Jumping the shark: Climate change a national security threat

Wow, this is thick. What next? Climate research becoming classified?

Panetta: Climate change a national security threat

by Joel Gehrke Commentary Staff Writer for the Washington Examiner – Beltway Confidential

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta declared global warming a national security threat yesterday during a speech before an environmentalist group in Washington, D.C.

“The area of climate change has a dramatic impact on national security,” Panetta told the Environmental Defense Fund last night. “Rising sea levels, severe droughts, the melting of the polar caps, the more frequent and devastating natural disasters all raise demand for humanitarian assistance and disaster relief.”

The Defense Secretary must have missed Examiner Columnist Mona Charen’s recent piece on how symbols of global warming aren’t working out the way environmentalists predicted.

For instance, The United Nations climate change panel “admitted that the melting Himalayas prediction was not based on science but on a 1999 media interview given by one scientist,” Charen observed.  “They said they regretted the error. Now, a study in nature, based on satellite imagery, has shown that some melting of lower altitude glaciers is taking place but that higher glaciers have been adding ice.”

With reference to the story of an apparently-marooned polar bear floating on an ice floe — puzzling, as polar bears can swim for hundreds of miles — Charen cited a new Canadian study showing that the polar bear population is on the rise.

“Oh, and the scientist for the Department of the Interior whose 2004 work on drowning polar bears inspired Al Gore and others [had been] placed on administrative leave for unspecified wrongdoing,” she added.*

*But is now reinstated

Yeah, national security threat. That’s the ticket.

h/t to Dr. Leif Svalgaard


newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Interstellar Bill

The Climate Sedition Act criminalizes climate dissent, including not only blogs but also any actual data, measurements, or scientific arguments against the fragile consensus of climate danger to national security. Any thermometer reading lower than airports will be dismantled. Any sea-level gauges not showing flooding will be removed and model data substituted.

John M

Also covered by Donna Laframbois

a reception hosted in his honor by the Environmental Defense Fund at the Smithsonian American Art Museum in Washington, D.C.

Do you suppose they would have honored him if they weren’t sure of what he was going to say?


Sure there is a National Security Threat – to American’s wallets…


The military has been pushing this idiocy for a while.
Still, I love to watch every step up the Stairway To Insanity. The higher they climb, the farther they’ll fall when the money finally runs out and careerism no longer keeps the “experts” in line. Splat!


If Global Warming is truly a National Security Threat, maybe should fire nuclear missiles at until it’s dead and we have Nuclear Winter!
There. Problem solved.

Mike Smith

Leon, the horse is dead. It’s time to stop flogging it.

Don’t you feel safer tonight? Me neither.

National security. Because as central America and Mexico turn into deserts, their entire populations will migrate north and cause an intolerable burden on America … oh … hmmm … they already did …

This is scary stuff when a Defense Secretary can be brainwashed this easily…it just proves the liberal propaganda machine has been very effective in pushing this virulent strain of pseudo-science.


Leon Panetta is right. All those Canadians crossing the border.

Rich Lambert

He has occupied so many different government positions he has forgotten he is Secretary of Defense.

Hand in glove with that “10 year plan” to finance anti-skeptic propaganda with taxpayer money. If the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, what more excuse would they need to criminalize climate skepticism? It’s a national security threat.
The government’s really looking to move here. Too much popular opinion against them to succeed at this point, but it will have been a near escape.

Craig Moore

President Obama made May 1st “Loyalty Day.”

In order to recognize the American spirit of loyalty and the sacrifices that so many have made for our Nation, the Congress, by Public Law 85-529 as amended, has designated May 1 of each year as “Loyalty Day.” On this day, let us reaffirm our allegiance to the United States of America, our Constitution, and our founding values.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim May 1, 2012, as Loyalty Day. This Loyalty Day, I call upon all the people of the United States to join in support of this national observance, whether by displaying the flag of the United States or pledging allegiance to the Republic for which it stands.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this first day of May, in the year of our Lord two thousand twelve, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-sixth.

I’m sure Panetta got the memo, understood what reaffirming allegiance meant, saluted, and spewed what the boss wanted.

