Guest post by Steve Goreham
Originally published in The Washington Times.
The United States Navy has embraced climate change ideology. In an interview with the Boston Globe on March 9, Admiral Samuel J. Locklear III, the Navy’s top officer in the Pacific, stated that climate change was the biggest long-term threat in the Pacific region and “probably the most likely thing that is going to happen…that will cripple the security environment, probably more likely than the other scenarios we all often talk about.” It’s troubling that the top officers of our Navy have accepted the misguided theory of man-made climate change.
Admiral Locklear continued, “Certainly weather patterns are more severe than they have been in the past. We are on super typhoon 27 or 28 this year in the Western Pacific. The average is about 17.” Unfortunately, the admiral is only looking at part of the tropical storm picture. While 2012 was an active year for typhoons in the Pacific, global tropical storm activity continued to be at a low level for the seventh year in a row, according to storm expert Dr. Ryan Maue. Further, satellite data shows no increase in tropical storm frequency or strength over the last 30 years.
Not only is the Navy concerned about climate change, they are attempting to do something about it. Both the Navy and the Air Force have established goals to use a 50/50 blend of biofuel and petroleum-based fuel for planes and ships. Navy plans call for establishment of a “Green Strike Group” task force by 2016, fueled by the biofuel blend, and for alternative fuels to power half of all energy consumption by 2020.
In 2011, the Navy and the Departments of Energy and Agriculture publically committed to invest $510 million to create an “advanced biofuel industry” based on algae. Algae-based biofuel will be purchased for the “bargain price” of $26 per gallon, or more than six times the price of current petroleum-based fuel. But, according to a 2011 study by the Rand Corporation, “…the use of alternative, rather than petroleum derived, fuels offers no direct military benefits.”
So why does the Navy want to fly fighter jets on algae-based fuels? If domestic sourcing was the reason, fuel could be produced from US coal at much lower cost than from algae. It’s to reduce emissions of those nasty greenhouse gases, of course. US Navy Secretary Ray Mabus makes this clear: “We’re gonna be using American produced, American energy that…will make us better environmental stewards because we will be contributing less to climate change and burning much cleaner fuel.”
Admiral Locklear is also concerned about sea level change, stating in the interview: “You have real potential here in the not-too-distant future of nations displaced by rising sea level…If it goes bad, you could have hundreds of thousands or millions of people displaced and then security will start to crumble pretty quickly.”
It is true that sea levels are rising. According to NASA, ocean levels have risen about 390 feet since that last ice age 20,000 years ago. Levels rose about 7‒8 inches during the last hundred years. But no scientist can tell when natural sea level rise ended and man-made sea level rise began. Nor is there any empirical evidence that sea level rise is accelerating. The 20-foot sea level rise predicted by some for the year 2100 is highly unlikely.
On March 5, Admiral Locklear told Congress that the automatic budget cuts from the sequester that went into effect on March 1 are already impacting his operations. He warned of cuts to aircraft flight hours, pay levels, and civilian jobs. He told the committee that the sequester cuts limit the ability of the Pacific Command to deter, assure, operate, and maintain its forces.
But the admiral did not mention impacts to the Navy’s algae-based biofuel program during his testimony. Could it be that futile efforts to stop climate change are a higher priority than the readiness of the United States Navy?
Steve Goreham is Executive Director of the Climate Science Coalition of America and author of the new book The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism: Mankind and Climate Change Mania.
Wamron
“Confused Photon…you are a bit er confused there. The other guy cleartly means airplanes, which helicopters arent.”
Er. No I am not confused or making assumption as you are. He stated aircraft carriers – aircraft are both fixed wing and rotary craft – no ambiguity here.
No confusion just basic English. Also Illustrious is a purpose built aircraft carrier for Harrier jets.
Declaring “climate change” to be their enemy raises a false flag of monumental proportions rendering our discussions as potentially treasonous. The only hope is for Congress to force them to prove this “enemy” of theirs actually exists. Whoever denied this crap was based on a communist agenda ought to reconsider the expanding situation – and do so quickly.
“It’s troubling that the top officers of our Navy have accepted the misguided theory of man-made climate change.”
