AN UNUSUAL WEATHER REPORT
“Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us” - was the dramatic headline in the Observer newspaper on Sunday 22nd February, 2004. As if that wasn’t enough to grab a reader’s attention, the lead paragraph of the accompanying article by Mark Townsend and Paul Harris was printed in large bold letters, claiming that:
“The US President has denied the existence of global warming. But a secret report predicts a looming catastrophe – a world riven with water wars, famine and anarchy.” 
This, together with sub headings of “Secret report warns of rioting and nuclear war”, “Britain will be ‘Siberian’ in less than 20 years” and “Threat to the world is greater than terrorism” guaranteed that the article would attract international attention and comment. And it did.
The ‘secret report’ of the article may not actually have been secret, it was entitled "An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security" by Peter Schwartz and Doug Randall of the “Global Business Network”, a “scenario and strategy consultancy” based in California. Dated October 2003, the report later appeared freely on the internet and became known as "The Pentagon Report". It gave a terrifying description of the possible consequences of very sudden extreme changes in climate and the possible effects on US national security. An article in Fortune Magazine (“The Pentagon’s Weather Nightmare” ) by David Stipp had first drawn attention to the report in the US and the story was then picked up by the Observer and was further covered in the San Francisco Chronicle (“Pentagon-Sponsored Climate Report Sparks Hullabaloo in Europe” ) and the New York Times (“The Sky is Falling! Say Hollywood and, Yes, the Pentagon” ).
The reference to Hollywood by the New York Times was to the imminent release of the disaster movie “The Day After Tomorrow” which used extreme and abrupt climate change as a major trigger for the plot. However, while the authors of The Pentagon Report intentionally consider the worst possible realistic scenario as a warning for strategic planners, the movie travelled beyond reality in portraying the effects of scientifically impossible and almost instantaneous changes in global weather in order to provide opportunities for the special effects team to create an action packed cinema experience for the paying customers.
The movie has Manhattan covered in a sheet of ice and Western Europe virtually destroyed in a matter of days but Schwartz and Randall depict global catastrophe due to extreme weather changes on a more protracted time scale (as summarised by Tables 1 and 2, taken from their report). According to them, violent storms could destroy coastal barriers by 2007 with people abandoning low lying seaside cities such as The Hague in the Netherlands. The creation of an inland sea in California would disrupt the aqueduct system transporting fresh water from north to south and melting of glaciers in the Himalayas could cause large numbers of Tibetans to relocate.
Table 1 - Conflict Scenario Due to Climate Change 2010-2020
Table 2 - Conflict Scenario Due to Climate Change
In this scenario, by 2010 rising sea levels could put millions at risk of flooding and fisheries are likely to be disrupted by water temperature changes. In Europe abrupt climate change could result from disruption of the thermohaline  circulation (THC) which is the global ocean conveyor system that moves warm, saline tropical waters northward from the Gulf of Mexico across the Atlantic Ocean to form the Gulf Stream. The surface water cools in the Northern Hemisphere, sinks and loops back south again to complete the circuit. This introduction of warm water into the North Atlantic keeps the winters in Europe (and in particular the UK) much milder than would otherwise be expected at those latitudes. However, an input of freshwater from the melting of glaciers in Greenland is predicted to alter and perhaps destroy the conveyor circulation. If this were to happen then Europe could see an average annual temperature drop of more than 3°C by 2020 with the UK climate becoming colder and drier as weather patterns begin to resemble Siberia.
In the future depicted by Schwartz and Randall deaths from war, famine and weather related disasters would run into millions and riots and internal conflict would cause severe problems in India, South Africa and Indonesia. As countries lose their ability to feed and care for their populations they will begin to look closely at the resources held by their neighbours. As they grimly put it “humans fight when they outstrip the carrying capacity of their natural environment. Every time there is a choice between starving and raiding, humans raid.” The scarcity of water and energy supplies would become a major problem, with the Nile, Danube and Amazon which serve a large number of nations becoming possible areas of conflict. The world's major sources of grain would be subjected to droughts and crop failures - America's Midwest, subject to strong winds, could suffer severe soil loss. Climate becomes an 'economic nuisance' as storms, droughts and hot spells create havoc for farmers.
Wealthy areas such as the US and Europe may become 'virtual fortresses' in order to prevent millions of potential migrants from entering. Immigrants from Scandinavia seeking warmer climes to the south would attempt to move into Northern Europe, while Southern Europe would be beleaguered by refugees from hard-hit countries in Africa. China's huge population and food demand make it particularly vulnerable. Bangladesh could become nearly uninhabitable because of a rising sea level, which contaminates the inland water supplies and over 400m people in subtropical regions would be at grave risk.
The report also envisages the inevitable proliferation of nuclear weapons and the possibility that Japan, South Korea, and Germany will develop this capability, as well as Iran, Egypt and North Korea. Also Israel, China, India and Pakistan would be poised to use their nuclear arsenals if they consider it necessary.
The report by Schwartz and Randall provoked concern, apprehension, denial and accusations of conspiracy. Some analysts and commentators believe that the purpose of the report was to give a warning to the Bush Administration as to what might happen if they reject the idea of global warming and it turns out to be true. Others think that it was to provide extra ammunition to those seeking to build up US military global dominance and control. The report suggests that:
“because of the potentially dire consequences, the risk of abrupt climate change — although uncertain and quite possibly small — should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a U.S. national security concern”
The report also suggests that scientific models are inadequate in predicting social impacts of climate change and that the Administration can either use the information it contains as a reason to support global environmental treaties like the Kyoto Protocol, or it can prepare to “create fortresses” to maintain self-sufficiency. Schwartz and Randall emphasise that their report is not a prediction but a worst-case scenario but they also say that any of the events they portray are potentially possible and some will definitely happen - the outcomes will depend upon what (if any) preventative measures are taken.
The report seems also to have been written to make the Pentagon prepare for a range of events that may challenge national security as a result of inevitable environmental and atmospheric climate change. According to Schwartz and Randall, climate change will happen (is happening) and the only choice we have is to implement policies that slow the rate of change down to give us time to prepare for environmental and social upheaval and to adapt to meet the challenges. They state that, “the actual impacts [of climate change] would greatly vary depending on the nuances of the weather conditions, the adaptability of humanity, and decisions by policymakers.”
The consequences of global warming may depend heavily on how long a period the changes take place over. The report suggests that "the US Department of Defense should begin to plan “no-regret strategies” and that the US Administration will most probably need to take diplomatic (and/or military) action – the extent and effectiveness of these actions will greatly affect the rate at which environmental decline occurs.
