Pentagon erases “climate change” from the National Defense threat list

The Pentagon released a National Defense Strategy that for the first time in more than a decade does not mention manmade global warming as a security threat.

An 11-page summary of the new National Defense Strategy makes no mention of “global warming” or “climate change”. The document makes no mention of “climate,” “warming,” “planet,” “sea levels” or even “temperature.” All 22 uses of the word “environment” refer to the strategic or security landscape.

The document is here: https://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/2018-National-Defense-Strategy-Summary.pdf

The National Defense Strategy, signed by Defense Secretary James Mattis, doesn’t have much to say about energy issues, except that the U.S. would “foster a stable and secure Middle East” and “contributes to stable global energy markets and secure trade routes.”

The Pentagon released the strategy document Friday, and officials were clear that it would make no mention of global warming. The Bush administration added global warming to the defense strategy in 2008, but the issue gained top-tier status during the Obama administration.

The Trump administration released its “America First” security strategy in December, which called for “[u]nleashing these abundant energy resources— coal, natural gas, petroleum, renewables, and nuclear” to boost the economy and aid U.S. allies.

That plan de-emphasized policies aimed at fighting manmade global warming, a complete u-turn from national security under the Obama administration.

“Climate policies will continue to shape the global energy system,” reads the National Security Strategy, released in December.

“U.S. leadership is indispensable to countering an anti-growth, energy agenda that is detrimental to U.S. economic and energy security interests,” reads the plan. “Given future global energy demand, much of the developing world will require fossil fuels, as well as other forms of energy, to power their economies and lift their people out of poverty.”


The Daily caller and the Huntington Huffington Post were used as sources for this story.

This cartoon got it right:

 

 

Advertisements

153 thoughts on “Pentagon erases “climate change” from the National Defense threat list

      • Why is there a posting schedule? Couldn’t the posts be put up as soon as the reviewer has finished checking it?

      • Why?

        I am in the London time zone, so that’s when I post…

        The articles come up coincidentally as I have a spare moment

      • @MarkW,

        Depending on the guest authors’ privileges, there is an option to subit for review, post immediately or schedule the posting time.

        One of the reasons for scheduling posting times is to spread new articles out over the day.

      • I am in the London time zone, so that’s when I post …The articles come up coincidentally as I have a spare moment

        And it has nothing to do with your getting compensated more if you get the higher visibility of the very first post. Right, Griff?

      • “Griff January 21, 2018 at 8:37 am

        The articles come up coincidentally as I have a spare moment”

        You seem to have lots of spare moments…

      • “giffiepooed January 21, 2018 at 8:37 am

        Why?
        I am in the London time zone, so that’s when I post…
        The articles come up coincidentally as I have a spare moment”

        More spurious correlations?
        Coincidently?
        WUWT publishes, just as you have a spare moment?

        More likely, you have spare moments because that is your occupation.

        Just more supporting evidence, that you are paid to troll.
        Still unexplained is why you rarely read the articles, before posting your assigned nonsense for the day.

        Such work products will make such a wonderful job history; paid trollop posting irrational off topic comments that are easily rebutted or falsified at internationally popular internet sites.

        Such a wonderful resume addition will be examples of your posts unrelated to articles and comment threads.
        Minding playground delinquents for less than a living wage, is likely to be your future employment.

      • Oh no! Does this mean that Griff may be BRITISH?!?! I feel so embarrassed. On behalf of the rest of the UK, guys, I apologise…

      • I was going to somehow dedicate the cartoon of Obama in the snow fort to Griff but decided to name the file “Obama Throwing Snowballs from Behind” when I saved it in my “Climate Fools” folder.

        Mission accomplished.

      • I agree craft. I ‘ve detected a bit of a shift away from the dyed in the wool diametric positioning of a few of our trolls. I think we should be more welcoming when this is happening. There is a seductive education at this site that is hard to resist. That is why the Team doesnt run the risk of visiting WUWT. BESIDES if you jump on Griff in the first post when he isnt even here, who has been the most effective?

      • Is a contradictory comment automatically a ‘troll’?

        If you don’t want opposing views, then just ban them.

        Plenty of climate sites do (both sides of the debate). Fine by me, though I think you’d lose by it.

        Otherwise, be polite and engage in dialog?