It’s perfectly natural that the top officers in any Navy(or indeed Army or Air Force) will accept any position that will further their careers, even to the extent of damaging combat capability and readiness
“ConfusedPhoton says:
March 13, 2013 at 4:44 pm
Foxgoose
“we’ve got no aircraft carriers left in our navy”
Excuse me!
What about HMS Illustrious and HMS ocean – Ocean carries helicopters which are aircraft”
Ocean is in refit, while the Illustrious is operating in the LPH role (Landing Platform Helicopter). When Ocean is out of refit, the “Lusty” is being turned into a museum ship.
We lost Fleet Air Defence capability with retirement of Sea Harrier and any Attack capability with the retirement of the Mud Mover variants, now sold at Poundland prices to the USMC for spares.
“Notice the politically incorrect Playboy Bunny on the tail? I think that might be an especially good plane to fight Islamists with. ”
The Playboy insignia was used by USN Squadron VX-4 (The Evaluators) with the permission of Playboy Corp. VX-4 was sttod down and merged with VX-9(The Vampires) in 1994
The insignia was suppressed after the Tailhook scandal and re-instated in 2001.
If ”climate change” is a threat how does the Navy intend to fight it? Biofuels, Trident, Cruise missile? None of these will do a thing to ”fight” a non existent problem.
I also thought that Admirals had to have some knowledge of science. Obviously not.
““We’re gonna be using American produced, American energy”
Which could be useful if they actually think the Middle East is about to erupt into nuclear war. That would be a very good reason for moving the military onto other forms of fuel. Britain knows all about how important Arabia was to fuel supplies during WWII. Of course, you wouldn’t expect the Navy to baldly state “We think the Middle East is a nuclear powder keg and it is only a matter of time before some nutter sets off a device and the whole region becomes a fall-out zone where extracting crude oil becomes impossible, thus rendering the region unsuitable for our longer term strategic goals as a supplier of fuel” – that might be a bit contraversial. But I expect that is what they are really thinking – AGW is just an excuse for doing the right thing without ruffling any feathers.
You would think the USN would appreciate a rising sea level, then they’d probably stop running aground and/or ramming into coral reefs.
In the current climate of budget cuts to the military, a good commander must be willing to say anything to keep the cash flowing. So when they cut his budget for certain operations, he makes it up by telling them what they want to hear and what they are willing to spend money on. He just might be a lot smarter than you all seem to think.
You would think someone at the rank of Admiral would imediately know that if “sea level rises” you can navigate closer to the shore based target (which seems to be a concern) and with “more sea area” you obviously need more ships to patrol with.
/sarc (in case it’s needed)
It is the mission of the military when you have a pretend CinC.
VX-9’s un-PC Bunny is long gone.
The Obama Administration is purging the Pentagon of war-fighters & advancing toadies who toe the progressive line, many of whom lack combat experience.
What do you expect from an administration that “re-purposed” NASA so that its main missions now are to encourage girls to study math & science & to make Muslims feel good about the scientific & engineering achievements of their co-religionists?
If carrying helicopters, which are indubitably aircraft, makes a ship an aircraft carrier, then the many helicopter-operating destroyers & cruisers are also aircraft carriers. So are the underway replenishment ships that resupply other vessels at sea. For that matter, submarines are aircraft carriers, since they fire Tomahawk cruise missiles, which are fixed wing jet aircraft. DDGs & CGs also shoot Tomahawks & Harpoons. Any ship which launches &/or lands drones would be a CV, too.
~27.03 days solar rotation ~60 year cycle
http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/3158/hmf270366.png
(27.03)*(27) / (27.03 – 27) = 24327 days
24327 / 365.24219 ~= 66.6 years
data
ConfusedPhoton….you say the new carriers were built to carry Harriers…….Man are you confused..THERE ARE NO HARRIER JETS IN THE BRITISH NAVY OR AIR FORCE. Got that, they were all retired about ten years ago. The USA, India, Spain, Italy and Thailand all use Harriers, the British built them but they do not have any.
The new ships were designed to carry F35 Lightenings. But the British do not have any of those either……..nor is it likely now that they ever will.
Also, the guy you were replying to didnt say what you say he said. He said the carriers would have no aircraft, by which he patently meant airplanes. so bearing in mind the above he is obviously correct and you are trying to wriggle out of it.
