Photo: A now-unclassified CIA spy satellite photo of Arctic ice like the ones shared with climate scientists through the now-revived MEDEA program.
A little-known program run by the CIA that gave a select group of environmental scientists access to classified data during the 1990s has been restarted after being closed for several years by the Bush administration, the New York Times reported Monday.
The data include thousands of high-resolution images taken by spy satellites that scientists couldn't get access to without the program.
The data sharing began in the early '90s and has now been revived in part because of a constellation of officials who were present then and are now back serving in the more environmentally friendly Obama administration. These officials clearly understand that climate change must be considered a potential national security threat.
That list is topped by current CIA Director Leon Panetta, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and former Vice President Al Gore -- men who have worked together on issues of national security and the environment for two decades.
His interest in the sea provided Panetta with an introduction to the threat of global warming. "The oceans are the first victim" of climate change, he told me in a 2008 phone interview, and he was quick to see the potentially destabilizing influence of global warming on national security.
Among the original researchers who benefited from the data sharing was climatologist James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies. Hansen was a member of the Environmental Task Force created in October 1992. (It was later renamed the Measurements of Earth Data for Environmental Analysis program, or MEDEA.)
Contacted Tuesday by email, Hansen said the program was helpful in "a few instances. ...For example the information that nuclear submarines provided on sea ice thickness in the Arctic Ocean several decades ago, before there were research measurements."
Hansen felt constrained, though, by the restrictions that came along with the information. Like other scientists, the climatologist was allowed to use information, but not disseminate it. Hansen told journalist Robert Dreyfus in 1995 that "I would hope that things do become more open."
Any prospect of a CIA/science glasnost collapsed when President George W. Bush shuttered the program in 2001 for unknown reasons. (As Times' reporter William Broad wrote, diplomatically, in Monday's article, Bush "developed a reputation for opposing many kinds of environmental initiatives.")
While it was operating, MEDEA scientists produced at least a dozen classified reports using agency data to identify wetlands, calculate glacier loss, and predict volcanic eruptions.
University of Washington professor Norbert Untersteiner, a member of the current program, told Broad that the satellite images are "really useful" in his work studying Arctic ice.
PROGRAM ROOTS
In 1992, then-U.S. Sen. Al Gore contacted the individual who President George H.W. Bush had picked to lead the CIA, to discuss the possibility of sharing classified data to help determine the effects of global warming. That man was Robert Gates.
Gates told Robert Dreyfuss that MEDEA "owes its existence to two people: then-Senator Al Gore, whose idea it was, and me, who said yes."
The program continued when Gore became vice president in 1993 with the support of then-CIA Director James Woolsey. Woolsey is an outspoken advocate of energy independence, who has called for a phase-out of oil on national security grounds and was also an early supporter of Gore's call for action on climate change.
In 1994, Gore and Panetta worked closely together when President Bill Clinton named Panetta his chief of staff. Panetta left that post in 1997 and soon became immersed (so to speak) in marine issues, first as head of the Pew Ocean Commission and then as co-chair of the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative.
Both bodies stressed the importance of fighting climate change to maintain ocean health and regional stability.
The MEDEA program was terminated in 2001 -- when Panetta, Gore and Gates were all outside of government. Gates was brought back as Secretary of Defense under Bush in late 2006, a position he has kept in the Obama administration. That set the stage for MEDEA's return, as well.
BRINGING IT BACK
According to Broad's article in the Times, Al Gore began lobbying California Sen. Dianne Feinstein in 2008 for her help in reinstating the MEDEA program. Feinstein became chair of the powerful Senate Intelligence Committee in early 2009. Panetta returned to Washington last February when he was tapped by President Obama to lead the CIA.
With Gates at the Pentagon, Panetta at CIA, and Gore lobbying through Congress, the MEDEA program was quietly re-launched. More publicly, the CIA announced in September that it was opening a Center for the Study of Climate Change.
"Decision makers need information and analysis on the effects climate change can have on security," Panetta was quoted in a CIA press release. "The CIA is well positioned to deliver that intelligence."
In mid-December, NPR's Tom Gjelten reported that for the first time, the next Quadrennial Defense Review, an assessment of national security threats published by the Pentagon, would include different worst-case scenarios based on climate change.
And now, with the Times story, comes word that the MEDEA program is operational once again.
Despite disappointment over the United Nations' failure to produce a binding international treaty at the Copenhagen climate summit last month, and regardless of what the United States Senate decides to do about global warming, there is at least movement on the issue in what many would have considered the unlikeliest of places: the Pentagon and the CIA.
