Listen to this Podcast
More 60-Second Earth
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Climate change is hard to hide, but the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency is trying anyway.
Back in 2009, the CIA established a Center on Climate Change and National Security dedicated to researching the implications of rising sea levels, declining agricultural yields and other climate change impacts.
A National Security Archive historian asked the CIA for a copy of any impact studies or reports the center has done in March 2010. But the CIA responded (pdf) this September that such material is quote "currently and properly classified and must be denied in its entirety."
The CIA claims to be concerned about the "protection of intelligence sources and methods, names, official titles, salaries, and numbers of personnel."
But is it a secret that satellites and ground observations show a meltdown in Arctic sea ice that will open new shipping lanes—and security concerns—for the first time in recorded history? To take just one example.
Climate change impacts and their security implications appear almost wherever science looks. In fact, physicist Richard Muller and his group at the University of California at Berkeley confirmed this week that global average temperatures have been rising. Again. That's no secret.
—David Biello
[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]
See what we're tweeting about
38 Comments
Add CommentAnother whack-o Conspiracy Theory, thank you very much. Time to change the tinfoil in your hat linings again!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSincerely,
Sasquatch
Can you outline the conspiracy theory Geoff? All I see here is reference to a PDF wherein the CIA refuses to give access to a report on climate change and security. You don't need a tinfoil hat to ask "what's so secret?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhere's the here, here? No information, not even much speculation, an article worthy of CNN.com.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSPECULATION; CIA analysis is probably a series of graphs reflecting convergence of things like loss of arable land, loss of tree cover, estimated crop failure rates, rise in temperature and continued population growth to predict when the stuff really hits the fan. My guess is by 2018 we start to see local starvation events that continue to escalate until by 2021 it becomes totally unmanageable. By 2023, starvation events begin to impact second world populations, by 2025 first world, industrialized nations. 2027-8 total breakdown of civilization
Excellent summary of the potential upcoming effects of global warming. It would make a fascinating piece of science fiction. And we know how science fiction often becomes science fact. Have there been any good books or movies that attempt to depict the future effects of global warming in a straight-forward manner -- more akin to hard sci-fi?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI doubt the CIA's reluctance to release their analysis reveals a big conspiracy theory. It simply suggests maybe that if they do understand the future implications of climate change, then they probably have some rather unsettling plans on how to deal with it, but who knows? Better to nip the problem at the bud rather than plot out dramatic emergency measures I'd say. Hope they have that sort of common sense.
Just the fact that CIA is involving themselves in climate change and staying tight lipped about it proves that tin foil hats are not needed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor the humorously-challenged: So, ya see, the idea was that a critter who's been debunked many times by science writers -- to wit, Sasquatch -- posts a comment debunking this article as written by crazies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhich all goes to prove that either you guys need a sense of humor, Dolmance and DaveG, or else I do. And I'm not gonna stick around for the answer!
(Me, neither! --Sasquatch)
The bias I have noticed on Scientific American articles is astounding. Often times they fail to acknowledge that there is still disagreement on the severity and causes of AGW. There may be some other natural factors contributing to the warming. They say the science is settled, and portray anyone who does not agree with the worst case scenario as crazy. Skepticism is important to science. Science is ALWAYS changing, Scientific consensus can shift dramatically one way or the other almost overnight sometimes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe CIA hasn't released their report on little green martians either, or for that matter, their report on the "Man in the moon". We started coming out of the last glaciation period about 10,000 years ago and we are still coming out of it. It will continue to get warmer until all the glaciers are gone. It will continue to get warmer after that till some hot peak warm period is reached, then the climate will go the other way until we are again in another glaciation period. It is cyclic. The true gorers have it right, they just don't understand that this happens over very long periods.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo Mr. Biello:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWho is in charge of the CIA? Who does he answer to? Do they have access to each report the CIA comes up with? Did you participate and elect the president to office?
So to summarize your beef is with the Obama administration for not sharing with you the CIA report! Why don't you call them on it?
