Seems like you learned a good lesson in reading something carefully before jumping to conclusions.

@ roughdoggo
 
I think that you make an interesting point about the need for authorities to plan for a number of possible scenarios.  But, at the same time, I do think that you have NOT dealt with Mr Lee's point or complaint, and that you are NOT treating the author (Verhulst) fairly. 

Presumably, the author "dredged up" old articles from a certain European press because we are now in 2007, and those sensationalists made ridiculous 'predictions' in 2004 about 2007.  In other words, the author wants to hold journalists accountable for their sensationalist reporting and other nonsense!  From his sarcastic title it should be obvious that he did not mean to comment on "the intent of Schwartz-Randall".  No, he meant to 'comment' on the bad political intentions of "al-Guardian, De Morgen..." and so many other well-poisoners and underminers of western civilisation.  

With reply to Mr. Lee: Let's be direct. Jos Verhulst has not misrepresented his repetition of the Observer's reportage of 2004, but he has nowhere made it clear that it is misreportage. It rather seems that by showing the journalism to be foolish, he is tarring the implications of the Randall-Schwartz report with the same brush. Certainly, the first responses to his post seem to have interpreted this as his intent.
You imply somewhat oddly that my suggestion - namely, that the cause of climate change is immaterial with regard to any future strategic situation - is incorrect. Allow me to make my point again: regardless of causation, the end result, or final equlibrium system reached by the environment as a result of ongoing climatic processes that appear to be irreversible, will be the same. It won't matter, in other words, if George did it or Mother Nature. No use crying over spilt milk and pointing fingers. What's important is for the people running the world's countries to take into account any number of possible future scenarios - or situations, if you will - and plan accordingly to preserve the lives, property and well-being of their citizens. And that is what Schwartz-Randall, the military and others are doing; it's what they're paid for.
The Jos Verhulst post, with its dredging up of a sensationalist article three years old, without saying directly that it misrepresents the intent of Schwartz-Randall, somehow reminds me of that old Cosby routine Revenge, where our young hero stashes a snowball in his freezer to take reprisal in the summer. It all smacks of setting up a straw man.

Dutch are prepared!  Honestly I would rather look at water outside my front door than the massive piles of dog shit I wade through every time I leave my house in the morning.  There are planned communities of floating houses here already for just such an emergency.  I am sure we have already purchased salvage rights for the rest of europe for after the big flood.

I'm glad you clarified what the original report was saying, but Jos Verhulst has not misrepresented the Observer's misuse of that report.  And you suggest that it's immaterial if the current warming is natural or man-made.  But the cause of the warming is very material:  if the warming has natural causes, then the extreme villification of Bush and the United States regarding global warming is complete bullsh*t and has further alienated Europe from America for no reason.

What is remarkable about this post and the replies to it is the fact that the actual report in question, easily available on the internet, clearly states that the authors are presenting a scenario, not a prediction. Peter Schwartz and Doug Randall make it clear that specific details of abrupt climate change cannot be predicted accurately. The aim of their scenario is to outline possible consequences of an apparent trend, a sort of what if exercise, to explore the effects such change might have for national security. Again, they plainly and explicitly do not aim at an accurate forecast. The entire report is more along the order of a war game than a prophecy, unlike what of some the readers of secondhand accounts of the Randall-Schwarz paper writing here seem to think, including the hash served up by the Observer. Why not take look instead, guys, at what actually has been written, instead of distorted versions by less-informed types who have a political axe to grind? And regardless of whether current climatic trends are man-made or of natural causation, the end result in strategic terms will be the same. Because you don't like the messenger doesn't mean the problem will go away.

The temperature outside here this evening (in southern England) is 13C. It's rained nearly every day for the last three months. There are still drought orders in force. We are not allowed to use hosepipes, though quite why we should want to with our gardens waterlogged or under water is beyond me. It's becoming increasingly difficult to disentangle what's crazy climate and what's crazy human behaviour.

Anybody who believes the snake oil salesman is doing a public service is a bigger fool than the idiot papers who print the garbage he spews. 

I refer you to node/1663

Of course it will not be printed for the public to read in the newspapers.

I would think that the left would be happy....think of all the seals, whales and polar bears which will be saved!  The world will cuddle together for warmth while Yusef sings a ballad before prayers to glorious Allah.  Al will be the center of attraction and the children of Belgium will love Medina.

Yes, it has to be uninhabitable. My fault, sorry. I have corrected it.

Don't you mean uninhabitable?...Alas, more gloom and doom from the envior leftist wackos....Remember, according to Al Gore, we have 9 years and 20 days before the world comes to an end due to Global Warming! Don't believe me? Hit the link below. And another thing. Heaven forbid that National Defense be a top priority!

www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/eibessential/enviro_wackos/algore10yearstodoom.guest.html