      • “….. There is a seductive education at this site that is hard to resist. That is why the Team doesnt run the risk of visiting WUWT. ….”

        ======

        Remember in the days of the “climategate” release whereas WUWT and Climate Audit were not to even be mentioned!

        Ohhh, how things have changed !!!!

      • Griff your “contradictory comments” are mostly just outright blatant lies or at best speculative stupid PR press releases from some renewables company or government on how they are going to save the world.

        You never check the source of your article claim or the background which is why you are treated as a fool.

      • “Griff January 21, 2018 at 8:39 am

        …and engage in dialog?”

        Which is exactly what you do not do. You post alarmist articles which are continuously shown to be rubbish. You constantly state the emissions of CO2 from human activity is now *THE* driver of climate change and yet you cannot show evidence of that that is not a lab experiment, Bill Nye video or computer model.

      • There are lots of people who post contradictory statements without trolling.
        On the other hand, repeatedly posting disproven lies is trolling.

    • Unless I’ve missed some of his posts, Griff is always polite and civil. That should be all with which we’re concerned.

      • **Unless I’ve missed some of his posts, Griff is always polite and civil. That should be all with which we’re concerned.**
        I would not call it civil when griff says Dr. Crockford is not a scientist and has no respect for her work, and furthermore agrees with the 14 pseudo-scientists who denigrated her work.

      • Crockford I think can stand up for herself?

        She’s certainly had her own say in reply to my comments (I took a little bit of a bashing). And my comments, I repeat, are quite general on the internet.

      • “And my comments, I repeat, are quite general on the internet.”

        As we all know, everything posted on the Internet is always 100% correct – especially when it agrees with your personal prejudices, right?

        And THAT is your justification for maliciously and mendaciously slandering Dr. Crockford, attempting to damage her professional credibility and flat out refusing to apologise despite being proved totally wrong on multiple occasions by multiple posters…

        You really are a deeply unpleasant individual.

      • Mr. Schrumpf I have to agree, and I further agree with Griff that Crockford doesn’t need a class of defenders.

        Let’s not let this blog become an echo chamber. Some of the best commenters here are believers. We can do without the childish persona; stuff.

      • Griff, writes this dishonest statement:

        “Crockford I think can stand up for herself?

        She’s certainly had her own say in reply to my comments (I took a little bit of a bashing). And my comments, I repeat, are quite general on the internet.”

        Yet AFTER she destroyed the nasty attack on her by propaganda group of scientists, you continued to disrespect her, saying she isn’t a scientist and ignore her PDH in ZOOLOGY, along with a significant number of published papers on various ARCTIC animals including Polar Bears. You keep denigrating her over her many years of research on Polar Bears.

        Here is an example of your dumb post since you IGNORED what she said about their dietary habits:

        “Griff December 11, 2017 at 6:36 am Edit
        “In August, this bear would have been only recently off the sea ice”

        I think the author needs to look at where the sea ice was in august.

        this bear is likely in it sad condition due to the rapid and distant retreat of sea ice from the coast.

        similar conditions have seen bears stuck on shore scavenging Inuit whale kills and then there’s that picture of bears on Wrangel Island flocking to a dead whale carcass

        Polar Bears depend on sea ice… when there continues to be a lot less of it in summer they have to be affected.

        This author needs to consult those doing long term field studies on bears on the true state of things”

        The reality as she pointed out in the main post, is that they get most of their calories in Late WINTER to early Summer:

        Susan writes,

        “In August, this bear would have been only recently off the sea ice: since most bears are at their fattest at this time of year, something unusual had to have affected his ability to hunt or feed on the kills he made when other bears around him did not starve and die. It could have been something as simple as being out-competed for food in the spring by older animals.

        But if sea ice loss due to man-made global warming had been the culprit, this bear would not have been the only one starving: the landscape would have been littered with carcasses. This was one bear dying a gruesome death as happens in the wild all the time (there is no suggestion that a necropsy was done to determine cause of death, just as with Stirling’s bear that supposedly died of climate change.)