2. GLOBAL WARNING OR PREDICTION?
Other chapters in this book deal with the evidence for climate change, either through modeling or direct observation. It is now widely accepted by scientific, civil and political society that human activity is responsible for the increasing average global temperature. This increase in temperature is creating a range of extremes in weather conditions including increased hurricane generation, heat waves, floods, droughts and accompanying crop failures and rising sea levels. It is also widely accepted that some of the global warming to be experienced in the decades to come is already locked in. Greenhouse gas levels can take a long time (perhaps centuries) to decay naturally and even if we were able to stop the emission of all Greenhouse gases today further warming of around 0.5°C is still likely to occur. If we do nothing to limit emissions then surface temperatures are likely to rise by 6°C by 2100 and it seems likely that, whatever global restrictions we manage to agree to, we will not be able to prevent an average global temperature increase of 2°C in the same period.
The climate has changed considerably in the past as the Earth passes in and out of Ice Ages - when large areas of the Earth’s surface have been covered with ice sheets (or large continental sized glaciers). Current understanding of long-term climate cycles is that for the past 800,000 years, periods of approximately 100,000 years’ duration (Ice Ages) have been interrupted by periods of approximately 10,000 years (known as Interglacials). The recurrences of Ice Ages are thought to be due to cyclical changes in the Earth’s orbital parameters and we are nearing the end of the present interglacial period. These climate changes are thought to occur over long periods of time - the man-made climate change of the Pentagon Report is much quicker.
How rapid is abrupt?
What do we mean when we talk about rapid or abrupt climate change? The term ‘climate change’ usually refers to a large shift in climate that lasts for a significant period of time (perhaps hundreds or thousands of years). The changes might be in average temperature, patterns of storms, floods or droughts over a wide area such as a country or continent. When we say ‘rapid’ we mean that the changes would take place so quickly that human or natural systems have difficulty adapting to them. ‘Rapid’ would typically mean therefore of the order of a decade or so.
There is evidence from ice cores that very rapid naturally occurring changes in temperature have occurred in the region of the North Atlantic in the past. Schwartz and Randall refer to previous dramatic global climate changes such as the Younger Dryas  which occurred some 13,000 years ago and lasted for around 1,300 years. During this time the North Atlantic polar front advanced south and some evidence suggests that the mean annual temperature in the UK dropped to around -5°C. This period ended extremely abruptly around 11,500 years ago with much of the northern hemisphere affected by extraordinary cold, dry, windy conditions.
Possible triggers for rapid changes in climate can be sudden, as with huge volcanic eruptions, or a more gradual build up of pressure which suddenly reaches a tipping point – such as when increasing the pressure on a switch will abruptly flip it ‘on’. The slow increases in pressure may occur through changes in oceanic circulation and/or the glaciers and ice caps. Modifications of atmospheric temperature, composition, humidity, cloudiness and wind; alterations in land conditions and possible external factors, such as changes or variations in the Earth’s orbital characteristics, variations in solar output, impacts of large extraterrestrial bodies, etc., may also act as triggers of rapid changes in climate.
The possibility of rapid climate change, and indications that it may have occurred in the past a number of times, has been recognized for some time. The possible future scenario described by Schwartz and Randall however, was based on the ‘8.2k event’ (so called because it occurred 8,200 years ago). This event lasted for about 100 years and was probably caused by the catastrophic draining of prehistoric glacial lakes in Canada into the Hudson Bay. The sudden introduction of large quantities of fresh water is thought to have caused a dramatic change in the ocean currents that return water to the south in the North Atlantic conveyor belt. The subsequent cooling in the Northern Hemisphere transformed previously established rain-based agriculture to irrigation-based agriculture.
The question is - how likely is it that rapid climate change will occur again? Peter Challenor and co-workers have termed a shut down of the THC and consequent rapid climate change “a high impact/low probability event.” They attempt to calculate the probability of it happening by using global climate models. Although they point out that their models are generally used to deal with high probability conditions not low probability ones, they calculated the chances of rapid change as being much higher (perhaps ten times higher) than expected. They have calculated the probabilities of THC shut-down based on a variety of possible future CO2 emission levels and suggest a 30-40 per cent probability that the THC will collapse unless a large amount of the global CO2 production is removed.
A paradigm in denial?
The consequences of the Pentagon Report are interesting. The reason why the authors state that climate change "should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern" is because of their conclusions that abrupt climate change caused by human abuse of the environment could cause tremendous problems in terms of the possible breakdown in law and order and difficulties in maintaining the control of national boundaries.
There are difficulties here for the US Administration in terms of how it can react. On the one hand, President George W. Bush has for some time now attempted to deny that human activity is changing the climate through increased industrialisation, pollution and over consumption and has demonstrated a clear unwillingness to accept the consequences of wide spread environmental abuse. On the other hand, the US needs to start preparing for the possible consequences by building a virtual wall around its national boundaries - restricting the movement of people into the country, developing technologies of political control, and preparing for increased threats from nuclear war.
What should the President do? Should he admit that he may have been wrong and that the wealthiest country in the world should think about cutting back on industrialization and reliance on oil – thereby possibly creating economic instability, losing popular support, upsetting his backers and friends and losing considerable sums of money? Or does he do what rulers and governments in this situation have done for centuries – suppress the facts and spin an alternative story to the general public?
Suppressing the facts
Around the same time as the article appeared in The Observer, the Union of Concerned Scientists (an influential and non-partisan group of established scientists in the US that includes 20 Nobel laureates) issued a 38 page report accusing the Bush administration of deliberately distorting scientific fact to serve its policy agenda. The UCS report detailed how Washington "systematically" twisted government scientific studies, suppressed others, stacked panels with political and unqualified appointees and often refused to seek independent expertise on many issues.
In June 2006, the BBC current affairs programme ‘Panorama’ focused on the how US scientific reports on global warming have been systematically changed and suppressed for political reasons. Bob Corell was author of an ‘Arctic Assessment Report’ which disclosed that Arctic ice was meting at an unprecedented rate. He claimed that the publication of the report was deliberately delayed because of the US presidential election in 2004. James E. Hansen, a climate modeling scientist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has publicly warned about the long term threat of global warming since 1988. He was invited to brief Vice-President Cheney and other US cabinet members on climate change in 2001 but fell out of favour in 2004 after he backed Senator John Kerry in the presidential election, saying that government scientists were being stopped him from speaking out about climate change. He also claimed that, following a lecture he gave in December 2005 calling for prompt reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases, NASA attempted to censor his publications and warned him of ‘dire consequences’ if he continued to make these types of statement. A few weeks later Hansen suggested publicly that scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) were also experiencing censorship. As an example, a particular March 2004 draft report on the wide spread bleaching of coral due to sea temperature increases made a number of references to global warming which were dropped in a July 2005 version of the report. 
In the last six years most industrialised nations have managed to cut greenhouse gas emissions but under George W. Bush, America's emissions have increased by an average of one per cent per year. Panorama quotes President George W. Bush:
“I told the world I thought the Kyoto deal was a lousy deal for America. It meant that we had to cut emissions below 1990 levels which would have meant I would have presided over massive lay offs and economic destruction.
Meanwhile, in the UK in January 2004 Sir David King, chief science adviser to British Prime Minister Tony Blair, severely criticised the Bush Administration for its failure to take climate change seriously and its refusal to sign the Kyoto Protocol in an article in Science (an international weekly journal published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)). 