As someone who was caught out by the climate scam until I finally went and looked at the evidence - and then was convinced when I found out about climategate - I'm sure it's only a matter of time before some lunatic in the CIA decides that they must start monitoring people like me for my outrageous suggestion that like WMD - we should base policy on evidence and not the gut instinct of people like Blair who don't know the first thing about science.
All the thousands of peer-reviewed scientific articles documenting climate change, the potential for continuing change and its implications for humanity are a scam? No, rather the scam is the drum beat of denial that is obstructing constructive action, without peer-reviewed evidence to back up the opinions. Climategate is just a convenient media frenzy that does nothing to undermine the actual science. Read the 2007 IPCC reports.
Tony, you really need to review some of the articles by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. The 'Hockey Stick' model has been proven to be bad science and you still reference the IPC.
Bad (unreliable) proxy data and cherry picked data equals bad science. As far as AGW, correlation does not constitute causation.
Tony, you should really take a look at all the evidence, read the emails, just make an informed decision! You wouldn;t drive a car without first look all the makes and models would you?
People who tend to post without looking at all the evidence seem to make fools of themselves, at least if you still disagree you would be able to have a good debate on these boards! I know it is difficult, I myself believed!
Unbelievable. It is hard to understand why some people still think that there is a debate about AGW. Do they think that all the scientists would not be overjoyed to suddenly find out that they were wrong? Every time a new study was undertaken to show that it couldn't possibly as bad as we thought, it turned out to be worse. All the old chestnuts of 'it's the sun' 'glaciers are growing' 'the hockey stick is wrong' 'heating leads CO2 rise' etc etc are well evaluated and answered. Realclimate.com is where the science hangs out. CO2science.com and friendsofscience.com is where the rants hang out
I don't engage in the "is AGW real or not?" argument anymore, and here's why: http://thephoenixsun.com/archives/4219
mg, Like I said, show me your science? I too believed in AGW before knowing all the facts! I will give you an example. I recently built a new home, I spent 3 times as much on a high efficiency heating system, and I positioned my home to take advantage of sunlight for lighting heating and cooling, also placing the windows for added light! added extra insulation far beyond what any government recommendations. I also drive a 1992 Mazda 5 speed with special tires to increase gas mileage, now it exceeds what some hybrids get in gas mileage!
But I see problems with the hockey stick, I see the lies about the icecaps, the reports show extreme melting but nsidc in Boulder says During December 2009, ice extent grew at an average of 68,000 square kilometers (26,000 square miles) per day. Sea ice extent increased at a fairly steady rate throughout the month, staying slightly above the levels observed in December 2007. Which means it is low but growing, the same report last month for November, I do look at every aspect, not just one side, take a look at the evidence from deniers viewpoint also, yes they to exaggerate at times also but the science fraud on both sides need to stop now! I want to hear the truth for once!
Skeptics say humans do not make a difference, warmers scream doom and gloom, I say yes we hurt the climate but I think other factors besides CO2 is causing the changes such as nitrous oxide which from farming is a greater threat! The CO2 conclusion is just a scheme to let companies pay to pollute, still doing as much damage to the earth and letting third world countries starve!
Osha, Here is another reason I feel the way I do about AGW. Here is one of the most honest journalist I have ever ran across.
Take a look at this article, and you might feel the need to read al of his articles as I did. He honestly says up front I am a liberal Democrat and my first priority is humanity! I read your article!
http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-SF-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2010m1d...
Mike Haseler, do you really think you found the truth from the extreme right's croaking about "climategate"?
Why do you not, instead, read what sources like RealClimate and Newsweek says? You see, they are not bent on lying, like the UN-hating right wingers.
I agree with Tony, this so called climate gate issue has been blown out of all proportion by the media and is being exaggerated by the climate deniers. Or perhaps I should call them climate hoaxers as human made climate change is real and happening now.
There is no science behind the theory that there will be a catastrophe if CO2 levels continue to rise. Nor is there any science that says that man-made CO2 contributions will create any temperature change.
Yes CO2 has gone up. Yes man creates CO2 emissions. Yes the temperature has gone up since the little ice age.
That's all settled science.
ANYTHING beyond that is not even in the realm of science.
ALL of the models that have been created use PROXY data. That PROXY data does not match the real temperature data (once real temperatures are available). That is a BIG issue.
