with a strong Internet presence. While there, he was responsible for customer acquisition, signing over 50 strategic partnerships...He works on a variety of projects often related to information technology, consumer electronics, financial services, and global sustainability."
The other co-author, Peter Schwartz, listed as a "CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell group," is a co-founder of this so-called futurist company, GBN. (Note: Another of GBN's founders, Stewart Brand, is also a founder of the Whole Earth Catalog, which says the catalogue "found immediate success with the youth movement, selling millions of copies and quickly becoming the unofficial handbook of the counter-culture." That publication eventually morphed into Whole Earth Magazine, but only after a short stint as Co-Evolution Quarterly, which "furthered social change and new movements by introducing ideas such as the gaia hypothesis, watershed consciousness, whole system thinking, and voluntary simplicity to readers." And get this, again from the mags own site: "An early issue was edited by the Black Panther Party, another by beat poets Lawrence Ferlinghetti and Michael McClure.")
Anyway, the point is that this report represents nothing concrete or scientific at all, and the authors are a little out there. It's like playing craps. It is unlikely it will ever happen. But unfortunately, Lanny took the bait. Others falling into the trap include AFP, the Sydney Morning Herald, and, of course, Greenpeace.
The whole "secret" report is online here.)
Thanks to Tim Blair (who notes that this story wasn't even a "scoop" at all for the Observer, Fortune magazine had it last month) and Lorne Gunter, one of Canada's smartest and hard-working columnists, for all the help with this.
UPDATE: Lorne has in fact done his Edmonton Journal column on this subject, but it doesn't appear to be online.
UPDATE II: No!!!! AH took the bait too!!
UPDATE III: Check out Iain Murray's excellent NRO piece about the report here.
|
Monday, February 23, 2004
Oped in The New York Sun today
Check out the piece I wrote on America's lack of support for Arab democrats here.
|
Check out the piece I wrote on America's lack of support for Arab democrats here.
|
Sunday, February 22, 2004
Thoughts on the Conservative leadership debate
In general it was good, and entertaining to watch. Some general observations that stick out in my mind:
1. No knockout punch: All three candidates performed well, but no one was head-and-shoulders better than the rest. They all made good points; one was clearly aggressive and passionate (Clement), another more tentative (Stronach) and one constantly on the defensive but cool (Harper). But because Harper held his own and, by virtue of his front-running status had the most to lose, if anyone did win, it was him. He was calm, composed and looked leader-like.
2. Belinda Stronach sharper, but still too scripted: Belinda has improved a great deal since her launch a few weeks ago -- she looks comfortable on stage, and for her first debate ever it was a decent performance. But she has to get off using these bland, generatic, platitudinal terms like "innovation." She is still looking too wooden, too much like she's just regurgitating talking points. She should just be herself.
3. Clement's use of French: Harper and Stronach's lack of French was really showing (especially so for Stronach) and Clement's use of it was impressive, even tossing in some French answering questions not asked by the French reporter.
4. Harper's arrogance: Clement took Harper to task for his appearance of arrogance throughout this race. It's a valid concern. While I like Harper, he has appeared smug and condescending at times. Just one example: in his press release welcoming Tony Clement to the race, Harper said: "I knew that there would be risks to my leadership when I formed this new party, but I put this merger together to encourage people like Tony to get involved in the party again after a long absence." I, I, I. Sounds like he thinks he's entitled to this by some kind of Divine right. Clement ripped into Harper on this and scored a point for it. I should add that Clement was almost too aggressive and over-the-top.
5. Great questioning: The journalists asking the questions were very good, especially CPAC's Peter Van Dusen -- some real toughies. These questioners demonstrated the way journalists are supposed to scrutinize and hold politicians to account. There were few softballs.
6. Crowds have gotta go: The constant interruptions by supporters of each candidate in the audience were such a waste of time, and served no useful purpose. Debates should not be done in front of partisan crowds like this again.
Candidate performance marks:
Harper: B+
Clement: B-
Stronach: C-
|
In general it was good, and entertaining to watch. Some general observations that stick out in my mind:
1. No knockout punch: All three candidates performed well, but no one was head-and-shoulders better than the rest. They all made good points; one was clearly aggressive and passionate (Clement), another more tentative (Stronach) and one constantly on the defensive but cool (Harper). But because Harper held his own and, by virtue of his front-running status had the most to lose, if anyone did win, it was him. He was calm, composed and looked leader-like.
2. Belinda Stronach sharper, but still too scripted: Belinda has improved a great deal since her launch a few weeks ago -- she looks comfortable on stage, and for her first debate ever it was a decent performance. But she has to get off using these bland, generatic, platitudinal terms like "innovation." She is still looking too wooden, too much like she's just regurgitating talking points. She should just be herself.
3. Clement's use of French: Harper and Stronach's lack of French was really showing (especially so for Stronach) and Clement's use of it was impressive, even tossing in some French answering questions not asked by the French reporter.
4. Harper's arrogance: Clement took Harper to task for his appearance of arrogance throughout this race. It's a valid concern. While I like Harper, he has appeared smug and condescending at times. Just one example: in his press release welcoming Tony Clement to the race, Harper said: "I knew that there would be risks to my leadership when I formed this new party, but I put this merger together to encourage people like Tony to get involved in the party again after a long absence." I, I, I. Sounds like he thinks he's entitled to this by some kind of Divine right. Clement ripped into Harper on this and scored a point for it. I should add that Clement was almost too aggressive and over-the-top.
5. Great questioning: The journalists asking the questions were very good, especially CPAC's Peter Van Dusen -- some real toughies. These questioners demonstrated the way journalists are supposed to scrutinize and hold politicians to account. There were few softballs.
6. Crowds have gotta go: The constant interruptions by supporters of each candidate in the audience were such a waste of time, and served no useful purpose. Debates should not be done in front of partisan crowds like this again.
Candidate performance marks:
Harper: B+
Clement: B-
Stronach: C-
|
Great idea
I'm just watching the Conservative leadership debate, and will post thoughts later. But in the meantime, check out Belinda Stronach's "Debate Watch" on her leadership site. Very innovate online idea.
|
I'm just watching the Conservative leadership debate, and will post thoughts later. But in the meantime, check out Belinda Stronach's "Debate Watch" on her leadership site. Very innovate online idea.
|