“in my view, climate change is the most severe problem we are facing today, more serious than the threat of terrorism.” Prime Minister Tony Blair tried to counteract this statement by making his own on February 3 during a Parliamentary committee meeting, where he said that although terrorism and global warming are both of "critical urgency, I think you can get into a rather cerebral debate about which is more important than the other." In addition, a February 10 memo was sent by his principal private secretary Ivan Rogers advising Sir David to “decline [interview requests from] the UK or US national media” during a visit to Seattle to deliver a lecture to the annual meeting of the AAAS.
This possible attempt to gag the Government's top scientific adviser was uncovered when Sir David's personal press secretary, Lucy Brunt-Jenner, inadvertently left a computer disk in the press room at the AAAS meeting and it was picked up by Michael Martin, a freelance journalist. . The disk included scripted answers from Rogers, suggesting how Sir David might answer a list of 136 questions that could be put by reporters. For example, if he were asked to say whether terrorism or climate change was the greater threat, he was supposed to say that “Both are serious an immediate problems for the world today.” However, when asked on the BBC radio morning news programme Today how he had come to the conclusion that global warming was more serious than terrorism, Sir David replied that this was "based on the number of fatalities that have already occurred" – implying that global warming has already killed more people than terrorism. The incident was reported more sensationally in the Independent  and brought criticism from Norman Baker MP, the Liberal Democrat environmental spokesperson and a number of other articles accusing the Prime Minister of "muzzling" his chief scientific adviser.
Later however, there were signs that the UK may be distancing itself somewhat from the US on climate change. In a speech made on 14th September 2004, Tony Blair said:
“What is now plain is that the emission of greenhouse gases, associated with industrialisation and strong economic growth from a world population that has increased sixfold in 200 years, is causing global warming at a rate that began as significant, has become alarming and is simply unsustainable in the long-term. And by long-term I do not mean centuries ahead. I mean within the lifetime of my children certainly; and possibly within my own. And by unsustainable, I do not mean a phenomenon causing problems of adjustment. I mean a challenge so far-reaching in its impact and irreversible in its destructive power, that it alters radically human existence.
The problem and let me state it frankly at the outset - is that the challenge is complicated politically by two factors. First, its likely effect will not be felt to its full extent until after the time for the political decisions that need to be taken, has passed. In other words, there is a mismatch in timing between the environmental and electoral impact. Secondly, no one nation alone can resolve it. It has no definable boundaries. Short of international action commonly agreed and commonly followed through, it is hard even for a large country to make a difference on its own.” 
The difficulty of course is that accepting that global warming is a problem and that the industrial world is mainly responsible means that the emphasis on continuing economic growth would be affected. So, the ruling Western economic and political interests insist that there is nothing to worry about. Either there is no such thing as global warming or we can find ways to overcome any climate change problems by the application of new technologies (including perhaps even weather modification). Of course, these technologies can only be developed in an expanding economy and a ‘business as usual’ situation. As Tony Blair went on to say in his 2004 speech:
“Just as science and technology has given us the evidence to measure the danger of climate change, so it can help us find safety from it. The potential for innovation, for scientific discovery and hence, of course for business investment and growth, is enormous. With the right framework for action, the very act of solving it can unleash a new and benign commercial force to take the action forward, providing jobs, technology spin-offs and new business opportunities as well as protecting the world we live in.” 
The British public has since discovered that part of the technological fix proposed by Mr. Blair could be the revival of nuclear power to “protect high living standards” and reduce the need for possibly unpopular “lifestyle changes”.  Sir David King has also proposed that nuclear power may be part of the solution  - but who is influencing who?
Chief among the parties interested in maintaining the status quo are the oil companies. ExxonMobil have spent millions of dollars financing around 40 organisations working exclusively to repudiate the existence of global warming. Lee Raymond CEO and Chairman of Exxon until his retirement in 2005, twice served as chairman of the “Global Climate Coalition” – an outspoken group which formed in response to the IPCC in 2001 that collaborated extensively with the anti-environmental “Wise Use Movement” and fringe groups such as “Sovereignty International”, which is said to believe that global warming is a plot to enslave the world under a United Nations-led "world government." An article in The Guardian newspaper in June 2005 revealed how documents obtained by Greenpeace under the US freedom of information legislation suggest that President Bush’s decision not to sign up to the Kyoto Treaty was probably influenced by pressure from ExxonMobil among others.
If the worst comes to the worst
Despite their denials and reassurances, The US Government is preparing to tackle the future problems caused by extreme climate change. This means increased planning for large scale and extended disasters previously considered very low risk, as well as preparing to deal with the social and economic effects caused by major impacts on the environment (unemployment, the movement of population, etc.)
In his chapter, Steve Wright describes how governments are investigating (and implementing) strategies and technologies to allow the military to deal with the expected public disorder following large scale disasters and exert their control in urban areas, along borders and elsewhere. It is convenient for the military that some of the methods being considered for surveillance, public order and control would also be very useful in urban war fighting situations - such as those recently experienced in Iraq. The US is using its declaration of a continuing “War on Terror” to establish and maintain draconian practices and policies. The President’s authorisation of eavesdropping on US citizens by the National Security Agency (NSA), holding prisoners without trial for years in the Guantanamo Bay detainment camp and extraordinary rendition are examples of how easily and swiftly severe measures and powers can be implemented and democratic rights eroded. In November 2001 President Bush defied international and national law, by issuing a military order  to allow him the right to detain indefinitely any non-US citizen anywhere in the world. In his state of the union address in January 2003 he actually stated that:
"More than 3,000 suspected terrorists have been arrested in many countries. Many others have met a different fate. Put it this way, they're no longer a problem to the United States and our friends and allies." 
The willingness of other nation states to accept, and even collaborate in, these practices is also indicative of an acknowledgement that human rights, international law and democratic processes can be sacrificed if and when it becomes necessary for governments to exercise complete control. Perhaps the greatest tragedy of terrorism is that it has led to repressive legislation, the removal of habeas corpus and the right to protest in the name of “Homeland Security” by the US, the UK and other states.
The conclusions of the Pentagon Report reinforce the need for most of the political control measures being implemented already by the US. Even so, the Pentagon went to great lengths to downplay the press furore that followed its release.
3. A STORM OF CONTROVERSY
The reason the report caused such a stir in the US and Europe was not so much to do with any of the military scenarios it set out but more to do with the fact that environmentalists and the media could use it to demonstrate that President Bush was out of touch with his own experts. Emphasis was placed on the report being a worst case scenario – not a prediction. The outcry in the press and media was declared "a tempest in a teacup" by Pentagon spokesman Lt. Commander Dan Hetladge. Critics suggested that the report was purely speculative and that no recognised climate experts were involved in formulating the possible scenarios presented. Others made much of the authors’ insistence that the report was “not implausible” and their call for climate change to become a prime US national security concern.
Let us take a look at how the report came about.
