Pentagon Climate Change Author Interviewed

cynical writes "Just in time for the opening of The Day After Tomorrow, the futurism/technology/environment blog WorldChanging has an interview with futurist Doug Randall, co-author of the "Abrupt Climate Change" scenario [PDF] commissioned by the Pentagon earlier this year. The report generated a storm of controversy a couple of months ago, and drew attention to the possibility that global warming could disrupt things enough to trigger a rapid-onset ice age. Now that the furor has died down, Randall can talk about climate change, how the report came to be, and just what he thinks about the new disaster movie."

Comments

That movie looks so awful

[The I Shing]

What I think is hilarious about that Day After Tomorrow movie is how the studio advertises it as "from the director of Independence Day." That's not a big recommendation in my book. That's like a breakfast cereal manufacturer advertising a new product as "brought to you by the makers of pus, earwax, boogers, chewed bubblegum and cat vomit! Yum!"

I think it's a mistake to advertise that a movie was directed by a guy who directed a really awful previous movie! On that basis alone, I am absolutely not ever going to allow any of this movie to come into view of my eyes, other than what I've already suffered through by seeing the ludicrous trailer about a billion times.

Science vs. Slashdot

[dachshund]

These days I only tune into these arguments to see how stridently unconcerned Slashdotters are with the possibility of environmental change. I am, of course, open to arguments about the validity of the threat. What never fails to amaze me is how many Slashdotters-- ostensibly a group of relatively intelligent people-- are moved to approach this issue from emotional, rather than scientific point of view.

To quote Isaac Asimov: "It is not so much that I have confidence in scientists being right, but that I have so much in nonscientists being wrong."

Re:And cue...

[gowen]

I don't think you understand.

I rather think I do. I attend 6-8 environmental conferences a year, and speak, in my own small capacity, at most of them.

Our knowledge isn't good enough to understand what triggers what.

Only if you close your eyes and ears to years of research, and an overwhelming scientific consensus. Go read the Kyoto report, or the opinion of the US Academy of Science, or the Royal Society of London. (I could go on). In fact, its very hard to find a contrary view from a source unfunded by vested interest.

adopting treaties like Kyoto would seriously hamper our economy.

And yet, almost every other country in the world has ratified it, and yet the recent performance of the US economy is no better than that of Australia, or the EU.

Do you often state opinions that are wholly contrary to the facts?