Skip to content

Three Years Till The Guardian’s Global Climate Catastrophe

December 28, 2021

By Paul Homewood


Curiously there are still a few numpties who read the Guardian:



Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters..

A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a ‘Siberian’ climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.

The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.

‘Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,’ concludes the Pentagon analysis. ‘Once again, warfare would define human life.’

The findings will prove humiliating to the Bush administration, which has repeatedly denied that climate change even exists. Experts said that they will also make unsettling reading for a President who has insisted national defence is a priority.

The report was commissioned by influential Pentagon defence adviser Andrew Marshall, who has held considerable sway on US military thinking over the past three decades. He was the man behind a sweeping recent review aimed at transforming the American military under Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Climate change ‘should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern’, say the authors, Peter Schwartz, CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of the California-based Global Business Network.

An imminent scenario of catastrophic climate change is ‘plausible and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately’, they conclude. As early as next year widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions.

Last week the Bush administration came under heavy fire from a large body of respected scientists who claimed that it cherry-picked science to suit its policy agenda and suppressed studies that it did not like. Jeremy Symons, a former whistleblower at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), said that suppression of the report for four months was a further example of the White House trying to bury the threat of climate change.

Senior climatologists, however, believe that their verdicts could prove the catalyst in forcing Bush to accept climate change as a real and happening phenomenon. They also hope it will convince the United States to sign up to global treaties to reduce the rate of climatic change.

A group of eminent UK scientists recently visited the White House to voice their fears over global warming, part of an intensifying drive to get the US to treat the issue seriously. Sources have told The Observer that American officials appeared extremely sensitive about the issue when faced with complaints that America’s public stance appeared increasingly out of touch.

One even alleged that the White House had written to complain about some of the comments attributed to Professor Sir David King, Tony Blair’s chief scientific adviser, after he branded the President’s position on the issue as indefensible.

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.

‘Can Bush ignore the Pentagon? It’s going be hard to blow off this sort of document. Its hugely embarrassing. After all, Bush’s single highest priority is national defence. The Pentagon is no wacko, liberal group, generally speaking it is conservative. If climate change is a threat to national security and the economy, then he has to act. There are two groups the Bush Administration tend to listen to, the oil lobby and the Pentagon,’ added Watson.

‘You’ve got a President who says global warming is a hoax, and across the Potomac river you’ve got a Pentagon preparing for climate wars. It’s pretty scary when Bush starts to ignore his own government on this issue,’ said Rob Gueterbock of Greenpeace.

Already, according to Randall and Schwartz, the planet is carrying a higher population than it can sustain. By 2020 ‘catastrophic’ shortages of water and energy supply will become increasingly harder to overcome, plunging the planet into war. They warn that 8,200 years ago climatic conditions brought widespread crop failure, famine, disease and mass migration of populations that could soon be repeated.

Randall told The Observer that the potential ramifications of rapid climate change would create global chaos. ‘This is depressing stuff,’ he said. ‘It is a national security threat that is unique because there is no enemy to point your guns at and we have no control over the threat.’

Randall added that it was already possibly too late to prevent a disaster happening. ‘We don’t know exactly where we are in the process. It could start tomorrow and we would not know for another five years,’ he said.

‘The consequences for some nations of the climate change are unbelievable. It seems obvious that cutting the use of fossil fuels would be worthwhile.’

So dramatic are the report’s scenarios, Watson said, that they may prove vital in the US elections. Democratic frontrunner John Kerry is known to accept climate change as a real problem. Scientists disillusioned with Bush’s stance are threatening to make sure Kerry uses the Pentagon report in his campaign.

The fact that Marshall is behind its scathing findings will aid Kerry’s cause. Marshall, 82, is a Pentagon legend who heads a secretive think-tank dedicated to weighing risks to national security called the Office of Net Assessment. Dubbed ‘Yoda’ by Pentagon insiders who respect his vast experience, he is credited with being behind the Department of Defence’s push on ballistic-missile defence.

Symons, who left the EPA in protest at political interference, said that the suppression of the report was a further instance of the White House trying to bury evidence of climate change. ‘It is yet another example of why this government should stop burying its head in the sand on this issue.’

Symons said the Bush administration’s close links to high-powered energy and oil companies was vital in understanding why climate change was received sceptically in the Oval Office. ‘This administration is ignoring the evidence in order to placate a handful of large energy and oil companies,’ he added.


No wonder the Guardian is in such dire straits. Apparently I ma one of their top readers globally, having read 64 articles this year!


