Originally posted by forestlady
I remember when this story came out in 2004. Essan, do you have a reliable source for this conspiracist or hack?
It was one of those stories that got picked up by one newspaper and then spread to others - I'm not sure to be honest how/where it actually reached
the media. I do know that they misinterpreted it.
I don't think that's actually true. Firstly, the Guardian is probably the planet's most reliable source of information.
Some might dispute that
From indirect experience I know that even the most reputable media misinterpret and misquote, certainly on weather/climate
issues.
The consensus among competent scientists is that global warming is real and they've been trying to tell that to Bush, who ignores it (since
he's such a scientific genius...)
No-one's disputing that. It's just that the Pentagon 'Day After Tomorrow' scenario is
not in accordance with current scientific thinking.
Or rather, like the film, it's an extreme version of what may theoretically happen at some undetermined point in the future.
I've done some deleving and there's a critique of the media furore over the Pentagon report on a blog here:-
timblair.spleenville.com...
Also, an interview with one of the report's compilers:-
www.worldchanging.com...
In which, he says:-
Now, we looked at the worst-case realistic scenario: what would happen if abrupt climate change was as extreme as is plausible, if it hit the most
vulnerable regions the hardest, and if it all happened at once. There are no scientists we've run into who say that abrupt climate change will unfold
exactly as we've outlined, but there are also very few scientists who say that something like this is implausible.
So I think we can be quite clear that despite what the media implied at the time, this Pentagon Report was
not a prediction of what
will
happen
None of which takes away the fact that GW is happening and carbon emission are almost certainly contributing to it.
. 