In the Beginning …. The Marshall Plan
The Pentagon paid $100,000 dollars for the report which was commissioned by 83 year old US Defense Department futurist planner Andrew Marshall – often referred to by Pentagon insiders as ‘Yoda’. It was he who sent the report to Fortune magazine and he has also been quoted as saying that:
"The Schwartz and Randall study reflects the limits of scientific models and information when it comes to predicting the effects of abrupt global warming. Although there is significant scientific evidence on this issue, much of what this study predicts is still speculation." 
Marshall has a long history of working in US national security. He joined the RAND Corporation in 1949 as an analyst and in 1972 was hired by Henry Kissinger to work in the National Security Council. The following year Richard Nixon appointed him as the first director of the newly formed Office of Net Assessment (ONA) and he has been reappointed in that role by every president since.
The ONA is not widely known to the general public but has been very influential in forming US military and political strategies. It was formed to look 10 or 20 years into the future to determine possible future threats to US security. Its evaluation of the Soviet threat and its analysis of Soviet military investment were used by Secretary of Defense James R. Schlesinger to reverse the US decline in military spending in the 1970s. During the Reagan years, Marshall helped to write a secret report calling for the US to develop the ability to fight and win a nuclear war with the Soviets. He has also been an enthusiastic supporter of Missile Defense and Star Wars programmes, arguing that the US could soon face the threat of ballistic missile attack from North Korea. In the 1990s Marshall began to speak about a ‘revolution in military affairs’ (RMA) driven by advances in information technology and a recognition that battle management and planning systems need to be integrated across the whole spectrum of war fighting capability (the ‘Full Spectrum Dominance’ of land, sea, air and space).
The influence that Marshall holds in his position at ONA became clear when in 1997 an attempt to downgrade the ONA by incoming Defense Secretary William S. Cohen was rebuffed by Marshall’s supporters in Congress, the aerospace industry and the press. Not least of Marshall’s defenders was his former aide James G. Roche (who was at that time Corporate Vice President and President of Electronic Sensors & Systems at the major defence contractors Northrop Grumman and later became Secretary of the Air Force).
Other followers and supporters of Marshall include Vice President Dick Cheney , Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld , and Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz  who helped found the “Project for a New American Century” (PNAC) . PNAC is a Washington based think tank created in 1997 which believes in, and worked towards, the establishment of a global American empire. A White Paper produced in September 2000 entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century"  describes “four essential missions” for the US military:
At the time of writing there are indications that PNAC is “heading toward closing down” with the feeling of “goal accomplished”.
It is not clear why Marshall commissioned Schwartz and Randall rather than climatologists to produce the report but as a futurologist he was probably more interested in the challenge of unexpected future human scenarios than potentially inconclusive scientific models or predictions. It was also Marshall himself who sent the report to Fortune magazine and commentated on it in the subsequent article.
Peter Schwartz, is Chairman of Global Business Network (GBN) a consultancy based in Emeryville, California. He has a bachelor’s degree in aeronautical engineering and astronautics and was director of the Strategic Environment Center at SRI International in Menlo Park, Silicon Valley. He was head of planning for Royal Dutch/Shell Group in London from 1982-1986 where he continued the work of Pierre Wack, using scenario planning to introduce change in individual and institutional behaviour. Scenario planning was used in the 1940s at the Rand Corporation by Herman Kahn to explore the possible situations leading to and resulting from nuclear war and Schwartz uses the same technique of creating possible future scenarios to help organisations “think the unthinkable” . During his time with Shell, Schwartz led the team that correctly speculated the collapse of oil prices and also the collapse of the Soviet Union. His idea is to develop a ‘thinking tool’ by investigating the possible response of an organisation to a major but unexpected shock. He also says he prophesied the 11 September 2001 tragedy:
“We wrote for the Rudman Commission [Hart-Rudman Commission into US national security in the 21st century] that the forces of Bin Laden and al-Qaeda would fly a jumbo jet into the World Trade Center and major buildings in Washington. We weren't the first or the only ones who said that. A number of people said it. You just had to read what Bin Laden said and look at history and his behaviour. He went after the World Trade Center before, and he comes back for his targets if he doesn't get them.
“You couldn't know that it would be on September 11 but you knew it was coming.” 
Of course he hasn’t always got it right. In 1997 Schwartz offered the possibility of 25 years of global prosperity, freedom and a better environment generated by an economic boom and sustained growth that would double the world’s economy every 12 years. In this scenario he envisioned five great waves of technology - personal computers, telecommunications, biotechnology, nanotechnology, and alternative energy - that could rapidly grow the economy without destroying the environment. Unfortunately this has not happened, but perhaps the article was an attempt to influence as much as to predict. As he says:
“… without an expansive vision of the future, people tend to get short-sighted and mean-spirited, looking out only for themselves. A positive scenario can inspire us through what will inevitably be traumatic times ahead.”
In 1987 Schwartz co-founded GBN  which is now part of the Monitor Consulting Group and has clients that include the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the CIA. He has worked as a script consultant for Holywood films such as “War Games”, “Deep Impact” and “Minority Report” which portrays a world where crimes are predicted and prevented before they actually occur - perhaps the ultimate in futurist thinking.
Doug Randall is co-leader of the consulting practice at GBN and a former senior researcher at the Wharton School in Pennsylvania where he studied tools and techniques for managing uncertainty.
He is quoted as asking the question:
“do advanced technologies and globalization make this sort of [abrupt climate] change less impactful, because we can adapt more quickly, or do they make it worse, because our systems are more brittle and we're more reliant on one another? That's a key question … It's certainly plausible to imagine the impacts being worse, and that leading to a sharp decrease in the carrying capacity of the planet, and that would lead to even more conflicts over food, water and other resources, more instability.” 
He emphasises that it is not clear where gradual climate change will hit the hardest or how abrupt climate change might unfold. More information is needed for planning the response.
4. Policing the Future Effects of Climate Change
It is unlikely that we will have created a sustainable global society before the negative effects of climate change (abrupt or gradual) fully take effect. In many respects the effects of climate change are merely an epiphenomenon. The effects will hit hardest those who are less prepared and less able to cope - emphasising issues of global inequality and lifestyle protection. The Katrina and Florida experience demonstrated that climate change catastrophes that we are not prepared for can bring about widespread breakdown in public order and the climate change agenda is likely to be one of rapid militarisation.
Difficulties with mass population movement have already occurred. For example, in October 2005 the BBC reported that thousands of African migrants tried to storm razor wire fences in Morocco in an attempt to enter Spanish enclaves there. In response Morocco flew out plane loads of immigrants and dumped them in Senegal. The US is expected to spend $500 million over 5 years on an overt counter-terror programme in Africa. A report in the Asia Times claimed that The Trans-Sahara Counter Terrorism Initiative will be used to counter the Salafist Group for Call and Combat (Groupe Salafiste pour la Predication et le Combat, or GSPC) which was formed in the 1990s in Algeria. However, some observers say that terrorism in the Sahara is just a mirage. Apart from an alleged kidnapping of Europeans in 2003 the US and Algerian authorities have failed to verify a single act of terrorism in the region. Jeremy Keenan, a specialist on the Saharan region at the University of East Anglia is quoted as saying that “Without the GSPC, the US has no legitimacy for its presence in the region” and notes that a growing US dependence on African oil has prompted the US presence.