Or you think evil G.W.Bush is still conspiring with the CIA against you? What else are the voices in your head telling you?
On the other hand, ebarker, maybe the climatologists know what they're doing, since it's their field of study, and there's pretty much a consensus that climate warming is being magnified considerably above the normal cycles by human activity. The exact amount is debatable, but that it's partly human isn't debated by climatologists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm not especially surprised that the CIA would keep their studies secret, and maybe even for the stated reasons.
This is a comment for Geoff, even though there is a chance it may never be read. Global climate change is real and it is folly to think otherwise. The Earth is a non-linear, dynamic system that experiences oscillations of so many things like gas, rock, water, and organic matter. Arguing against the evidence for an increase in the global temperature over nearly the last two centuries of 0.8 C is not even worthy of debating about. What people argue about are the causes of the increase in temperature.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCopy that sasquatch, it appears they don't speak our language. Take care - The Abominable Snowman
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisp.s. - by "conspiracy theory" and crazies, it was meant that the "crazies" often pin issues against the government be ause theyre too dumb to open a book or understand scientific literature. Results are out there, stop relying on the gov for scientific data. CYA
Hellooooo. Is anybody home? Geoff believes in climate change; he travels a lot, and sees it in action although he also believes it's more to do with natural and cosmic cycles and only secondarily with human intervention. Geoff also believes in Sasquatch, if it matters, having lived in the Washington Cascades and discussed his own encounter with Forest Rangers who'd had similar encounters.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou humor-challenged types really don't like satirical minds taking the mick on your bloggers, do you?
And James Davis, no: I think they call my problem "lack of respect for authority and academic credentials."
Whoa! Somebody got it! Thanks, A.S.!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExactly so. The insane (and that's the right word) hatred of the CIA by the left even when their man is running it is just absolutely amazing. But perhaps that is the right word - insane.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo problem. So hey what's everyone here think about evolution? The CIA hasn't released their results on that either. Just kiddennnnnnnnn
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe CIA is keeping something secret? Wow. What a surprise. At least they haven't been caught lying about climate change. Fact, we have global warming. Fact, we know what some of the man made causes are. Debate, what and when will we do something about it? If as a country we had plans on how to attack Iraq and then used 9/11 to bomb and invade them, what makes you think that mass starvation events and other "natural disasters" won't be used for political agendas by us, let alone "rogue" nations? Like the CIA is all about transparency and is actually a central agency of "intelligence". You don't think that scientists are carefully "monitored"? Conspiracy theories? Isn't that why the CIA exists? And who is making our future "safer", climate change deniers? The tip of an iceberg in a warming world, 7 billion people and counting, tick tock tick tock. This is the way the world ends, not with a bang, but a whimper.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHackers have successfully infiltrated the US center for the control of drones.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAt this rate, the CIA will be unable to keep anything secret, especially with whistle-blowers etc.
Private opinions would seem to be progressively being leaked to the public domain.
Big brother is breathing down the CIA's kneck!
Evidence schmevidence. I'd take a crafty argument over reproducible scientific fact any day of the week. Long live the ignorant!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBack to Earth for a second, will an editor pleaseeee put the hammer down on homeopathic "medicine" in an issue? It needs to be done, and I promise the CIA isnt holding back any information it. I'll subscribe to the magazine and hang the article from my head so that everyone can get out from under their rocks.
Erbarker, the difference is of course that the CIA isn't keeping tabs on the man in the moon because it is not a threat to national security. Also, the changes in global temperature have been strongly correlated with PROPORTIONAL atmospheric CO2 levels, which is predicted by the theory that CO2 traps heat. So when human activity raises the CO2 level, it is no surprise that there is a PROPORTIONAL increase in temperature. On this, there is about as much valid scientific debate as there is on evolution, heliocentrism, etc. To claim otherwise is to introduce a red herring.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt hardly matters. According to the warmist whackos on this SA blog any information on Global Warming must come only from climate scientists who receive government grants and only believe in the dogma of global warming caused only by CO2 produced only by American industry and vehicles.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo why would these people care what the CIA may or may not have.