Harold Ambler

I argue that a modern Space Race is taking place between NASA scientists (read: James Hansen and Co.) and Russian space scientists (read: Abdussamatov and Co.) in Don’t Sell Your Coat with Abdussamatov saying “worry about cold” and Hansen saying “worry about warm.” Each team of space scientists is backed by its respective commander in chief (fossil-fuel bashing Obama, on the one hand and fossil-fuel-accumulating Putin, on the other). If I were allowed to brief Panetta, I would let him know that he is on the wrong side of the science and the wrong side of the energy debate and is compromising my nation’s security with his beliefs. So, yes, climate change is a threat to national security, in that sense.
If I thought sending him my book would help, I would. DSYC has been the No. 1 Climatology book on Amazon for most of the last 5 weeks, and if you think that’s a sales pitch, you’re right.


Of course he is so worried about climate change that he burns up fuel flying excessively
“Defense Secretary Racks Up $860,000 In Commuting Costs
WASHINGTON — It’s turning out to be a costly commute home for Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.
The Pentagon chief has traveled on military aircraft to his home in northern California more than two dozen times since he took the defense post in July – trips that have cost the government about $32,000 each.
Panetta, in turn, has reimbursed the government about $630 per roundtrip for the personal flights, based on longstanding formulas dictated by federal policies.
The totals detailed by defense officials lay out his reimbursements for the first time, showing that as of March 19, Panetta had written checks to the Treasury totaling about $17,000 for 27 roundtrip flights. The total cost to the Pentagon is as much as $860,000 based on average fuel and operating costs for his Air Force planes”

Tom J

For precisely what reason was the Defense Secretary addressing the Environmental Defense fund in the first place? Would he also like to talk about National Health in relationship to our defense needs? I’m certain there’s a group of doctors who might want some consideration given to them too. But I shouldn’t be sarcastic. Who knows, solutions to AGW just might bolster national security. If some hostile fighter jets from Hugo Chavez manage to penetrate our airspace we could maybe chop them up with those wind turbines.


Don’t read too much into this.
We are now officially in election year mode. Consider the audience Panetta was addressing. His boss knows that he needs the greenies to both come out and vote and to provide campaign support. He also recognizes that his record to date hasn’t exactly satisfied these folks. They still consider his support of nuclear power as a betrayal and even on Keystone they think he was slow to act and know that it is only a temporary measure – i.e. Keystone is not dead.
Panetta is telling people what they want to hear. Doesn’t mean he believes it.

John M

tolo4zero says:
May 3, 2012 at 5:26 pm

Of course he is so worried about climate change that he burns up fuel flying excessively

Those charges are just rounded-off. That $860,000 probably includes $34.34 per flight for the carbon offsets he bought.

Ken in Beaverton, OR

Maybe Secretary Panetta can send some of that global warming to Oregon. We need it!

Willis Eschenbach

Rising sea levels are a threat to national security???

My, oh my! No Cabinet Level department is allowed to vote “Present” on the run up to Rio+20. Less than seven weeks away…

Layne Blanchard

More like jumping the Killer Whale

Panetta Presumes to Protect US from Proper Physics….
“Patriotism is the last refuge of a scrondrel”….Sammuel Johnson, Apr 7, 1775….
[including Faux Patriots efforts at forced re-education to dumbed-down AGW compliance]….

Doug Proctor

IF you swallow the extreme end, the CAGW, then the security threat is real. Just as the shut-down of coal plants is reasonable. Of course, if over-population is going to destroy the biosphere, and you truly, truly believe that, then the 12 Monkeys Solution, spreading a human-only pathogen like a mutated H5N1 (read about today) makes not perfect sense but an absolute priority.
This is the true danger of Gore, Hansen, Strong and Suzuki. If you believe them to be reasonable people facing a real, inevitable problem with CO2, then global, authoritarian management with dire social, political and economic consequences are what must, not should, occur.
When a man points a gun at your head, you are allowed, nay encouraged, to do what is necessary to survive. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are portrayed by these four rascals as the same as the man and his gun. In our countries we have turned over responsibilities for dealing with the gun and man to self-authorizing agencies. This is a frightening situation.
The four have indirect power and should have the accountability that comes with holding power – great power, great responsibility, right? So far we see only one side of that coin.
The skeptics have great social reason to fight back against CAGW. Scary, very scary.


Climate change could indeed be a major national security issue if it gets colder. A Russia and a China and a US with failed crops would not present a rosy world picture. Now couple that with a situation where interest on the national debt is larger than the entire defense budget and you start to see the situation we could be in somewhere around 2017. An agitated, hungry world and we can’t afford a military. Not a comforting thought.


Weather has been a significant concern for the military since before Hannibal attacked Rome. It’s why we have “all weather” combat capability in aircraft and other technology and specialized training for troops (desert, arctic, tropic, etc.). Don’t get your panties in a knot about it. We got it covered. Also you might like to search on “Climate” here http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/ to get an idea what the big brains at the US Army War College think about it.
Panetta is just sucking up to Obama.

Evan Jones

Wow, this is thick.
Clever, even subtle, actually.
What next? Climate research becoming classified?
And FOI that, you deniers, you!

Mac the Knife

Leon Panchetta declares that Climate Change is a national security threat, eh? I concur!
The billions of dollars wasted on this false hypothesis threatens the US in manifold ways. It distracts critical focus from real threats. It diverts billions desperately needed to rebuild our aging Navy, AirForce, over worked Marines, and excessively deployed National Guard. Our defense infrastructure is on the cusp of being met and surpassed in many areas by China. Within 5 years, we will be ‘playing from behind’. If this was not the deliberate desire of the Obama administration, it surely has been the direct effect.
We must act now, with alacrity, to ensure the end of Obamanation this November and retirement of Leon Panchetta to the Environmental Defense Fund or similar, where his global ‘strategery’ thinking will be better appreciated.


Weather has been a significant concern for the military since before Hannibal attacked Rome.

Yep, weather and wealth. Hannibal was able to field an army for the better part of two decades without financial support from Carthage because he had control of the silver mines on the Iberian peninsula. Before Rome attacked Carthage, they attacked Spain and took control of those mines. But bad weather can also save a nation as China learned during a certain ill-fated attempt to attack Japan.
But if you look at the LIA, it was generally a period of protracted conflict.

Policy Guy

Obama can’t say anything about AGW during the election. But he has to have some way to pander to his groupthink panderers. So he rolls out Panetta to sell the repackaged product. Another great soldier. Forward!
They’ve got to be running out of ways to repackage this worn out product? Doesn’t he know that there is a reason to wrap dead fish in old newspapers and throw them out?


evanmjones says:
May 3, 2012 at 6:27 pm
Beat me to it, classified data is not FOI able so they create whatever data they want without having to share it.

Gunga Din

“Wow, this is thick. What next? Climate research becoming classified?”
I can think of one Mann that thinks it already is.


Of course the Russian threat made yesterday to stage pre-emptive strikes on NATO anti missile battery sites in eastern Europe evidently isn’t a threat compared to climate changing as it has for billions of years.
Panetta may not have bothered reading the news.
Russia’s top military officer warned Thursday that Moscow would strike NATO missile-defense sites in Eastern Europe before they are ready for action, if the U.S. pushes ahead with deployment.
“A decision to use destructive force pre-emptively will be taken if the situation worsens,” Russian Chief of General Staff Nikolai Makarov said at an international missile-defense conference in Moscow attended by senior U.S. and NATO officials.
Gen. Makarov made the threat amid an apparent stalemate in talks between U.S. and Russian negotiators over the missile-defense system, part of President Obama’s policy to “reset” relations with Moscow. The threat also elicited shock and derision from Western missile-defense analysts.


Did Panetta ask the UN for permission to fight back against Climate Change already?


Given that the threat of climate change has been elevated by my former congressmen to a National Security Threat- I think it’s time to fight the problem with a National (we in CA have paid enough already to go it alone) Value Added TAX on all offending sources of energy. I recommend the funds from the VAT be spent like this: 1) mitigation 25%, 2) adaption 50%, 3) a new administrative body’s overhead costs to make sure 1) and 2 are fairly, equitably and sustainably administrated. I leave the % VAT to someone else to figure out.
PS After a bit of reflection I think something like 50% of the VAT fees that are generated from folks in CA should be sent back the the residents of the state to help pay for what we have already done for the cause.

Jimmy Haigh

Maybe they just want on the gravy train.


I’ve let it be known that I don’t not like how the terror alert system was used to scare people. So I’m surely not a fan of these tactics.

Gail Combs

Curiousgeorge says:
May 3, 2012 at 6:11 pm
Weather has been a significant concern for the military since before Hannibal attacked Rome. It’s why we have “all weather” combat capability in aircraft and other technology and specialized training for troops (desert, arctic, tropic, etc.). Don’t get your panties in a knot about it. We got it covered. Also you might like to search on “Climate” here http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/ to get an idea what the big brains at the US Army War College think about it.
The Military always has to be careful what they say in public. What is said in private is an entirely different matter. (Ex Army Wife)

Gail Combs

If Climate change is a national security threat, does that make mike Mann’s E-mails classified and therefore not subject to FOIA?
I would not put that move past these money grubbers.

Jimmy Haigh

If they do classify weather, sorry,climate change, as a national security threat then that might be a good moment to release the Climategate III emails…


The entire Obama administration is a national security threat.


If climate change is a national security threat requiring some response by the military does that mean that Obama will be instituting a plan to have the military round up all of us deniers and ship us off to climate change death camps?
Perhaps I am not clear on what exactly the military is planning to do to “fight” the climate. Maybe Obama can tell us more about just what his administration is thinking with this announcement.

Tom Deutsch

This is not a new concern;
Crafting a Strategic Approach to Climate and Energy (2010)
Navy Releases Roadmap for Global Climate Change (2010)

Gunga Din

Curiousgeorge says:
May 3, 2012 at 6:11 pm
Weather has been a significant concern for the military since before Hannibal attacked Rome. It’s why we have “all weather” combat capability in aircraft and other technology and specialized training for troops (desert, arctic, tropic, etc.). Don’t get your panties in a knot about it. We got it covered. Also you might like to search on “Climate” here http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/ to get an idea what the big brains at the US Army War College think about it.
Panetta is just sucking up to Obama.
They call them weather “fronts” because the roots of the weather service is in the theory that sickness that might effect an army was due to “bad air”. I forget his name, but one of the pioneers in weather forecasting was doing his work for the military. (French?) He pictured warm air battling cold air. Where they met was a “front”. Panetta sounds like he’s not talking about how weather might impact our troops but rather that warm air and cold air will actually be attacking our nation.


This blog item is quite symptomatic of a much larger issue, no?
. WUWT TV would be a great place to elaborate on this subject 🙂


multiple choice question for our fearless leaders.
12.500 years ago the Chicago area was:
A) Delightful
B) A swamp in need of draining
C) Future home of the most corrupt city in the country
D) Being scoured by a mile thick glacier, moving south-southwest

G R Dukes

SecDef is not the military.


Their conflation of science with philosophy is beginning to impinge upon reality.
I wonder what they think about dilution of the American culture through uninhibited immigration policies and unmeasured illegal immigration. Surely they would consider that to be a national security threat. Well, perhaps not in a democratic republic. With a minority position, they need leverage to consolidate wealth and power.
Yeah, it’s off-topic; but, far less than their corruption.

Mike Wryley

Jack McLaughlin
Yea but it only took a tiny drop of soap

tolo4zero says:
May 3, 2012 at 5:26 pm
Of course he is so worried about climate change that he burns up fuel flying excessively…

Look, I understand the outrage. But this is a legitimate taxpayer expense. I want the leader of the defense of the free world to be comfortable and inconvenienced. Don’t you?
I’m not arguing against the false claim of “climate change” being a “national security threat”. Far from it. But that those imbued with the power and responsibility of defending the free world being accused of hypocrisy because they live within the bubble their positions impose is unfair.