“Climate Change” and the Pentagon

Share on facebook
Facebook 0
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn 0
Share on reddit
Reddit 0
Share on delicious
Delicious
Share on digg
Digg
Share on stumbleupon
StumbleUpon 0
Share on whatsapp
WhatsApp
Share on email
Email
Share on print
Print

 

Just in case you didn’t think we are currently being governed by lunatics:

The Pentagon is ordering the top brass to incorporate climate change into virtually everything they do, from testing weapons to training troops to war planning to joint exercises with allies.

A new directive’s theme: The U.S. Armed Forces must show “resilience” and beat back the threat based on “actionable science.”

It says the military will not be able to maintain effectiveness unless the directive is followed. It orders the establishment of a new layer of bureaucracy — a wide array of “climate change boards, councils and working groups” to infuse climate change into “programs, plans and policies.”

The Pentagon defines resilience to climate change as: “Ability to anticipate, prepare for, and adapt to changing conditions and withstand, respond to, and recover rapidly from disruptions.”

To four-star generals and admirals, among them the regional combatant commanders who plan and fight the nation’s wars, the directive tells them: “Incorporate climate change impacts into plans and operations and integrate DoD guidance and analysis in Combatant Command planning to address climate change-related risks and opportunities across the full range of military operations, including steady-state campaign planning and operations and contingency planning.”

The directive, “Climate Change Adaptation and Resilience,” is in line with President Obama’s view that global warming is the country’s foremost national security threat, or close to it. Mr. Obama says there is no debate on the existence of man-made global warming and its ensuing climate change. Supporters of this viewpoint label as “deniers” any scientists who disagree.

*************************

Dakota Wood, a retired Marine Corps officer and U.S. Central Command planner, said the Pentagon is introducing climate change, right down to military tactics level.

“By equating tactical actions of immediate or short-term utility with large-scale, strategic-level issues of profound importance, the issue of climate change and its potential impact on national security interests is undermined,” he said. “People tend to dismiss the whole, what might be truly important, because of all the little silly distractions that are included along the way.”

He said climate change is typically measured in long stretches of time.

“The climate does change over great periods of time, typically measured in millennia, though sometimes in centuries,” he said. “But the document mentions accounting for such down to the level of changes in ‘tactics, techniques and procedures’ as if reviewing how a squad conducts a patrol should be accorded the same level of importance and attention as determining whether the naval base at Norfolk, Virginia, might have to be relocated as sea levels rise over the next 100 years.”

Multipoint strategy

The directive originated in the office of Frank Kendall, undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics. Final approval came from Deputy Defense Secretary Robert O. Work.

The directive is loaded with orders to civilian leaders and officers on specifically how counter-climate change strategy is to permeate planning.

 

Go here to read the rest.  Let’s see.  The Middle East is in flames and Russia and Turkey, a Nato member, may soon be fighting each other in Syria.  China and Japan may come to blows in the Pacific.  The war in Afghanistan is heating up.  Isis and Iran are battling each other to see who will control Iraq.  Instead of paying attention to real problems, the Obama administration is intent on turning the military into a sounding chamber for the global warming scam.  Lunatics is the most charitable way to describe these malevolent fools.

 

More to explorer

Martin Treptow’s Pledge

Martin August Treptow was a barber from Cherokee, Iowa.  Enlisting in the National Guard, during World War I his unit was called

Saint of the Day Quote: Saint John del Prado

HE was a native of the kingdom of Leon, in Spain, and embraced in his own country the austere Order of the

PopeWatch: Open Thread

We haven’t had a PopeWatch open thread in a while.  The usual open thread rules apply:  be concise, be charitable and, above

12 Comments

  1. Hummm.
    Ok. The Navy can reduce its carbon footprint by going to wind power. Sailing the seven seas. Air Force? Hang gliding of course and the restricted use of hot air ballooning.
    As for our ground force’s… snare’s, crossbows and sling shots should fit into the green think just perfectly.

    We won’t have to worry about global warming.
    The climate is stable six feet underground.

  2. Recognition of the possible impacts of climate change at the strategic level is smart. Doing it at the tactical level is dumb, other than the issuance of new charts for the navy.

    One thing to keep in mind: our enemies (and bad actors in general) will hitch their evil to ‘climate change’ and try to blame us for their actions. We already have seen this with the Rwandan genocide: Western population control ‘experts’ have uncritically cited Hutu killers as saying they were motivated by overpopulation concerns, instead of seeing their statements as those of criminals simply looking for alibis.

  3. All of America and the global servant class, will soon submit themselves to the “climate” weapon of the left or pay a price. This cake has been baked for decades and both parties apparently want it.

  4. “Recognition of the possible impacts of climate change at the strategic level is smart.”

    Except that our predictive ability beyond a month as to weather is practically nill. This is all a huge waste of time, which so accurately sums up the eight grasshopper years of the Obama administration.

  5. “I rather think we will have actual disasters to confront that will cause the endless bloviating about climate change to come to an end.”
    C’mon Don, if South and Southwest Asia go up in smoke our environmental nuts will have MORE reason to complain about the coming climate change.

    “Except that our predictive ability beyond a month as to weather is practically nill.”
    True, but climate and weather are not the same thing, and it is not absolutely nil with regards to climate. As readers may recall, I’ve posted evidence here that we actually may be within 20 years of a new Maunder Minimum in the sunspot cycle and a resulting Little Ice Age. Real global warming may not happen until the 22nd century, in 2030 the Pentagon may be speculating about colder climate change (nothing wrong with that), and today’s experts may look rather stupid.

    ” This is all a huge waste of time…”
    I agree if we focus on the thrust of the original article and focus on the adjective “huge”. A small theoretical effort is not a waste of time.

    “…which so accurately sums up the eight grasshopper years of the Obama administration.”
    Well, yes, for serious people. It hasn’t been a waste of time for the fantasy prone.

  6. Truly, the gravest threat facing the USA is the gang of evil (narcissists and nihilists) imbeciles (saboteurs and traitors) running the USA.

  7. Perhaps the really problematic issue with this report is the explicit bureaucratization of climate change awareness at the Pentagon. It appears that people all up and down the chain of command will be filling out compliance reports o ensure that the policies are followed. Do people there understand the word “sclerotic”?

  8. If the Administration wants the Pentegon to really do something about its fossil fuel emissions to avert anthropogenic global warming, then:
    .
    (1) Why not small modular reactors for military and naval bases?
    .
    (2) Why nuclear powered surface combatants besides aircraft carriers? We had them – the Brainbridge, the Langbeach, the Truxton, etc., but now all we are doing is building gas turbine ships.
    .
    (3) Why not nuclear propulsion space craft? We designed the reactors (called NERVA) back in the 60s but then abandoned the project.
    .
    (4) Why not nuclear powered aircraft? We designed a molten salt reactor for aircraft back in the 60s (Oak Ridge National Laboratory did that using thorium fuel). We even flew a reactor (albeit without it powering the aircraft).
    .
    Amici, it’s all smoke and mirrors. This Administration doesn’t give a care about anthropogenic global warming. It’s concern is simply emasculating the military and constricting the supply of energy.

  9. I’m looking forward to the skills sharpened by writing up bragsheets to be applied to explaining how (important thing that they rejected funding for) is ABSOLUTELY NEEDED because of climate change. 😀

  10. Foxfier, You bet….. that comes under technical writing, doesn’t it? I can foresee government grants for those that choose to pursue such a degree.

Comments are closed.