But assuming the data isn't flawed - the models created do not PREDICT climate change with any accuracy - nor do they (or can they) predict any catastrophes.
But it doesn't matter to the religious fervor that CONSUMES the climate-change global warming folk.
Why?
Simply because their heroes KNOW they are not using science as we know it. They are using what their behind-the-scenes philosophers have labeled "Post-Normal Science."
Look it up.
It's simply an Orwellian way to call what they do science when in fact it's a form of politics.
In 1992 and 1993 Silvio O. Funtowicz and Jerome R.
Ravetz wrote the following papers:
The good, the true and the postmodern (1992)
Science for the post-normal age (1993)
These laid out the concept of post-normal science.
Here's Ravetz on climate change models:
"…but if they are not predictors, then what on earth
are they? The models can be rescued only by being
explained as having a metaphorical function, designed
to teach us about ourselves and our perspectives under
the guise of describing or predicting the future states
of the planet…A general recognition of models as
metaphors will not come easily. As metaphors, computer
models are too subtle…for easy detection. And those who
created them may well have been prevented…from being
aware of their essential character."
I see then. I was mistaken to think that climate-change models should predict something. Forgive me. They're METAPHORS.
Got it.
But should you just think this crazy philosopher holds this view then maybe you should look at Mike Hulme.
You know Mike Hulme -
Founding director of Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, Professor of Climate Change at the University of East Anglia (UEA), co-ordinating Lead Author for the chapter on ‘Climate scenario development’ for the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC, as well as a contributing author for several
other chapters... amongst other things.
Let's see what Mike Hulme has to say:
"It has been labelled “post-normal” science. Climate
change seems to fall in this category. Disputes in
post-normal science focus... on the process of science –
who gets funded, who evaluates quality, who has the ear
of policy…The IPCC is a classic example of a post-
normal scientific activity."
"The danger of a “normal” reading of science is that it
assumes science can first find truth, then speak truth
to power, and that truth-based policy will then
follow…exchanges often reduce to ones about scientific
truth rather than about values, perspectives and
political preferences."
"...‘self-evidently’ dangerous climate change will not
emerge from a normal scientific process of truth-
seeking…scientists – and politicians – must trade truth
for influence. What matters about climate change is not
whether we can predict the future with some desired
level of certainty and accuracy."
There are DOZENS more quotes like this, but the bottom
line is that when someone like Hulme talks about
"science" he's saying something far different than what
we normally consider science.
What I think is truly brilliant is that rather than
create a new word for what these "scientists" are doing the social philosophers came up with a new term that INCLUDES the
word "science."
The power of propaganda to propagate the faith.
The science of climate change is pretty basic: humans dig up fossilized carbon to fuel power plants and internal combustion machines, releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. Result: greenhouse effect global heating. Around 50% of all the species on the planet are predicted to become extinct by 2100 in the CO2-as-usual model. Our own species will face drought, famine, rising tides, soaring temperatures, calamity and chaos. Hundreds of millions will become climate refugees. Billions may die from starvation, genocide and war. We have precious little time to mitigate this looming global catastrophe.
Those of us still denying the depressing facts are either tragically stupid or profoundly corrupt or both.
Victor - Thanks for that Al Gore-like scientistic summary.
You must be some scientist since you think climate science is so simple. For a "science" that's in it's infancy and which contains an enormous amount of variables it's always comforting when someone comes along with as much faith and conviction as you do.
Praise Gaia!
Temperature is driven by Solar activity and high charged cosmic radiation hitting the upper atmosphere creating or declining cloud cover which effect the amount of sea water that evaporates which in turn effects the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. This is primarily what drives temperature. And you can verify this because it IS A FACT that a temperature increase results in higher carbon release not the other way around. Let me repeat, first comes temperature increase then come carbon release. You all need to understand that fundamental fact.
Osha Gray Davidson covers energy and the environment for OnEarth. A freelance writer, Davidson's work has appeared in The New York Times, Rolling Stone, Salon, Grist, Mother Jones, and many other publications. He has written five nonfiction books, including The Enchanted
...Osha Gray Davidson covers energy and the environment for OnEarth. A freelance writer, Davidson's work has appeared in The New York Times, Rolling Stone, Salon, Grist, Mother Jones, and many other publications. He has written five nonfiction books, including The Enchanted Braid, a natural history of coral reefs, which was a finalist for the U.K. Natural World Book Award. His blog on solar power, The Phoenix Sun, is widely syndicated.
More Close