Besides according to these liberals, the proof of Human Industrial CO2 caused global warming was decided by vote of kool-aid drinking climate scientists. I doubt any of them are working for the CIA.
So what is the story here? Even if the CIA released it the warmists would just accuse the CIA of being "deniers" of their warmist religious dogma, this hardly serves any purpose from the CIAs perspective. The liberals already attack the CIA and their efforts to protect our freedom, why would the CIA want to hand these people even more ammunition to use?
Nicpet, these people won't listen. they have sucked down the global warmist Kool aid completely. Remember, the only valid proof to these people is what their computer models say as opposed to observing the actual climate and performing real experiments.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have been following these SA articles for almost a year now and I have yet to see a single article on any other possibility for the cause of global warming. Even when they post something like the article on the PETM, they completely disregard the fact that it produced all that CO2, 5 times more than anything predicted by models and this had to be done naturally. They literally speculate it was volcanoes back then but the warmists today say it is not possible for volcanoes to have that effect. Another good one is the "missing" heat models predicted for the last decade. Not one word in an SA article adding that the model was possible wrong the perhaps the heat was never there.
They do not even put out completely wacked theories to help debunk the deniers, lol. They have even posted articles from Warmists at Nasa claiming space aliens would genocide all humans from the universe because these aliens would conclude our lack of concern for nature as a threat all because we output too much CO2 and did nothing, therefore we don't care about the planet or any other planet and must be wiped out. It is amazing how SA will post any article no matter how insane to "prove" American caused CO2 based global warming and absolutely nothing contradicting this theory. Heck they wont even call the warmists out on some of their more outlandish claims.
Sorry, what's the secret? That a spy agency has written something down and won't publish it? That's nothing new.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegardless of the subject, most organisations that spend most of their time in secret-squirrel-land will classify everything they touch. It's habit, and it's protection - if you release one thing people always want more. And if you produce one publication, it might be analysed to tell a little more about your agency than perhaps you intended to share.
Sure it's paranoia, but it's life in secret-squirrel land. There's no story in this.
Ooh, a troll wearing a lab coat! Accuse the prez of making promises he never made, and then blame him for not bailing us out of a natural process. Scientists have always preferred to err on the conservative side; now they can err on the neo-conservative side too! Welcome to Scientific Amerykin!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe CIA, as a matter of policy, doesn't devulge anything. I've been told if you call headquarters and ask them if they are in Langley, you will get a nonanswer. Not a conspiracy, a policy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this9099 of the last 10500 years were warmer than today according the ice core samples. Moreover, the last 700 years or so has seen the tempertures dropping.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe artic ice cover has been inceasing for he last four years.
The conspiracy here is by SciAm presenting global warming as a fact, unscientifically not presenting the other 30,000 climate professionals who discredit it.
You can see a chart below:
Dr. Don Easterbrook, Professor of Geology at Western Washington University as he presented this chart, along with several of his own, at the Heartland Institute's 4th International Conference on Climate Change in Chicago, "Natural global warming much more intense than modern warming has occurred many times in the geologic past without CO2 change."
http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/256079/only-9099-last-10500-years-warmer-2010-brian-bolduc
And thats discounting the strong possiblility that the solar max (?) cycle causes a much warmer than normal 2012 and 2013, with its very harmful effects.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis one is simple. No agency wants to lose it funding. If the CIA came out as a proponent of global warming the Republicans would punish them with significant reductions. Duh!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvery science facility, on every college campus, on every continant is aware of the study and results of global warming. Whether we all agree or not, is beside the point. The CIA cannot/does not have any further information or data than the general public. If you think they do, you must not be able to sleep much. This like having an article written about the CIA keeping secrets regarding breathing and the elimination of body waste. This is a non-article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScientific American has run a similar article (maybe in the early) before concerning access to military data by the scientific community. In that case, the Navy had created an extensive magnetic map of the earth to help submarines navigate without the need to surface. Such an extensive map could have helped the scientific community in their research efforts. Data as far back as fifty years was kept classified for no good reason, even when the Navy was no longer using it. That same data could have proved useful to scientific research.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow the question is, how far does and should secrecy go? Does giving access to such data jeopardize national security and, if it doesn't, should it remain secret simply because it was collected by military means? The same applies here. Scientists aren't interested in who collected the data or what their pay grade is or how many people was involved and this information can be sanitized in any report. Once the data is reliable, that is all that matters.
So the question everyone should be asking is whether we, as taxpaying members of the American public, should have access to this data for research purposes? Unless there is a justifiable reason, such as it threatens national security, then why shouldn't scientists have access to the data that could help improve their understanding of what is taking place? Why should the default position be the information is classified?
Why is the CIA keeping climate change secret? Mr. Biello, is that joke? CIA is a top secret organization. They do covert operations, deceptions and cover ups. They don't do advocacy. That's the job of IPCC.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScientific American is becoming less 'scientific' with each passing year.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article is STUPID.
To ALL:Global Warming, sea level rise, Floods, Earthquakes,Drought, Rain,......... . The best source to find out whats going to "happen" is to read the Bible. Be ware of nominal Christian takes on what the bible says. Use the bible to interpit itself.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow can climate change be a secret? What is a real secret is the cause of climate change. Everyone knows that seasonal "climate" changes with the angle of the Sun. Everyone knows that climate has hysteresis, so that summer drags into fall, and winter drags into spring. Many know that trees add to the hysteresis, and that is why trees tend to drop their leaves together. Most people know that climate resists change, although scaremongers always ignore this fact.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScaremongers hope the "secret", that global cooling is the cause of a melting Artic, will not be exposed. Records of decreasing snowfall in the Artic are being kept secret. Sea level rise is how climate resists change, since more water absorbs more sunlight, and thus climate resists global cooling. The big "secret" is that an ice age will start when global warming really starts again.
On the other hand if the CIA concluded that climate change is not a threat it would be politically unwise to go against the administration's policy of exploiting the threat. No climate crisis would mean no reason to pass laws to control our actions or subsidize favored industries.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA hurricane sitting offshore a hundred miles also sees it's potential for destruction being reported in a variety of ways, but that does not mean we should simply ignore it until were certain. Think Hurricane Katrina and the fools who stayed behind, gambling on that storms severity as well.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd I notice here you now admit that AGW exists, just as most other denialists do as well. But how quickly they forget that a couple years ago the idea of warming was denied altogether. When that lie became blatantly obvious, yes, now it was warming, but we had nothing to do with it. Now quite predictably, we see only incremental acceptance of AGW, but doubts as to the severity. I'm reminded of another group that was dragged kicking and screaming into finally accepting that the earth was not the center of the universe or that creation didn't happen in 6 days. And isn't it curious that in these and other efforts to change mankind's beliefs and behaviors, it's the socio-political conservatives among us who rationalize away reality in favor of beliefs they find more emotionally comfortable. Grow up!
That you would assume none of these matters had been taken into account by any of the scholars tasked with doing just that, many of whom have PhDs in just those areas you mention, reveals the general lack of critical thinking skills being displayed by those who continue to "seize and freeze" (cognitive psychologists will recognize the phrase) on anything put forward in an "authoritative" manner consistent with their own preconceived beliefs on the matter.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnyone with even a high-school education on 20th century history knows the CIA works closely with US capitalists, advancing their interests over the well-being and objections of the foreign nationals standing in their way. Lest any of you doubt it, try spending just an hour going over the documents placed online at the National Security Archive website. At least since Dulles was a Director, an ideology exists there that equates "free-market" capitalism with democracy itself. And since libertarianism and neoconservatism correlate quite highly as well, it is no wonder the CIA sees sitting on evidence that AGW exists as being tantamount to sitting on evidence that Marx was actually right all along.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this