Those three comments (italics) are all political rather than scientific but stand the test of time ... although I think Trump needs more persuasion than mere words can provide.robertk wrote: ↑Tue Mar 06, 2018 10:17 amthere are three highly credentialed scientists cited in the article;chownah wrote: ↑Tue Mar 06, 2018 9:12 am[quote=robertk post_id=46
It is not clear which venerable scientists you are refering to.....and it is not clear who wrote the secret report.....it is not clear what all was included in the report...it is not clear if the obviously off the mark predictions were best guess scenarios or if they were the worst case scenarios.
Not much is clear about this.....could you clarify your understanding about this?
p.s. Notice that the report was suppressed by the pentagon....maybe they thought the predictions were off the mark.....but it was obtained by the Observer who of course made what they could of it.
"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"
As for the 2004 predictions ... by the time they've been through the "secret report" and The Observer there's no knowing how they were originally framed. Chownah's questions about them are relevant but unanswerable, IMO.
edit - typo