In my discussions about global warming I overwhelmingly address the issue from the point of view of scientists (e.g. here). This is partly due to the fact that it is, at root, a SCIENTIFIC issue, and the only intelligent way we can approach the issue is based on science. Another reason I do this is that the global warming denial lobby almost completely lacks solid science or even an idea of how science works. They ignore the fact that not one single peer reviewed article has come out opposing the theory of anthropogenic global warming, and they tend to cite flawed or incomplete scientific data if they cite data at all. I try to counter their irrationality with cold, hard science.

And yet the issue affects everyone. So there are many opinions on the issue. The insurance companies have been worried about global warming for MANY years now because according to most global warming models they will get hit hard by the increased storminess. The Vermont maple industry and the American ski industry have become alarmed about the issue because their livelihoods are threatened. There are many economic interests that have become worried about global warming, though we mostly only hear the opinions of the coal and oil industries that dominate the Republican administration...and some Democrats as well.

Well, according to BBC, there is another viewpoint regarding global warming: the military/strategic view. Now I have been arguing for economic (local energy means American jobs) and security-based (less dependence on oil means less enabling of al-Qaeda and Saudi Arabia) arguments for alternative energy. But this view has received a large boost from an unlikely source. From BBC news:

Former US military leaders have called on the Bush administration to make major cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.

In a report, they say global warming poses a serious threat to national security, as the US could be drawn into wars over water and other conflicts...

Among the 11 authors are ex-Army chief of staff Gordon Sullivan and Mr Bush's ex-Mid-East peace envoy Anthony Zinni...

It warns that over the next 30 to 40 years, there will be conflicts over water resources, as well as increased instability resulting from rising sea levels and global warming-related refugees...

Writing in the report, Gen Zinni, a former commander of US Central Command, says: "It's not hard to make the connection between climate change and instability, or climate change and terrorism."

He adds: "We will pay for this one way or another. We will pay to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today, and we'll have to take an economic hit of some kind.

"Or we will pay the price later in military terms. And that will involve human lives. There will be a human toll."

The report was issued by a Virginia-based national security think-tank, The CNA Corporation, and was written by six retired admirals and five retired generals.

I hate to say "I told you so," but I have been saying largely the same thing for about a decade now.

Here is a more detailed summary of the report from the CNA website:

The report includes several formal findings:

* Projected climate change poses a serious threat to America's national security.

* Climate change acts as a threat multiplier for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world.

* Projected climate change will add to tensions even in stable regions of the world.

* Climate change, national security and energy dependence are a related set of global challenges.

The report also made several specific recommendations:

* The national security consequences of climate change should be fully integrated into national security and national defense strategies.

* The U.S. should commit to a stronger national and international role to help stabilize climate changes at levels that will avoid significant disruption to global security and stability.

* The U.S. should commit to global partnerships that help less developed nations build the capacity and resiliency to better manage climate impacts.

* The Department of Defense should enhance its operational capability by accelerating the adoption of improved business processes and innovative technologies that result in improved U.S. combat power through energy efficiency.

* DoD should conduct an assessment of the impact on US military installations worldwide of rising sea levels, extreme weather events, and other possible climate change impacts over the next thirty to forty years.

Here is the full list of people who signed their name to the report: (see descriptions of their careers here)

* General Gordon R. Sullivan, USA (Ret.)
* Admiral Frank “Skip” Bowman, USN (Ret.)
* Lieutenant General Lawrence P. Farrell Jr., USAF (Ret.)
* Vice Admiral Paul G. Gaffney II, USN (Ret.)
* General Paul J. Kern, USA (Ret.)
* Admiral T. Joseph Lopez, USN (Ret.)
* Admiral Donald L. “Don” Pilling, USN (Ret.)
* Admiral Joseph W. Prueher, USN (Ret.)
* Vice Admiral Richard H. Truly, USN (Ret.)
* General Charles F. “Chuck” Wald, USAF (Ret.)
* General Anthony C. “Tony” Zinni, USMC (Ret.)

And to read the whole report, go here (PDF).

So, a broad scientific consensus AND military/strategic consensus. When will the denial lobby start listening?