        In fact, research done by polar bear specialists that work in the field shows that the most common natural cause of death for polar bears is starvation, resulting from one cause or another (too young, too old, injured, sick). From Amstrup in Wild Mammals of North America: Biology, Management, and Conservation…”

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/12/11/starving-polar-bears-are-the-fake-news-face-of-climate-change/

        and this as well you ignored,

        “Nicklen should do a bit more reading: polar bears in Western Hudson Bay routinely go four to five months without ice. Four months was normal in the good old days (ca. 1980) and almost five months in some recent years (Castro de la Guardia et al. 2017; Cherry et al. 2013; Ramsay and Stirling 1988; Stirling and Lunn 1997). WHB pregnant females spend 8 months or more on land with no ill effects that can conclusively be blamed on a slightly longer time without ice (Crockford 2017). Southern Hudson Bay polar bears spend a similar amount of time without ice (Obbard et al. 2016), see this post (with references).”

        They get most of their calories for the year in just 4 months of the year. April to July.

        Dr. Crockford is well aware of the research on Polar Bears, as she cites quite a few over the years.

        You don’t have any credibility here when you write and behave that way, Mr. Griff

  1. How refreshing after eight years of Obama administration lunacy. Imagine, a military focused on warfighting rather than climate change and social engineering.

    • I might have preferred to keep ‘Climate Change’ as a national threat, although I would add a 3rd word to the phrase – Alarmism. Greenpeace, etc sure seem to be a danger to the US (or am I being hyper-sensitive?).

  2. Oh! I feel as though I just stepped out of a time machine or something. What happened? There was white stuff everywhere, and… and there was white stuff falling from the sky… and… I head this message coming from somewhere.

    Good morning, Mr. and Mrs America and all the ships at sea. This message is brought to you by your local farmers market. Please patronize those lovely people whenever possible, and lend your patronage to local small shops.
    And now for the message: global warming and climate change are no longer a threat. Winter is here and Spring is nine weeks away. The forecast for your area can be found in the newspaper on your doorstep, or you can just go outside and make direct observations. If there’s a red sky at night, sailors delight. Red sky at morning, sailors take warning.
    Enjoy the weekend, be kind to small animals and children, and make sure your kids ask permission to leave the dinner table.

    And good night, Mrs. Calabash, wherever you are.

    • The year’s at the spring,
      And day’s at the morn;
      Morning’s at seven;
      The hill-side’s dew-pearled;
      The lark’s on the wing;
      The snail’s on the thorn;
      God’s in His heaven –
      All’s right with the world!
      link

    • Hi Sara. I was a J Durante fan, too. But it shows our age! It also recalls that the stuff we watched (or even just listened to!) puts most modern comedy in the blah category.

      On a skit when he had written the Inka dinka Doo song his pal tells him the song is great and that he should take to show Alex Taylor. Big pause, then JD responds “Why not take to Alec himself?

    • Sara, you got the weather rhyme wrong.

      Red sky in the morning, shepherd’s warning, red sky at night, shepherd drunk, shepherd’s cottage on fire.

      (Sorry.)

      • Spring is sprung,
        The grass is riz,
        I wonder where the boidies is.
        De boid is on de wing.
        But that’s abzoid,
        I know the wing is on the boid.

  3. There never was a threat from CAGW, and this is the proof as it falls off the radar. It was a man made ‘threat’ that put it on a list, and it was man made than the Pentagon took it off the list. Never meant anything.

    If all the predictions from 10-20 years ago were even remotely accurate, then something would be definitely be happening by now that was obvious. Weather does not constitute a National Security Threat. We deal with it and move on. The world is still here pretty much the same as it was 40 years ago, while the Universe unfolds as it should.

    Now the story two posts ago, well that might be another story. Having said all this, let’s not quit gathering data and trying to understand Earth’s complex climate system better.

    • “There never was a threat from CAGW, and this is the proof as it falls off the radar. It was a man made ‘threat’ that put it on a list, and it was man made than the Pentagon took it off the list. Never meant anything.”

      That’s right. You won’t see any generals resigning over not including CAGW in the national defense strategy. If CAGW were a real threat to the USA, there would be generals raising the alarm, and generals threatening to resign over it.

  4. The gravy train has sprung a serious leak.
    The Democrats believe that robbing the poor and taxpayers isn’t capitalism.

    The entire fraud is a disgrace.

  5. I’m sure there were many in the military who cringed and laughed when the Obamites pushed CAGW as a national security threat. Probably not many complaints from them about this change – except maybe those stationed on nice beaches tasked with battling sea level rise, and other urgent missions.