Perhaps this is another example of futurist strategy planning? Maybe the US wants to ensure access to oil, or establish a military presence in Africa where refugees from abrupt climate change may number many millions - or both? Currently, US political ideology is underpinned by an aggressive military program of global dominance – perhaps best illustrated by the US Space Command’s 2020 Vision document:
“The ultimate goal of our military force is to accomplish the objectives directed by the National Command Authorities. For the joint force of the future, this goal will be achieved through full spectrum dominance - the ability of US forces, operating unilaterally or in combination with multinational and interagency partners, to defeat any adversary and control any situation across the full range of military operations.” 
It is therefore likely that the US will use its superiority in space – satellites, telecommunications, weapons, etc – and develop new high tech responses to sustain the current status quo. The military, though, have another angle on climate change – the possibility of controlling the weather and even using it as a weapon.
5. WEATHER MODIFICATION
Throughout history the weather has played an important part in planning and fighting wars and so is of particular interest to the military. Nearly two and a half thousand years ago the Chinese general Sun Tzu proclaimed:
“Know yourself, know your enemy; your victory will never be endangered. Know the ground, know the weather; your victory will then be total.” 
In more recent times, Russia’s harsh winter conditions have played a major role in the defence of the country against attempted invasions by Sweden’s Charles XII in 1708, Napoleon in 1812 and Hitler in 1941. The Germans inadvertently killed many of their own soldiers by poison gas in 1915 when the wind blew it back onto their own lines. Perhaps most famously, the date of the D-Day invasion in 1944 was determined by a weather forecast that indicated favourable conditions. Then, at the dawn of the nuclear age, the weather conditions (clear skies) helped determine the timing and the targets for the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. Even more recently, a significant number of bombing raids on Tuzla in Bosnia in late 1995 had to be abandoned due to weather and during Operation Desert Storm, Gen Buster C. Glosson consulted his weather officer to identify suitable targets in a time scale of 48 hours.
In fact, it is mainly due to the military interest in accurate predictions of cloud cover, wind direction and strength, and possible sea conditions for reconnaissance and surveillance, planning troop and equipment deployment and/or attacking an enemy installation or holding that so much research into weather modelling and forecasting has been funded by governments around the world.
However in the 1990s the US Air Force developed another interest in the weather by introducing the concept of weather exploitation, which is:
“the deliberate use of knowledge about friendly and enemy operating capabilities under given natural environmental conditions to set the terms of battle, resulting in optimal performance of the friendly force and reduced effectiveness of the enemy force.” 
This does not mean simply looking for good weather conditions to attack – good weather also favours the defenders. It does mean that accurate and reliable weather forecasting is extremely useful to decide the type of attack and execute it and intelligence of an enemy’s inability to deal with certain weather conditions can prove to be extremely useful.
Military Weather Modification - “Make my Day”
Going one step further the military would also be very interested in developing the ability to change the weather to suit them – or even use it as a weapon? Far fetched? Perhaps, but in the 1970s, former national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote:
"Technology will make available, to the leaders of major nations, techniques for conducting secret warfare, of which only a bare minimum of the security forces need be appraised ... . Techniques of weather modification could be employed to produce prolonged periods of drought or storm." 
Some time later in 1996 a ‘futurist’ research paper on “Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning Weather in 2025 – Military Applications of Weather Modification” form the US Air Force described how:
“US aerospace forces can ‘own the weather’ by capitalising on emerging technologies and focusing development of those technologies to war-fighting applications. Such a capability offers the war fighter tools to shape the battlespace in ways never before possible. It provides opportunities to impact operations across the full spectrum of conflict and is pertinent to all possible futures.” 
The report cites a 1957 advisory committee on weather control which explicitly recognised the military potential for weather-modification, suggesting that it could become a more important weapon than the atom bomb. The purpose of the paper was to outline a strategy for the use of a weather-modification system to achieve military objectives. It recognises that weather modification might be controversial and not totally acceptable to all segments of society but suggests that:
“…the tremendous military capabilities that could result from this field are ignored at our own peril. From enhancing friendly operations or disrupting those of the enemy via small-scale tailoring of natural weather patterns to complete dominance of global communications and counterspace control, weather-modification offers the war fighter a wide-range of possible options to defeat or coerce an adversary.”
For example, the report envisages the use of robot planes or unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) for cloud generation, seeding and dispersal, while microwave generators could be used to cause localised atmospheric disturbances so as to disrupt radar detectors.
The report does mention that there are legal restrictions on tampering with the weather. The UN General Assembly adopted a resolution which prohibits the hostile use of environmental modification techniques in 1977 through the "Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Technique (ENMOD)."  Signatories of the Convention have pledged to refrain from any military or other hostile use of weather-modification which could result in widespread, long-lasting, or severe effects. The First Review Conference was held in September 1984 and noted that no violations of the convention had occurred since its entry into force.
However, research into weather-modification has continued amid accusations that commercial and nonprofit enterprises are used as fronts for military experimentation and technological advancement. One experimental operation often cited as conducting research into weather modification is HAARP.
Strung along by HAARP?
The High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) programme is an assembly of 180 radio aerials situated near Fairbanks, Alaska and jointly managed by the US air Force and the US Navy. The antennae can project 3.6 Megawatts of radio energy into the ionosphere and heat many square kilometres of it by several degrees. Among conspiracy theorists it is the favourite candidate for a secret weather modification system.
It can certainly influence the naturally occurring electrical current systems that exist in the upper ionosphere and its web-site describes the project as:
“a scientific endeavour aimed at studying the properties and behaviour of the ionosphere, with particular emphasis on being able to understand and use it to enhance communications and surveillance systems for both civilian and defence purposes.”
One defence application of this work is the use of HAARP to generate and modulate currents in the ionosphere to turn it into a giant transmitter for Very Low Frequency (3 to 30 kHz) and/or Ultra Low Frequency electromagnetic (radio) waves (0.003 to 3 Hz). Waves of these frequencies can penetrate deep into to the ground or under the sea and so could be used to examine underground structures or communicate with submarines. In fact, the Pentagon’s 2003 budget included $1.7 million for an Electromagnetic Wave Gradiometer for HAARP to aid in imaging underground structures in the search for terrorists.
However, many are convinced that HAARP is also being developed as a weather modification weapon. Among them is Dr. Rosalie Bertell, world renowned author of “No Immediate Danger: Prognosis for radioactive Earth” who has been reported as saying:
“US military scientists … are working on weather systems as a potential weapon. The methods include the enhancing of storms and the diverting of vapour rivers in the Earth’ atmosphere to produce targeted droughts or floods” 
Michel Chossudovsky, professor of economics at the University of Ottawa in Canada, has studied official military documents about HAARP and is reported in The Daily Express in October 2005:
"There are very clear statements by the US Air Force to the effect that weather modification technology is available. HAARP will be fully operational by next year and could be used in actual military situations." 
