http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.html
Damned liberal pentagon
2007-10-11 07:10:27 · 9 answers · asked by captain_koyk 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
bugeyes returns -- here's the report - sorry -- http://www.grist.org/pdf/AbruptClimateChange2003.pdf
2007-10-11 07:18:21 · update #1
they are right
islamo facists are a tiny group that have been given too much power by the west. the US has sent hundreds of thousands of targets for them to kill for 6 years now
soon they will come home and it will stop, the next president will kill Osama and the group will splinter again
in the meant time, crops will continue to fail, wierd weather alternating from floods to droughts will screw up more and more growing seasons, more islands will dissappear around the world and the people of bangladesh will be treading water even longer next year
yeah, climate change is way bigger
2007-10-11 07:16:58 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Ill go against the grain and say Global warming. terrorism has been happening for the entire history of mankind. During the crusades, both the Christian and Muslims were know to slaughter whole towns to "send a message" to the other side. But the human race has survived. Global warming, on the other hand, has the potential to wipe us off the planet in a runaway greenhouse effect. (Venus anyone) Now granted that is an extremely improbable outcome,but what we should be concerned with is flooding. Low lying areas around the world will be inundated by the rising oceans sooner than later. It has happened in the past and will happen again. Unlike most "believers" in global warming, I believe that all signs point to it being more due to natural causes than to human influences (although it is still there). But we should probably put more funding into "shoring up" these areas than we are doing. (Netherlands has a good program) But no I don't believe that Islamic fascism (ewww I hate political correctness) is a bigger threat.
2016-05-21 22:28:53 · answer #2 · answered by kassandra 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Both are big threats but I think a massive change in the climate would bring such unrest to the world that it would be a nightmare that wouldn't end. We can defeat or at least limit terrorists with a well thought out approach, but if half the world were fighting the other half over food and water it would be a tough go.
2007-10-11 07:23:35 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
What is a "bigger" threat is a useless argument. If something is a threat, it doesn't matter whether or not it is a "bigger" threat. It's a threat. So long as the Pentagon recognizes both as threats, you have little to worry about except that their current incompetent head-of-state will find a way to botch things.
2007-10-11 07:13:53 · answer #4 · answered by Mr. Taco 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Sunday February 22, 2004. This is a little dated. By the way how come they didn't print the report?
2007-10-11 07:15:59 · answer #5 · answered by ken 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
The terrorists are the immediate threat Obviously
2007-10-11 07:15:35 · answer #6 · answered by Antiliber 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Which ever one gets people blown up in less than 3 seconds.
2007-10-11 07:13:52 · answer #7 · answered by InfraRed 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Terrorists.
2007-10-11 07:21:07 · answer #8 · answered by PNAC ~ Penelope 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Can SOMEBODY PLEASE show me some independent scientific research that supports global warming?
2007-10-11 07:14:52 · answer #9 · answered by Richard Cranium 3 · 0⤊ 3⤋