  6. This topic was one which showed me how utterly and completely brainwashed my progressive, Guardian and NYT reposting “friends” are when it comes to these topics.
    In their eyes, this is a clear example of the Trump Administration’s war on science in general and climate science in the specific.
    I pointed out that the original report upon which the Obama era declaration was made contained the assertion that climate change was creating breeding grounds for terrorists.
    I suggested that there may be more direct and readily understandable causes for ideologically motivated terrorism than the existence of purportedly ideal weather conditions. Or indeed, weather conditions which preclude other more wholesome activities and therefore drive ordinary Afghan homesteaders into constructing improvised explosive devices and truck bombs for a living.
    Or perhaps those ISIS members are so infuriated by their exposure to drone-strikes due to the lack of tree cover in a once wooded and fertile region of the world, that there original intention of settling down and running a plumbing supplies business out of a bazaar in Aleppo had to be put on hold for a while, whilst they direct their fury at western imperialism.
    Whichever it is, this presentation of the motive forces behind the current state of affairs in Europe and the Middle East is so tragically out of line with any of the insights provided by actually knowing facts and history that one hardly knows where to begin in debunking it.
    When the theories of your opponents are more idiotic than the contents of a Monty Python sketch then how can you even begin to construct a satire which would reveal them for the nonsense they are?
    One by one, we are going to drive out terrorists by stopping the “extreme weather” conditions which they so crave.
    Ahahaha, check mate, now we’ve got them…

      • Maybe because those Islamic extremists believe Western CAGW propaganda? If it can befuddle the “best” of our liberal intelligentsia, it also entrance the minds of less-sophisticatedly educated Islamic extremists.

      • It’s always going to be a struggle to identify the exact roles, actions and motives of all the players.
        When what we appear to be witnessing is often the collusion between rational actors exchanging energy products for billions of dollars, and the “useful idiots” drummed into their service via some program of ideological subversion or conversion of extremist religious or cult beliefs.
        i.e. collusion between the rational motivated via self interest and the irrational, motivated via self-sacrifice.
        It’s often hard to tell who is doing what for what reason.
        However, at the most simplistic level, it should be obvious to anyone why foreign actors would be happy to encourage the U.S. in the direction of kicking itself in the nuts – by raising energy costs and prices, and by placing all kinds of pointless regulatory hurdles in the way of its own industrial competitiveness.
        Especially when those foreign powers often have near exclusive dependence on just one main commodity and are therefore obsessed with driving up its market price.
        On that level, the anti-fracking and solar and wind promoting activities of Russia Today and Al Jazeera should come as no surprise.
        They leaders can clearly do the maths.
        But seemingly, ours can’t.

    • Could we please have a war on cold?

      Tonight Ulaanbaatar will equal the record for this day: -43 C with a wind chill of -55 C.

      The suffering of the poor in these conditions is heart-breaking. It is on nights such as these that poor yurt-dwellers burn plastic, engine oil, tires, wood scraps, coal, garbage, literally anything that will support a flame.

      Please support when you can by word and deed the development of modern, clean, efficient stoves and boilers for the ordinary people of Central Asia.

  7. ”…countering an anti-growth, energy agenda that is detrimental to U.S. economic and energy security interests…”

    Not only is CC eliminated as a threat to national security, that statements puts Climate peddling charlatans in the US military crosshairs.

  8. It’s nice to have the military back to doing it’s proper job, and not being used as a tool to try to control our beliefs.

  9. Gee! Climate Change no longer a threat? Back in 2004 The Guardian was reporting that a “secret report” from the DoD warned President Bush that Climate Change was a greater threat than terrorism. That by 2020 Britain would be “plunged into a Siberian climate” and that there would be rioting and possible nuclear war!

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver

    There was a reason why during my 12 years active duty I did everything I could to stay the hell away from the Flag Poles.

  10. Climate, changing or otherwise, has always been a threat to life and so it should not come as a surprise to see it mentioned in a defence strategy paper.

    • And yet the role of the military is not to defend life but to take it, which they do exceptionally well–it’s the only federal agency charged with that mission.

      To dwell on climate as an objective in battle is simply silly; the Obama administration made error after error and that was a big one.