He also claims that at least one British firm has been involved in its development and adds:
"It is time people began focusing on these weapons instead of concentrating solely on global warming … Both are a serious threat." 
In February 1998, The European Parliament's Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defense Policy held public hearings on the HAARP program and submitted a "Motion for Resolution" submitted to the European Parliament that:
"Considers HAARP... by virtue of its far-reaching impact on the environment to be a global concern and calls for its legal, ecological and ethical implications to be examined by an international independent body...; [the Committee] regrets the repeated refusal of the United States Administration... to give evidence to the public hearing ...into the environmental and public risks [of] the HAARP program." 
Perhaps to avoid a direct clash with Washington, the Committee's request for a "Green Paper" on "the environmental impacts of military activities" was dismissed on the grounds that the European Commission lacks the required jurisdiction to delve into "the links between environment and defense"
The Russians are also thought to have their own "weather steering" system, called Woodpecker, involving the transmission of low-frequency waves which are capable of disrupting the atmosphere and altering the path of the jet stream. It has even been claimed that a prolonged drought in California in the 1980s was caused by the blocking of warm, moist air for many weeks – although there is no actual proof of this.
Seeding and Feeding the Weather
The US Weather Modification Association has been around since 1950. Set up to investigate and understand weather modification whether planned (as with purposely seeding clouds to produce rain) or inadvertent (as when atmospheric pollution affects visibility).
Cloud seeding involves the introduction of crystals (silver iodide or salt) in clouds to act as condensation nuclei and causing more water drops to condense within the cloud and then fall as rain. It began in earnest in the 1950s and the extent of its effectiveness and the implications of human manipulation of the atmosphere have always been controversial. In the UK the deaths of 35 people in excessive flooding in southern England in August 1952 has been linked to RAF experiments in cloud seeding, although this has been disputed by some meteorologists. In China, chemical manipulation of clouds to cause rain has resulted in neighbouring cities accusing each other of stealing their share. In the US in 1972, cloud seeding was blamed for a flash flood in Rapid City, South Dakota which claimed over 200 lives. A direct link between the two events was never established, but all the same, further cloud seeding was not carried out in that area. During the Vietnam war an attempt by the US military to flood the Ho Chi Minh Trail by cloud seeding led to a Senate investigation and later to the 1977 UN Convention on Environmental Modification (ENMOD).
In 2005 Russian President Vladimir Putin is reported to have ordered the Russian Air Force to prevent it from raining on Moscow’s May Day Parade. In 1996, Russian space and weather control scientists linked up with, the then head of Mexico's space programme, Gianfranco Bisiacchi and founded Electrificación Local de la Atmosfera Terrestre (ELAT). Rather than seeding clouds with crystals, ELAT directs beams of charged ions from ground based stations to encourage rain droplets to form on dust particles and ice crystals. Results obtained were very impressive -- rainfall was reported to have increased by 30% and ELAT is credited with ending a severe drought in northern Mexico. The results are controversial however and the technique remains unproven.
Some concerns have also been expressed about chemtrails – thought by some to be chemical trails laid down by aeroplanes so as to disperse vapours in the atmosphere in order to change its composition or properties (reflectivity, absorption, visibility, etc.)  However, reliable published work or comment on this is difficult to find.
What has been openly discussed by scientists, however, is ways in which the course of hurricanes might be altered. Suggestions have included coating the ocean in front of them with biodegradable oil, or by beaming microwave radiation to heat their surroundings and help them dissipate rapidly.  In fact the US used cloud seeding to try to control a hurricane in 1947 but instead it grew stronger and went on to hit Savannah, Georgia. Further hurricane-manipulation experiments were carried out between 1962 and 1983, under the codename Project Stormfury. 
The US government seems to have mostly abandoned the concept of changing the weather in the 1970s amid criticism and after a group of prominent scientists concluded it is an impossible task or at least one whose success was impossible to prove. Spencer Weart suggests that scientists in the US switched weather modification research away from war fighting and towards attempts to counteract the growing awareness of global warming. 
And now - the Bill please
On March 3 2005 the US Senate received a bill to “establish a Weather Modification Operations and Research Board” in the Department of Commerce and
“implement a comprehensive and coordinated national weather modification policy and a national cooperative Federal and State program of weather modification research and development.” 
The purpose of the Board is to
“promote and fund research and development, studies, and investigations with respect to … improved forecast and decision-making technologies for weather modification operations … and … assessments and evaluations of the efficacy of weather modification, both purposeful (including cloud-seeding operations) and inadvertent (including downwind effects and anthropogenic effects)”.
The Act will also appropriate $10 million to the Board every year from 2006 until 2014. The US Senate Commerce Committee finally voted on May 11 2006 to approve the bill and it was introduced to the House of Representatives as HR 2995 on June 20 2006. Senator Hutchinson was quoted as saying that:
“Hurricanes Rita and Katrina and the recent tornados and violent storms in the Midwest took many lives and destroyed both property and the environment … By developing sustained research we can provide answers to the issues of predictability and reliability of weather modification research.” 
Conspiracy theories abound on the military and weather control. Some extremists believe that it is the military experimentation that is causing the observed abrupt climate change.
The newspapers and media made the most of the apocalyptic scenario described in the Pentagon Report in 2004. Uncontrollable weather conditions brought on by abrupt and unexpected climate change causing famine, pestilence, war and death (all four horsemen unleashed in one go), leaked secret reports, disagreements between the government and the military – each of these is a good story line on its own and here they all were in one headline grabbing article.
However, rather than being mysteriously leaked, it was Andrew Marshall, the person who commissioned the report, who sent it to Fortune magazine in the first instance. It was therefore unclassified (at least in the version that has now been openly published). Why did Marshall do that? Was he concerned about its findings and thought the public should know about them? Perhaps this is unlikely for someone heading in a secretive government department? What is more likely is that he, behaving as an ‘applied futurologist’, or someone else, wanted to influence and/or initiate public debate on climate change and national security.
Why did Marshall pay $100,000 to the scenario planners of GBN for the report rather than choose from a whole range of academics or other experts? Perhaps it was because he knew them well enough to know what to expect from their deliberations?
Marshall did seem to be directly challenging the President’s line on global warming – and at the beginning of a presidential election year. He chose respected business consultants to produce the report, possibly indicating that he wanted the business world to take note. Perhaps there is disagreement at a high-level and recognition that the Bush Administration's attempts to ignore, alter and distort the views and findings of the IPCC, the National Academy of Science and the vast majority of the scientific community on climate change will eventually be exposed. Possibly in order to counter the Presidential denial, the report’s extreme view of the consequences of ignoring climate change is an attempt to demonstrate that climate change is the most severe problem that we face today – greater even than terrorism.