  1. 2hmp permalink
    December 28, 2021 9:49 pm

    64 articles in a year is a top reader. No wonder they are sinking fast.

  2. devonblueboy permalink
    December 28, 2021 9:59 pm

    And a top reader only to point out their mistakes!!

  3. Graeme No.3 permalink
    December 28, 2021 10:39 pm

    Paul, I admire your devotion to duty.
    When I first in the UK I read various newspapers and rated The Times and The Telegraph as the best. The Guardian was better than The Sun which I thought was the worst until I got one copy of The Mirror.
    In 2012 on my second visit I was not so impressed by The Guardian, and abandoned it there after to the unreadable “good for wrapping fish and chips”.

  4. jimlemaistre permalink
    December 28, 2021 10:43 pm

    Through out history . . . calamity has been brought upon the world, NOT by Warm Climate Change . . . By Cold Climate Change. Prosperity has ALWAYS been the result of Warm Climate Change . . .

    The Bronze Age Clod Epoch, The Dark Ages Cooling Period and The Little Ice Age each brought great suffering, famine and disease to the world.

    The Roman Warming Period, The Middle Ages Warming Period and our ‘Modern Warming Period’ have brought endless prosperity, harvests of plenty and biological stability to humans, plants and animals alike.

    • December 28, 2021 10:44 pm

      Yes but telling the truth does not progress the marxist cause……

    • dave permalink
      December 29, 2021 10:42 am

      “…Bronze Age Clod Epoch…”

      Yes, IQ’s plummeted.

      • jimlemaistre permalink
        December 29, 2021 2:18 pm

        The Bronze Age Cooling Period (European Starvation) Alexander conquered Egypt . . . A ‘Green Oasis’ of plenty . . . to feed his armies. We all know this history but the ‘Climatic driver’ of this military assault is little known. Food . . . The food to fill the bellies of armies, in the absence of food at home.

        Then . . . The Dark Ages (the worst natural Climactic Disruption in 10,000 years) Froze even the Nile in 829 . . . The Black Sea (a Salt Lake) in 800 and 801 AD. We have been told NOTHING of true Environmental calamity . . . COLD Climate Change . . . Always preceded and augmented throughout by Volcanoes above 6 on the VEI index.

        Pages 36 to 41 . . .

        Proof that COLD Climate Change is the Enemy on Planet Earth . . .

  5. December 28, 2021 10:43 pm

    Curiously there are still a few numpties who read the Guardian………….sad to say including my brother and his other half. Their grasp of reality or lack thereof is awe-inspiring

  6. Harry Davidson permalink
    December 28, 2021 11:00 pm

    The Graun was not too bad under Rusbridger. Not reliable, often wrong, but not that bad.

    The current American woman who is editor was clearly tasked with balancing the books. As a result, inevitably the standard of reporting has gone down as expensive experienced staff have been replaced with younger, cheaper options, a lot of people are on short term contracts and only really care about by-lines, all articles must pass the test that subscribers will not be offended, and any comment BTL that goes against the party line is deleted by the Mods (Mods? They don’t moderate, they ruthlessly enforce the party line). As a result their most interesting posters BTL have all gone (except for the football pages) and all the articles are insipid and predictable.

    • Gerry, England permalink
      December 29, 2021 11:21 am

      An American, eh? Presumably she was put in place when Bill Gates took over having propped up the failing rag to the tune of £13m. The money was ‘hidden’ by being laundered via the Gates ‘Charity’. The ‘charity’ has also given money to the BBC.

  7. CheshireRed permalink
    December 28, 2021 11:39 pm

    They also did the absurd ‘100 months to save the world’ series with Andrew Simms.
    Every week he foretold catastrophe. Needless to say his ‘predictions’ have all failed.

  8. Andrew Wilkins permalink
    December 29, 2021 1:00 am

    The current warm weather in the UK is being blamed on climate change by the climate chatterati. It doesn’t fit with the “Siberian climate” theory, does it?

    Speaking of weapons-grade twaddle Mat McGrath at the Beeb is chatting absolute rubbish about FLOP 26

  9. John Hultquist permalink
    December 29, 2021 3:30 am

    ” could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure ”

    Seems to me religion and related concepts are driving this threat.
    I don’t read that Iran, Pakistan, China, Russia and a few others are much concerned with Global Warming.

  10. December 29, 2021 6:57 am

    “Curiously there are still a few numpties who read the Guardian”. You are talking about BBC employees! I have noticed over the last few weeks that first thing in the morning when Radio 4 covers what the headlines are in the press, the Grauniad is by far the first paper to be mentioned, despite it having the lowest circulation.