      • “…it’s the only federal agency charged with that mission.” True, but it is not the only federal agency that does it (take life, or at least the quality of life.).

    • Hmmm….Mitt Romney was included as one of the “Recipients” along with Obama, Hillary, and John Kerry.

      Methinks Romney’s attempt at becoming a Senator from Utah has hit a speed bump.

    • Oh, and about that raid…

      Hillary, donations, Boston Consulting Group,
      Looks like a pay to play…And under watch by Judicial Watch as classified info on the Weiner’s laptop.

    • (Reuters) – The Federal Bureau of Investigation has lost about five months worth of text messages between two staffers who worked on probes into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails and possible collusion between Russia and President Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, according to a Republican lawmaker.
      Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson, who chairs the Senate Homeland Security Committee, revealed in a Jan. 20 letter that the FBI’s technical system failed to preserve texts that were exchanged between Lisa Page, a lawyer, and Peter Strzok, an agent, between mid-December 2016 through mid-May of 2017.
      A spokesman for the FBI and a spokeswoman for the Justice Department declined to comment.

      • I’d decline, too–what they would otherwise admit to would be obstruction of justice. And that, folks, is a felony.

    • The Dems are still fighting the last election and don’t have plans for Party renewal it seems (same ageing losers in charge) They may be out for a generation or two if they don’t find a substitute for elite global governance from UN/EU as a policy. Doug this is a paradigm change and the left doesn’t get it.

      • The Dems seem to fear paradigm shifts in anything and everything. They want to reverse the climate and the election. Going back won’t be a move forward, so what makes them so ‘progressive’?

    • That assumes the next administration will be as corrupt as the last. Considering the depth of Obamagate, there won’t be enough leaders of the Democratic Party who aren’t in jail to man such an administration.

  11. Good timing, first climate change is no longer a military threat, then the US Navy releases news that a ship commissioned in Buffalo last month is stuck in Montreal for the winter because the St Lawrence Seaway closed for the season when it iced over before the ship made it through on its way to Florida.

    https://news.usni.org/2018/01/19/uss-little-rock-ice-montreal

    The temperatures in Montreal and throughout the transit area have been colder than normal, and included near-record low temperatures, which created significant and historical conditions in the late December, early January timeframe.

    I dunno, I could argue that climate change still threatens naval operations.

  12. Another superfluous distraction for advocacy donations for Obama and the Party goes down. At least it was not as harmful as at the VA where they were dutifully installing solar panels on the roof while inside they were fudging the wait list documentation and vets were dying.

  13. not mention manmade global warming as a security threat

    An 0.1 c to 0.2 c per decade rise in global temperatures has never been a security threat and it was foolish to expect this continuation occurring without influence from natural ocean cycles and solar activity.

    Any serious concern was around 0.4 c per decade and after not far off 5 decades, it was clear to see that this would never be reached over the long term.

  14. Surely a nuke falling on Hawaii counts as climate change of a sort — or would that just be “weather”?

    • Predictable fallout from the ‘strategic do nothing’ policies of the Obama regime.
      The NOAA was prepared to call it an anthropogenic extreme high pressure system.

  15. The new report doesn’t go far enough. The biggest threat to national security and our civilization as we know it , is the very Trojan Horse CAGW is, foist upon us by a hopelessly NeoMarxy Europe and its fellow travelers. If Trump were more aware of the existential nature of the threat he might not work so hard being his own damaging opposition.

    He is the only fellow in the world who has the guts to rip out the Big Things and end the incremental slide into the NeoDarkAge. Trump! Use all your efforts in this. Even the denizens of the Swamp don’t appreciate they are being saved. Get rid of the GOP bog critters that dont see the big picture too – the whole works needs a makeover.

    • +1 Meanwhile the “NeoMarxy Europe” propagators and “bog critters” shout ‘conspiracy theory’ to effectively divert the attention of the people they have mushroomed.

  16. Time to end the bio-fuel nonsense in the military too. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2011/08/16/president-obama-announces-major-initiative-spur-biofuels-industry-and-en

    “Biofuels are an important part of reducing America’s dependence on foreign oil and creating jobs here at home,” said President Obama

    Has corn ethanol done anything to make us less dependent on foreign oil or has it been fracking + offshore & ANWR exploration + pipelines + … ? No thanks to Obama the USA is on the verge of becoming a net energy exporter.

