What Counts as Speculation? What Counts as Science?
A loyal, ahem, reader pointed me to the recent story of the Pentagon-funded report on climate change and national security. Its rather stark suggestions about a cataclysmic change in the very near future and our total unpreparedness for such a development are eye-opening. It's also fueled a huge debate over whether it's based on "science" or "speculation" (though isn't speculation part of science? I always thought so). Once again, the mere fact that speculation plays any role at all will keep Bush-Cheney from doing anything about it (from the people that brought us the "evolution-is-just-a-theory" mantra).

Should the evidence begin to tip the scales more toward the science end of the spectrum, this report suggests the US has alot of work to do, and not very much time (maybe we shouldn't wait until then?):

"It is quite plausible that within a decade the evidence of an immanent abrupt climate shift may become clear and reliable. . . .In that event the United States will need to take urgent action to prevent and mitigate some of the most significant impacts. Diplomatic action will be needed to minimize the likelihood of conflict in the most impacted areas, especially in the Caribbean and Asia. . . .In short, while the US will be relatively better off and with more adaptive capacity, it will find itself in a world where Europe will be struggling internally, large numbers of refugees washing up on its shores and Asia in serious crisis over food and water. Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life."

Maybe more striking, and receiving no press attention, are the statements affirming without question things that climate change nay-sayers like the Bush Administration never admit. While this report is concerned with abrupt change that will "likely come regardless of human activity," it reminds us:

"It's important to understand human impacts on the environment-both what's done to accelerate and decelerate (or perhaps even reverse) the tendency toward climate change. Alternative fuels, greenhouse gas emission controls, and conservation efforts are worthwhile endeavors."

Since when did they believe that? And then there's my personal favorite, on page 15:

"Today, carrying capacity, which is the ability for the Earth and its natural ecosystems including social, economic, and cultural systems to support the finite number of people on the planet, is being challenged around the world. . . . With 815 million people receiving insufficient sustenance worldwide, some would say that as a globe, we're living well above our carrying capacity, meaning there are not sufficient natural resources to sustain our behavior."

Some would say?

As for whether this report is pure science or pure speculation (as if there is such a thing as either), the crack staff at Article 19 has tracked down a copy of the report, so you can read it for yourself, and I highly recommend it. Come back here and tell everybody what you think.