    • Devoncamel permalink
      December 29, 2021 9:12 am

      Philip, it hadn’t escaped my attention either. The Grauniad must be the BBC staff magazine.

    • Ben Vorlich permalink
      December 29, 2021 10:47 am

      In the days when I listened they used to refer to Monbiot about climate and some environment issues. Other Guardian journalists often commented on BBC Radio news.

      I haven’t listened to much of the BBC’s radio output, Popmaster and 20 minutes either side is about it.

    • Vernon E permalink
      December 29, 2021 11:22 am

      And BBC news and political debate invariably features Guardian writers at some point – disproportionally to their readership. It would, wouldn’t it?

      • Harry Passfield permalink
        December 29, 2021 12:55 pm

        Disproportionate in the same that Caroline Lucas is rolled out so often by the BBC. Must be a nice little earner for her and all, so transparently above board….

    • Andrew Harding permalink
      December 29, 2021 5:53 pm

      BBC Radio 2’s Jeremy Vine Show consistently uses Daily Telegraph material on a daily basis. The Leftist bias though is getting worse. A full hour discussing the Downing Street party in Dec 2020, followed by another 30 minutes the following day and snide references for the rest of the week.

      It was the ideal opportunity to walk my dog!

  11. December 29, 2021 7:54 am

    as Britain is plunged into a ‘Siberian’ climate by 2020

    Pentagon poppycock.

  12. Phoenix44 permalink
    December 29, 2021 9:30 am

    The article shows why this stuff is such nonsense. Its all predictions and forecasts that apparently “Bush cannot ignore”. Yet he absolutely coukdcand should have ignored – because they were utterly wrong. Not a single thing predicted happened. Not even close!

    If these were – as claimed – predictions made by the science then the science is unequivocally wrong.

    • jimlemaistre permalink
      December 29, 2021 4:38 pm

      The predictions and prognostications do not need to look back more than 250 years.1750 when temperatures were at their second coldest, Globally, in 10,000 years the Northern Hemisphere was in deep sh*t. Why do you think the United States, Australia and Canada were receiving so many migrants . . . Starvation at home ! People do not migrate when things are good ! PS . . . 1750 is the year picked to from which to ‘Project’ Global Warming. It just happens to correspond with James Watt’s Steam Engine . . . Correlation is Not Causation.

      Warm Climate Change is good . . . Cold Climate Change is the Killer . . .

  13. Tones permalink
    December 29, 2021 10:28 am

    Has anyone in the Pentagon been held to account, and if not why not?
    One is not supposed to shout ‘Fire’ in a crowded theatre.

    • dave permalink
      December 29, 2021 10:57 am

      “…held to account…”

      Well, I assume the compiler of the report was suitably rewarded for advancing the Pentagon’s perpetual program of garnering more money for itself, and is now snoozing somewhere as a Brigadier General on 165,000 dollars a year.

  14. Harry Passfield permalink
    December 29, 2021 10:56 am

    Of all the nonsense points that were covered by this ‘report’ this one stands out for me:

    They warn that 8,200 years ago climatic conditions brought widespread crop failure, famine, disease and mass migration of populations that could soon be repeated.

    It raises the question: how does a civilisation of 8,200 years ago compare to a 20th C one? Doh!

    Actually, there was a great piece of Hubris shown in one other part where: “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.’ ” You see, having the Pentagon ‘agree’ with him Sir John feels really chuffed that someone else thinks he’s right. He no doubt ignores anyone who didn’t agree with him. Classic.

  15. Gerry, England permalink
    December 29, 2021 11:24 am

    Without BBC News having the rag as their in house magazine, their sales would be drastically reduced. No doubt a few copies go to the morons who run our councils too. One of my drinking circle ‘reads’ it but like Paul he just looks online and doesn’t actually buy a copy.