Clearly, the US Department of Defense has to be ready for – or at least consider - any eventuality, but there is another aspect to all this. This chapter has attempted to show that the implications for national and global security as suggested in the report are not necessarily at odds with the US military’s current way of thinking. The portrayal of the future presented in the Pentagon Report can be used to help drive the strategy of complete global control through Full Spectrum Dominance and the adoption of technologies and methodologies arising out of the Revolution in Military Affairs. Although an unpopular idea in many quarters, the US Government sees a role for itself as a heavily armed and technologically superior global police force.
The military interest in weather and its possible modification can also benefit from the report - which could be used to argue that an understating of weather conditions in advance will give the US military the advantage over those lacking that ability without those techniques. The report may support the view that the possibility of combating climate change with high tech military weaponry is worth considering.
Some of this is science fiction some political reality – and that seems to be the way that the most powerful nation on Earth thinks and plans at the moment. Perhaps that’s even scarier than the consequences of rapid climate change?
The author would like to thank Dr Steve Wright form the Praxis Centre for many useful and interesting discussions and suggestions. Thanks are due to Dr Lesley Jeffries of the University of Huddersfield for support and very useful suggestions on early drafts. Thanks also to the editors for their patience and understanding. Funding to support this work has come from Leeds Metropolitan University, for which the author is grateful.
Atkinson, T.C., et al., “Seasonal temperatures in Britain during the past 22,000 years, reconstructed using beetle remains”, Nature, 325, 587-592, 1987
Berkwitz, B., “War in the Information Age", Hoover Institution, 2002
Brzezinski, Z., “Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era”, Viking Press, 1976
Calvin, W.H., “The great climate flip-flop”, The Atlantic Monthly, 281(1):47-64, January, 1998
Challenor, P. G., Hankin, R.K.S. and Marsh, R., “Towards the probability of rapid climate change”, Ch. 7 in Schellnhuber, H.J., Cramer, W., Nakicenovic, N., Wigley, T. and Yohe (Eds.), “Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change”, Cambridge University Press, 2006.
Chossudovsky, M. “Washington’s New World Order Weapons Have the Ability to Trigger Climate Change”, 4 January 2002 and “The Ultimate Weapon of Mass Destruction: "Owning the Weather" for Military Use”, 27 September, 2004 – available from the Centre for Research on Globalization - www.globalresearch.ca
Frahar, B.C., “The Impact of the Rapid City Flood on Public Opinion about Weather Modification”, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Vol. 55, No. 7, pp. 759–764, 1974
Graves, A., “Rain-making link to killer floods”, New Scientist, August 30, 2001
Halpin, E., Trevorrow, P., Webb, D. and Wright, S. (Eds), “Cyberwar, Netwar and the Revolution in Military Affairs”, Palgrave, 2006
Hambling, D., “Weapons Grade – Revealing the Links Between Modern Warfare and Our High-Tech World”, Constable, London, 2005
Hansen, B., et al.,“Decreasing Overflow from the Nordic Seas into the Atlantic Ocean Through the Faroe Bank Channel Since 1950,” Nature, 411, 21 June, 2001
International Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2001, Cambridge University Press, 2001
Lanicci, J.M., “Integrating Weather Exploitation into Airpower and Space Power Doctrine”, Airpower Journal, Summer 1998.
Linden, E., “The Winds of Change: Climate, Weather and the Destruction of Civilizations”, Simon and Schuster, 2006
King, D.A., “Climate Change Science: Adapt, Mitigate or Ignore?”, Science, 303 (5655), 176-7, 2004
Martin, M., “Cooler Heads on Climate Change”, Science, February 17, 2004
Schwartz, P. and Leyden, P., “The Long Boom: A History of the Future, 1980-2020”, Wired, Issue 5.07, July 1997.
Schwartz, P. and Randall, D., “"An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security", October, 2003, available from the Global Business Network web site - http://www.gbn.com/ArticleDisplayServlet.srv?aid=26231
Shapley, D., "Weather Warfare: Pentagon Concedes 7-Year Vietnam Effort." Science 184: 1059-61, 1974
Stipp, D.,“The Pentagon’s Weather Nightmare The climate could change radically, and fast”, Fortune Magazine, 9 February, 2004
Townsend, M. and Harris, P., “Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us”, The Observer, 22 February 2004
Willoughby, H. E., D. P. Jorgensen, R. A. Black, and S. L. Rosenthal, “Project STORMFURY, A Scientific Chronicle”, 1962-1983, Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc.,66, 505-514, 1985
 “Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us” by Mark Townsend and Paul Harris, The Observer, 22 February 2004 - available on line at: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/...
 The report can be obtained from the Global Business Network web site at http://www.gbn.com/ArticleDisplayServlet.srv?aid=26231
 Stipp, D.,“The Pentagon’s Weather Nightmare The climate could change radically, and fast”, Fortune Magazine, 9 February, 2004 – available on line at http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/...
 “Pentagon-Sponsored Climate Report Sparks Hullabaloo in Europe” by Keay Davidson, San Francisco Chronicle, 25 February, 2004 – available on line at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/02/25/...
 thermohaline - from the Greek words for heat “thermos” and for salt “halos”
 The ocean conveyor system could be slowing down already - see “Decreasing Overflow from the Nordic Seas into the Atlantic Ocean Through the Faroe Bank Channel Since 1950,” by B. Hansen, et. al., Nature, 411, 21 June, 2001. Also (the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC) states: “beyond 2100, the thermohaline circulation could completely, and possibly irreversibly, shut-down in either hemisphere” if global warming is “large enough and applied long enough” , Climate Change 2001, Cambridge University Press, 2001
 International Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2001, Cambridge University Press, 2001.
 The name comes from the pollen of a tundra wildflower - ‘dryas octopetala’ – that was unexpectedly discovered in a core sample taken from a lake bed in Denmark)
 Atkinson, T.C., et al., “Seasonal temperatures in Britain during the past 22,000 years, reconstructed using beetle remains”, Nature, 325, 587-592, 1987.
 See for example: Calvin, W.H., “The great climate flip-flop”, The Atlantic Monthly, 281(1):47-64, January, 1998 and discussion at http://williamcalvin.com/1990s/1998AtlanticClimate.htm
 Linden, E., “The Winds of Change: Climate, Weather and the Destruction of Civilizations”, Simon and Schuster, 2006 discusses a number of cases where climate change has had serious impacts on human society. He uses the 8.2k event, two less well-defined climate changes around 5,200 and 4,200 years ago, a possible volcanic event in 536 AD, the Mayan collapse around 800 AD, and the Norse colony collapse in Greenland to make the case that societies are vulnerable to abrupt shifts in rainfall, temperature etc.
 Form the Southampton Oceanographic Centre and Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
 Challenor, P. G., Hankin, R.K.S. and Marsh, R., “Towards the probability of rapid climate change”, Ch. 7 in Schellnhuber, H.J., Cramer, W., Nakicenovic, N., Wigley, T. and Yohe (Eds.), “Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change”, Cambridge University Press, 2006.
 “Bush Administration Accused of Suppressing, Distorting Science” by Seth Borenstein, published by Knight Rider, 19 February 2004 – available on line at http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0219-02.htm the report “Scientific Integrity in Policymaking – An Investigation into the Bush Administration’s Misuse of Science” is available from http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/specific-examples-of-the-abuse-of-science.html
 See: “Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him” by Andrew C. Revkin, New York Times, 29 January, 2006.
 See also “Scientists say they’re being gagged by Bush – White House monitors their media contacts” by Juliet Ailperin, Washington Post, 16 April, 2006
 Martin, M., “Cooler Heads on Climate Change”, Science, February 17, 2004
 “Scientist ‘gagged’ by No 10 after warning of global warming threat” by Steve Connor and Andrew Grice, The Independent, 8 March, 2006.
 Op cit
 “Blair demands nuclear power to protect high ‘living standards’”, by Marie Wolf, The Independent, 9 May, 2005
 “The nuclear option isn’t political expediency but scientific necessity” by David King, The Guardian, 16 December, 2005 – available at http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1668524,00.html
 “An Immovable Obstacle to Action on Climate Change” by Andrew Gumbel, The Independent, 1 June, 2006
 “Revealed: how oil giant influenced Bush” by John Vidal, The Guardian, 8 June, 2005.
 Details of the order issued 13 November, 2001 are on The White House web-site at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/11/20011113-27.html
 The Presidential “State of the Union Address” of 28 January 2003 is on The White House web-site at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html
 In: “Pentagon-Sponsored Climate Report Sparks Hullabaloo in Europe” by Keay Davidson, San Francisco Chronicle, 25 February 2004 – available on line at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/02/25/...
 San Francisco Chronicle, 25 February 2004, op cit.
 See for example : Berkwitz, B., “War in the Information Age", Hoover Institution, 2002 and “Cyberwar, Netwar and the Revolution in Military Affairs”, by E. Halpin, P. Trevorrow, D. Webb and S. Wright (Eds), Palgrave, 2006
 Dick Cheney was a former CEO of Haliburton and has links with the Carlyle Group (a global investment firm that has considerable investments in defence and high tech, space, security-linked information technology, nanotechnologies and telecommunications with members such as former President George Bush, senior; former British Prime Minister John Major; former Philippines President Fidel Ramos; former South Korean Prime Minister Park Tae Joon; Saudi Prince Al-Walid; former Secretary of State Colin Powell; former Secretary of State James Baker III; former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger; the billionaire George Soros, and even some bin Laden family members– see “Meet the Carlyle Group” at http://www.hereinreality.com/carlyle.html
 In 2004 Donald Rumsfeld sold shares he held "in at least five companies after they were identified as doing business with the Pentagon, according to his latest financial disclosure form," Jim Wolf reported in the Boston Globe, 22 September 2004
 Former Deputy Secretary of Defense, currently President of the World Bank. Perhaps most well known as a leading proponent of the Iraq War in 2003 and for his role in the development of the “Bush Doctrine” (The National Security Strategy of the US issued in September 2002 in response to the September 11 2001 attacks – a policy that moves away from deterrence to first strike or preventive war).
 Available from http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericas...
 “New American Century’ Project Ends With A Whimper” by Jim Lobe, Inter Press Service, 13 June, 2006 – available at http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0613-05.htm
 See: Schwartz, P., “The Art of the Long View: Planning for the Future in an Uncertain World”, Currency, 1996
 As quoted in an article in the Business news section of the South African Sunday Times of 26 January 2003
 Schwartz, P. and Leyden, P., “The Long Boom: A History of the Future, 1980-2020”, Wired, Issuee 5.07, July 1997.
 Schwartz founded GBN with Jay Ogilvy (former director of research in the Values and Lifestyles Program at SRI), Stewart Brand (founder of the Whole Earth Catalog and the Well computer network), Napier Collyns (from the Shell planning group) and Lawrence Wilkinson (president of Colossal Pictures).
 “US opens new war front in North Africa” by Jason Motlagh, Asian Times, 14 June, 2006 – available at http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/HF14Aa01.html
 “Vision for 2020”, United States Space Command, Peterson Air Force Base, 2nd Printing, August 1997 – available from: http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/usspac/visbook.pdf
 The actual translation is, “If you know Heaven and know Earth, you may make your victory complete.” In this context, “Heaven” refers to “night and day, cold and heat, times and seasons,” and “Earth” refers to “distances . . . danger and security; open ground and narrow passes; the chances of life and death.”
 Lanicci, J.M., “Integrating Weather Exploitation into Airpower and Space Power Doctrine”, Airpower Journal, Summer 1998.
 Brzezinski, Z., “Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era”, Viking Press, 1976
 Huse, T.J., Near, J.B., Celentano, R.J., Husband, D.M., Mercer, A.E. and Pugh J.E., “Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025”, Air Force 2025 Final Report, August 1996 – available online from http://csat.au.af.mil/2025/volume3/vol3ch15.pdf
 Hambling, D., “Weapons Grade – Revealing the Links Between Modern Warfare and Our High-Tech World”, Constable, London, 2005
 As reported in The Times, London, 23 November, 2000
 “Weather War? – New Evidence”, The Daily Express, October
8, 2005, available from
 Other articles on HAARP by Michel Chossudovsky include: “Washington’s New World Order Weapons Have the Ability to Trigger Climate Change”, 4 January 2002 and “The Ultimate Weapon of Mass Destruction: Owning the Weather" for Military Use”, 27 September, 2004 – both available from the Centre for Research on Globalization web-site – www.globalresearch.ca
 European Parliament, Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defense Policy, Brussels, doc. no. A4-0005/99, 14 January 1999.
 See for example, “China rain-making creates a storm” , BBC News, July 14 2004 available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3893671.stm
 Frahar, B.C., “The Impact of the Rapid City Flood on Public Opinion about Weather Modification”, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Vol. 55, No. 7, pp. 759–764, 1974
 Shapley, D., "Weather Warfare: Pentagon Concedes 7-Year Vietnam Effort", Science, 184: 1059-61, 1974
 “Rainmaking Hs Its True Believers – And Skeptics”, Business Week, October 24, 2005 – available at http://www.aer.com/news/pr/buswk10242005rainmakers.pdf
 See for example, William Thomas on “Chemtrails out of the Closet?”, August 17, 2005 available from http://www.willthomas.net/Convergence/Weekly/Chemtrails.htm
 “Space are plan to tame might of hurricanes” by Robin McKie, The Observer, 10 October, 2004 – available at http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/...
 Willoughby, H. E., D. P. Jorgensen, R. A. Black, and S. L. Rosenthal, “Project STORMFURY, A Scientific Chronicle”, 1962-1983, Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 66, 505-514, 1985 - see also the web-site at http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hrd_sub/sfury.html