    According to the EIA –

    The High Oil Price case provides favorable economic conditions for crude oil and natural gas producers while restraining domestic consumption, enabling the most rapid transition to net exporter status.

    • Now if only Trump could end the ethanol mandate we would once again be able to feed the world with ease. And my lawnmowers would have proper power again.

      But on this one I’m not holding my breath.

      • Check your local farmer’s coop. Our’s sells pure gasoline, no ethanol from one pump for equipment operation.

      • I use a combination of PRI-G and Marine Grade STABIL in all my small engines. The result is one-puil engine start, even after 18 months of just sitting around. Highly recommended.

  17. “Climate change” is not a thing, because climate is an average of weather. Saying that “climate change” causes “extreme weather” is like saying Manhattan’s higher population density than Ottumwa, Iowa’s causes people to move from the cornfields to the Big Apple. An average cannot drive the data.

    Do “climate scientists” even realize this, or even realize that’s what they’re saying? Or perhaps they do realize the inanity of the remark, but count on the useful idiots in the media to not ponder its meaning, nor the sheeple to question it.

  18. Here’s why that policy is wrong..

    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jan/17/coast-guard-wants-cruise-missiles-arctic-icebreake/

    Icebreakers, I hear you say… “because of the ice in the not melting arctic…”

    Well the reason the Russians are building ice breakers is because with thinner ice and longer periods of open water, with icebreakers they can keep more routes open year round.

    Russian military policy assumes climate change is thawing the arctic and they are moving their military into the region to support economic expansion…

    Better acknowledge climate change and load up those missiles

    • “Opponents say arming the Coast Guard vessels sends a dangerous signal to Moscow that Washington is looking for a fight over the Arctic”

      Love that reasoning, it looks to me more like arming the Coast Guard ships is a response to the ‘dangerous signal’ Moscow is sending Washington by moving military forces into the artic.

    • “because with thinner ice”…no Griff

      They are building them to break up ice that’s 4.5-5 meters thick….that’s not thinner ice…that’s technology

    • “Russian military policy assumes climate change is thawing the arctic and they are moving their military into the region to support economic expansion…”

      Very doubtful. Everything I’ve read regarding Russian scientists’ views about climate is that it is getting cooler.

      • +1 Russia and China know exactly what’s going on with CC and hope the Western Countries are fooled into submission so they can prosper at our expense.

      • Also Russia is building 3 brand new nuclear powered Ice breakers with ice melting capability.

        That’s how convinced they are that sea ice is melting away,

        But as we all know, Arctic sea ice is STILL in the top 10% of Holocene extents, time-wise, anyway. More than in the MWP and WAY MORE than basically any time before the MWP.

        Data from the Chukchi Sea and from above Iceland (the two main expansion areas), shows that conclusively.

        Only time its been at a higher extent was during the LIA, and short period leading up to and down from the late 1970s

        There’s an awful lot of sea ice up there, y’know.

    • More totally ridiculous drivel, Griff?

      Do you never get tired of making a public exhibition of yourself?

    • Griff you keep telling us there is going to be ANY ice … you know “ICE FREE ARCTIC”.

      So can you please clarify your position are we going to have thinner Arctic ice or be Ice free?

      Here is your chance to prove you aren’t a troll, answer the question which is it.

    • “they can keep more routes open year round.”

      Yep and they need nuclear powered icebreakers to do it.

      They are sick of their cargo ships getting stuck in sea ice or it being impassable for large parts of the year.

      Thanks for pointing that out, griff. :-)

      Now take both feet out of your mouth.

  19. I fear that we will have to add militant environmentalists to the threat list soon enough as a result of this.

  20. This is utterly horrifying. The greatest threat to national security since World War Two and the petroleum industry removed it from the USA Department of Defense’s web sites. This is utter madness. It’s almost as if the tRump Regime were working for a hostile foreign country…. like Russia.

    • The preceding public service announcement was brought to you by the makers of Thorazine…

      Bringing peace to the world….one shuffle at a time

    • “Petroleum industry removed it from the website”?

      Yeah sure. The fossil fuel industry has nothing to fear from government. They are too important and everybody knows it.

      • In fact, the petroleum industry is VITAL to our military, as every piece of motorized equipment runs on some kind of oil-derived fuel.

        And, trust me, there’s no way the military will ever run on solar or wind power…

    • Russia makes it’s money selling oil and natural gas. They would love it for the US to stop producing both.

  21. I’m not sure about “National Defense” but I’m glad a friend gave his snowblower to combat “Global Warming”!

  22. Climate Skeptics are Modern Day Churchills

    Modern climate skeptics share many of the characteristics of Winston Churchill, as well as challenges. Winston Churchill, like Patton, believed that they were born to fulfill a destiny. They both had unwavering confidence in their ability, and the role they would play in shaping world history. They paid untold personal costs and made huge personal sacrifices, all for the unselfish goal of protecting society from itself, or more accurately, the political left. The reward for protecting society and preserving freedom was extreme opposition, criticism, humiliation, failure, underminings, and misguided political demagoguery. Their crime? They were unafraid to speak the unpopular truth and unwaveringly defended it. They were unashamed and unafraid to oppose the political left.
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/01/22/climate-skeptics-are-modern-day-churchills/

  23. The fact that climate change was ever on the national defense threat list illustrates how certifiably wacky our government had become under Obama. The man declared climate change as the single most important threat to our world. Was he on LSD?

    • No. Barack Hussein Obama is a socialist that follows Alyniski’s Rules for Radicals: Never Waste a Perceived Crisis, especially one created by socialists.

      • @J Mac
        “Alyniski’s Rules for Radicals: Never Waste a Perceived Crisis”
        Kindly point out where in Alynski’s writing that advice appears. I can’t see to find it.
        Here’s a link to a PDF of the book – https://chisineu.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/saul-alinsky-rules-for-radicals-1989.pdf
        and here are the rules:
        “Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.”
        “Never go outside the expertise of your people.”
        “Whenever possible go outside the expertise of the enemy.”
        “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”
        “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”
        “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”
        “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.”
        “Keep the pressure on,”
        “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”
        “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.”
        “If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside”
        “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.”
        “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it”

        If I had a dollar for every time someone attributed something to Rules For Radicals that isn’t in the book, I’d be a very wealthy person.
        By the way, the Tea Party and Dick Armey – those flaming *socialists* were using it as a handbook.

      • Kindly provide your evidence of the TEA Party using Alinski’s Rules for Radicals as a ‘handbook’.
        T.E.A.: Taxed Enough Already.
        From their web site, the Tea Party Patriots are focused on 3 priorities:
        1) Personal Freedom – We are most free when the Constitution is followed, and all Americans can live life the way they want, as long as it does not harm others or infringe on their rights.
        2) Economic Freedom – A growing economy, with reduced tax rates and government spending, gives businesses the ability to hire more people and us all a chance to earn more.
        3) Debt Free Future – Increasing the US debt puts an undue burden on future generations. It is only fair and right to pay the debt we have incurred so our children are not stuck with our bills.
        https://www.teapartypatriots.org/

        These may seem like ‘radical’ ideas to socialist, but they are foundation issues with main street USA.
        Freeze, personalize, and polarize that!

      • As I stated, Obama was an acolyte of Alinsky. So was his Sec. of State Hillary Clinton and Rahm Emanuel, his Chief of Staff. In the midst of the 2009 economic ‘crisis’, “Never waste a good crisis”, from the Alinsky triumvirates ‘horses mouth’ ….

      • In addition, MorinMorris, had you diligently invested your dollars for 30 years in capitalist companies that made real products real people wanted, and employed real people in real jobs that paid real wages and real taxes, today you would be a very wealthy person. It’s not too late to embrace an economic system that really work, ya know?

      • The only advice the TEA party ever took from Alinsky was to make your opponents live up to their own standards.
        Something leftists have never been willing to do.

  24. Let’s see if I have this right.
    The Pentagon including climate change as a risk, under pressure from the president is not a political act.
    On the other hand, the Pentagon removing climate change as a risk when that pressure is removed, is a political act.

  25. The Canadian army is spending large sums of money replacing all their sodium lights with LEDs. It would appear that in Canada (one of the coldest countries in the world), climate change is still considered a national security threat.

    PS, As I understand it sodium lights are as or more efficient than LEDs, so this is all a virtue signaling greenwashing.

Comments are closed.