  16. Ray Sanders permalink
    December 29, 2021 2:01 pm

    A little pastime of mine is going onto the Energy section of the Graun and playing spot the mistakes. I then email the readers editor and force them to issue a correction. The tally for 2021 was 17 articles corrected. Okay spotting errors in any Jillian Ambrose article is not really difficult (she recently claimed Carbon Capture and storage involved taking the methane out of natural gas – God knows what she thought that left you with) but I have also pressured to have others amended.
    One notable example was when Damian Carrington claimed (in quotation marks) that old oil and gas wells were filled with concrete when exhausted. When I pointed out they were only capped (rather than filled) with concrete he tried to claim he was only quoting from an expert. and would not amend the article
    So I forwarded the email to the particular “expert” involved to confirm whether or not it actually was a quote. The expert responded that it most certainly was not a quote attributable to him so I duly passed that on to Mr Carrington. I got no reply but I did notice the line was quietly removed from the article though without any admission of the fact.
    Lying bunch of ………

  17. dennisambler permalink
    December 29, 2021 3:00 pm

    The CIA beat the Pentagon to it back in 1974, but then it was cold:

    Click to access CIAclimateResearchIntellProbs_1974.pdf

    “The Western World’s leading climatologists have confirmed detrimental reports of a global climatic change. The stability of most nations is based on a dependable source of food, but this stability will not be possible under the new climatic era. A report by the University of Wisconsin projects that the earth’s climate is returning to that of the neo-boreal era, or Little Ice Age, (1600-1850), an era of drought, famine and political unrest in the western world.”

    The Wisconsin analysis questioned whether a return to these climatic conditions could support a population that has grown from 1.1 billion in 1850 to 3.75 billion in 1970. The Wisconsin group predicted that the climate could not support the world’s population since technology offers no immediate solution.”

    The new climatic era brings a promise of famine and starvation to many areas of the world.

    Since the late 1960’s, a number of foreboding climatic predictions has appeared in various climatic, neurological, and geological periodicals, consistently following one of two themes.
    Most meteorologists argued that they could not find any justification for these predictions. The climatologists who argued for the proposition could not provide definitive causal explanations for their hypotheses.

    Early in the 1970’s a series of adverse climatic anomalies occurred:
    The world’s snow and ice cover had increased by at least 10 to 15 percent, in the eastern Canadian area of Arctic Greenland, below normal temperatures were recorded for 19 consecutive months. Nothing like this had happened in the last 100 years. The Moscow region suffered its worst drouth) in three to five hundred years. Drought ocurred in Central America, the sub-Sahara. South Asia, China. and Australia. Massive floods took place In the Midwestern Unitedd States. Within a single year, adversity had visited almost every nation on the globe.

    Because of the Global COOLING trend, the lower edge of the circumpolar vortex has in recent years stayed further south during the summer. It has kept the high pressure zones further south too, blocking the monsoon out of regions where they are vital to the survival of hundreds of millions of people.

    Scientists are confident that unless man is able to effectively modify the climate, (i.e. WARM IT UP), the northern regions, such as Canada, the European part of the Soviet Union and major areas in northern China, will again be covered with 100 to 200 feet of ice and snow.”

    • jimlemaistre permalink
      December 29, 2021 4:15 pm

      These Prognostications from 1974 are more realistic even today than the predictions of Climate Change ‘Catastrophes’ from Global Warming. While the climate warms and CO2 is rising and agricultural production increases, the 7 billion people on Earth have little to fear. However, it has been 130 years since Krakatoa in 1883. This eruption was one of the deadliest and most destructive Volcanic Events in ‘Recorded History’. Explosions were so violent that they were heard 3,110 kilometers (1,930 mi) away in Perth, Western Australia, The sound was claimed to be heard in 50 different locations around the world and the sound wave is recorded to have travelled the globe seven times, as recorded by barometers in London. At least 36,417 deaths are attributed to the eruption and the tsunamis it created.

      When the next Volcano erupts on Planet Earth of this magnitude, everything projected by the Pentagon in 1974 WILL be realized ! During the Little Ice Age we had 17 of these monsters at a time where the Human population was less than 1 billion souls . . . Just imagine the effects today. Listed Page 40 . . .

      History ALWAYS repeats itself Climatologically . . . Environmentalists are too naïf to look . . .
      Politicians follow ‘The Big Green Propaganda Machine’ scared to follow history when ‘Paranoia’ has been sowed so deeply by the Media of our Modern World . . .

  18. Hugh Sharman permalink
    December 30, 2021 9:50 am

    To be fair to the current editor of the Grauniad, who, to her shame, is responsible for the current hysterical treatment of anything to do with “climate change”, Alan Rusbridger was its editor in 2004!

    More seriously, how did the Pentagon commission this study? On paper, the authors seemed credible at the time. How could they have come to the conclusions they did? Who advised them of the “science” that we all find so amusing 17 years later? So we cannot exactly blame Rusbridger for seizing on a story that looked so authentic at the time? Hysteria sells, after all!

    Paul, it would be valuable to have the views of Katherine Viner (British, not American, Pembroke College, Oxford) approached on this 17 year old story!

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: