Global warming cited as a cause of strife in Darfur and elsewhere

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has said global warming is as threatening as modern warfare in its potential to highlight the vast differences in living standards between developed and developing nations, and several reports have been issued in the U.S. that support his claim.

The Pentagon believes resource scarcity will become the motivating factor of political violence, and a group of retired US military officials has published a report linking global warming to instability.

The Central Intelligence Agency, meanwhile, is working on a report that will focus on links between global warming and US national security.


There is no “consensus” that the strife in Darfur is due to global warming. A few scientists now think they are also sociologists, but that hardly constitutes a consensus.

War has persisted in Sudan for a long time; attempting to link it to AGW, and especially claiming there is some kind of “consensus”, is an extremely tenuous idea at best.

What do you have to say about this report by a panel of US Military experts in April of this year. They concluded:

WASHINGTON, DC, April 16, 2007 (ENS) - Global climate change presents a serious national security threat that could affect Americans at home, impact U.S. military operations, and heighten global tensions, finds a study released today by a blue-ribbon panel of 11 of the most senior retired U.S. admirals and generals.

Climate change, national security and energy dependence are a related set of global challenges that will add to tensions even in stable regions of the world, found the panel, known as the Military Advisory Board.

I would say the recent claims regrading Darfur are not as far fetched as you would like our readers to believe.  

The report is by 11 retired admirals and generals, not climatologists.

And implying a “growing concensus” in the original post is incorrect, as no concensus exists at present.

Darfur has been riven by conflict for decades and also has large desert areas with drought having always been a threat there.

I am not saying that there is no climate change affecting Darfur, rather that the attempt to use AGW to explain such a complicated conflict and imply there is a concensus when none exists is “spinning the news” so to speak.

“The report is by 11 retired admirals and generals, not climatologists.

And implying a “growing concensus” in the original post is incorrect, as no concensus exists at present.”

You lie yet again, Paul.

You are wrong again Stephen. The headline of the article and the content of the article have been changed since it was first posted.

My comments are correct.

No, Paul. A growing consensus is occurring regarding AGW and its negative effects on security, human rights, and regional tensions.

The increasing drought in Africa, a likely byproduct of AGW, is increasing tensions as fewer and fewer people have access to food and water, while rogue states like Sudan try to horde the food and water for themselves while leaving those who are struggling to survive in Darfur get little to nothing.

If you would only read a little, Paul, especially outside your “Fiends of Science” (misspelling intended), “Not Really Science People” realm, you would have realized this by now.

Do you make up stuff as you go along Stephen? I stand by my comments; there is no “concensus” that the conflict in Sudan and Afghanistan is because of AGW. You do understand what the word “concensus” means, do you not?

And please don’t post more of your made up stuff again.

The climatologists report the science and project the likelihood of certain changes in the global climate. If they advocate any policy or position based on their findings, you accuse them of sounding like politicians and/or sociologists.

The retired generals, on the other hand, can look at the scientific findings and projections and apply them to THEIR area of expertise: things that cause or exacerbate conflict. What’s going on in Darfur may have its origins in any number of events and circumstances, but there is no denying that lack of resources will make it worse. You don’t have to be a climatologist, a general or a even a sociologist to understand that we all need to eat, and global warming will affect how & where we can produce food.

I’m not about to put up razorwire to protect my veggie garden from marauding gangs of starving food thieves just yet, but when it comes down to it human beings will fight for survival – that means food and the land to grow it on!