Come to that, HMS Ocean was built to carry helicopters.but often DOESNT HAVE ANY ABOARD.
Theearlier guy ewas right.IF the new ships ever enterservbice (doubtful) the only airplanes they are likely to carry will be French. The French DO still have a real naval air power.
BTW….that jet in the photo will never fly onbiofuel…..all the F14s were retired from service years ago.
As investigators of all kinds always say, “Follow the Money”.
For all the talk about “believing in Climate Change”, this effort really has nothing to do with it. (other than that it is a convenient excuse that the slavering media will buy into)
This is all about a handful of well connected political donors who control these so-called “Green fuel” efforts, and who are being given Hundreds of $Millions in non-competitive bids for products which they may or may not produce. It’s safe to say that for every $1 worth of product they actually deliver, there will be $10 in “strategic” or “advisory” costs or whatever they want to call it. That’s how these things work.
It is just another get-rich-off-your-buddies scheme. Government graft, pure and simple. And of course the key is that they continually kick back a significant part of the proceeds to whoever is promoting and protecting them, and that includes persons, parties, and NGO’s. Through 503 and 504 foundations, the beauty of this (for them) is that this can be done without breaking any laws on the books at all.
I hope this isn’t a complete shock to all, but we live in a system which is set up by fraudsters, for the purpose of legalizing and condoning fraud, and the vast majority of those who govern us are not only in on the fraud, their primary purpose for being in government is the personal profits they can make from perpetuating the many frauds. This is what we’re up against – when all is said and done, the various branches of the mafia are probably more trustworthy and honest than our own government is.
It’s not about “climate change” – it’s about stealing as much as you can as long as you can. That’s the only real point (for them) of holding onto power, and that’s why they are so worried about “skeptics” – we threaten to overturn their apple cart.
@- Steve Gorham
“It’s troubling that the top officers of our Navy have accepted the misguided theory of man-made climate change.”
Would it really be less troubling if the top Navy officers rejected the statements of every major scientific body and the agreed findings of scientific research over the last five decades?
The small minority of people who reject AGW may resent the vast majority accepting the current scientific weight of evidence, but it is surely solipsistic arrogance to expect the military forces of a nation to share their rejection when there is clear global agreement in the scientific field.
There are significant ongoing dangers in climate change. The loss of the Arctic summer ice, down 80% in a few years, has clear implication for the navy with a whole new ocean available for use in the summer months. It would hardly exhibit Intelligence to ignore that major change in conditions.
@- Rex
“….I asked them whether they thought it was meant
to describe a cause or an effect, and none could venture an opinion.
Anyone out there know ?”
Yes, it is both.
Global warming is the effect of higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
And it is the cause of an increase in extreme events, sea level rise, moving growing regions and season dates and the massive ongoing loss of ice, Arctic and land based.
Clear now why we’re cutting educational support to veterans. The administration feels the need to suppress the potential for increased numbers of educated soldiers who would better understand what a ridiculous waste of time and money this “green” nonsense is in a military/defense context.
The Navy should be worried about icebergs and draft for military reasons, not because they care about Nicki Minaj’s beachfront property. The Navy should be worried about how quickly a carrier can be deployed, not how pleasant the exhaust is or that it smells like french fries on deck during launch.
The mission of every department under this administration has warped.
Don’t forget that George Bush was instrumental in moving the US towards localised supplies of fuel including biofuels and it seems pretty clear that his experience in dealing with Iraq had made it obvious that the relying on middle-east fuel supplies was a dangerous mistake, given that the whole region looks like it could explode at any minute. I don’t see the US Navy approach as being at odds with that, the fact it has been re-branded to suit the current administration’s rhetoric doesn’t change the overall direction the US has been taking for some years – to move away from any possible reliance on overseas oil. Saying outright “We’re moving away from Arab oil because we think we (or Israel) might be forced to nuke them all in a few years time” wouldn’t be the kind of rhetoric that would go down well with floating voters – although I strongly suspect that is what is on strategist’s minds.
Money spent on super-pricey biofuels is money that can’t be spent on bombs and guns and rockerts. Peace and love, man. That’s the idea.
The whole Joint Chiefs should be fired, including the Commander in Chief. Give Biden a chance.
“Wamron says:
March 14, 2013 at 6:17 am”
“THERE ARE NO HARRIER JETS IN THE BRITISH NAVY OR AIR FORCE. Got that, they were all
retired about ten years ago”.
We retired Sea Harrier which was an Multi-Role Fighter in 2006, we kept the GR7’s and GR9 mud movers in service until 2011, when budget cuts and gross stupidity did for them
“The new ships were designed to carry F35 Lightenings. But the British do not have any of those either……..nor is it likely now that they ever will”
They’ll fly anything that can launch of a ski ramp and land itself on about 500 foot of deck without arrester gear.. Which pretty much makes the F-35 the only game in town. Whether development delays and cost creep mean we can actually afford a useful air group is another question. Lack of catapult launch and arrested recovery gear(CATOBAR) still leaves us looking for viable AEW, COD, Tanking and extended Anti-submarine Warfare aircraft.
“Also, the guy you were replying to didnt say what you say he said. He said the carriers would have no aircraft, by which he patently meant airplanes. so bearing in mind the above he is obviously correct and you are trying to wriggle out of it”
I think it’s fairly obvious that an LPH cannot perform the functions of a CVA.
“Come to that, HMS Ocean was built to carry helicopters.but often DOESNT HAVE ANY ABOARD.”
It will when it comes back from the menders, if we still have a navy by then….
Theearlier guy ewas right.IF the new ships ever enterservbice (doubtful) the only airplanes they are likely to carry will be French. The French DO still have a real naval air power.
The MoD have written off the possibility of a CATOBAR conversion of the existing hull design as too expensive, It’s the F-35 or sweet FA. This is government in action, the trade off between CATOBAR and VSTOL is slightly more expensive ships but cheaper aircraft vs cheaper ships and vastly more expensive aircraft, we’ve ended up with very expensive ships and exorbitantly prices airframes, proud to be a taxpayer….
“BTW….that jet in the photo will never fly onbiofuel…..all the F14s were retired from service years ago.”
I can’t help feeling if we dusted some off from the boneyard, and gave them to the right guys, they’d be having barbecued hornet in no time…
TomE says:
March 13, 2013 at 4:54 pm
“When the president put forth climate change in his major list of concerns you could be assured that every official in the government, civilian or military, adopted that as his major concern. To not do so could have a major impact on your career, and I assume that Admiral Locklear has visions of CNO for his future.”
Except that the military started saying this in 2004. Rumsfeld had the Pentagon carry out a study on future risks for the military, and the report said climate change-induced conflict would be a bigger issue than terrorism.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver
Oh, and the Navy biofuels program was begun in 2007, under – yes – the Bush administration, who were known skeptics on climate change.
http://cnie.org/NLE/CRSreports/07Jul/RL34062.pdf
And finally, here is a report by a number of senior retired military commanders – not just the Navy, but all branches of the military. And since they’re retired, they have nothing to gain in their careers by doing so, this is what they believe and what they are speaking out about.
http://cnie.org/NLE/CRSreports/07Jul/RL34062.pdf
As a retired Navy Nuclear operator it is obvious that the Navy is not interested in CO2 reduction. They decommissioned the Nuclear Cruisers (years before their useful life was up), and have no plans to build any ship smaller than an aircraft carrier (or sub) with a nuclear propulsion system. If they wanted to truly reduce CO2, any ship that was big enough would be nuclear. They are playing a game with Wind/Solar on their bases, but that only increases the need for DIRTY Natural Gas. [And make the electricity you buy if you live near a military base more expensive. These Utilities MUST have the instant capacity to provide power to the base when a cloud rolls over, and the wind quits blowing. YOU pay for that extra capacity. You pay for the power plant operators sitting at a power plant that is not operating. You pay for the NGTG’s the utility buys to give the base that “instant” power. YOU PAY for that 20% efficient Solar/Wind farm on the base. ]
ONLY Nuclear will REDUCE CO2. If you don’t believe that you are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Top military officers are basically politicians, so no surprise here. Like members of the executive and legislative branches of the government their jobs are too sweet to risk over a minor issue such as truth.