US Taxpayers Paid $329,000 for this Useless DoD Climate Report

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Even Democrats are complaining about the lack of detail.

The Pentagon calls climate change a national security threat. Trump isn’t listening.

Democrats seem unhappy with the new Defense Department report, though.

By Alex Ward Jan 18, 2019, 1:50pm EST

The Pentagon released a short report this week detailing how a changing climate is a national security threat and makes the military’s job around the world harder. The problem, though, is that the pithy document will likely fall on deaf ears anyway.

There’s more, but it’s mostly anecdotal and not all of it deals with climate change directly. “The report is surprisingly clear though that there is no current or desired separate program to track or manage climate impacts,” retired Rear Adm. David Titley, one of the country’s top experts on climate security, wrote on Friday. “The report is disappointing.”

Some Democrats agree, saying the report skimped on some crucial details and must be more robust.

“While this climate report acknowledges that nearly all the military installations it studied are vulnerable to major climate change impacts,” House Armed Services Committee Chair Adam Smith (D-WA) said in a Friday statement, “it fails to even minimally discuss a mitigation plan to address the vulnerabilities.”

Jack Reed (D-RI), the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, took aim at Trump and the Pentagon in a different statement: “President Trump’s climate change denial must not adversely impact the security environment where our troops live, work, and serve,” he said. “But under current leadership, the Department is treating climate change as a back burner issue.”

That seems to be true: The Trump administration has yet to place serious emphasis on safeguarding complexes even as top defense officials said last year that Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida — which suffered massive damage from Hurricane Michael — was “uninhabitable” in the storm’s aftermath.

Read more:

The report runs to 17 pages, with 5 pages of appendices. The following is a sample of the kind of “information” provided by the report;


Drought can negatively impact U.S. military installations in various ways, particularly in the Southwest. For example, dry conditions from drought impact water supply in areas dependent on surface water. Additionally, droughts dry out vegetation, increasing wildfire potential/severity. Specific to military readiness, droughts can have broad implications for base infrastructure, impair testing activities, and along with increased temperature, can increase the number of black flag day prohibitions for testing and training. Drought can contribute to heat- related illnesses, including heat exhaustion and heat stroke, outlined by the U.S. Army Public Health Center. Energy consumption may increase to provide additional cooling for facilities.

Several DoD sites in the DC area (including Joint Base Anacostia Bolling, Joint Base Andrews, U.S. Naval Observatory/Naval Support Facility, and Washington Navy Yard) periodically experienced drought conditions –extreme in 2002 and severe from 2002 through 2018. In addition, Naval Air Station Key West experienced drought in 2015 and 2011, ranging from extreme to severe, respectively. These examples highlight that drought conditions may occur in places not typically perceived as drought regions.

Drought conditions have caused significant reduction in soil moisture at several Air Force bases resulting in deep or wide cracks in the soil, at times leading to ruptured utility lines and cracked road surfaces.

Read more: Report on Effects of a Changing Climate to the Department of Defense

Imagine you are a policy maker responsible for addressing the issues raised in the report. What measures are required to fix the problems at Naval Air Station Key West? How much additional water do they need to address their current problems and projected future problems? How much would it cost to provide water security to Naval Air Station Key West?

$329,000 is an outrageous sum to charge taxpayers for a document which lacks even the most basic details which a policy maker would require to formulate a policy response.

President Trump should demand a better effort on behalf of US taxpayers from whoever wrote this report. For once the Democrats might support him.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Greg Woods
January 19, 2019 2:13 pm

air force bases – should be placed underground for maximum protection…

Reply to  Greg Woods
January 19, 2019 2:45 pm

naval bases – should be relocated to Utah and Omaha. There used to be port installations at Utah and Omaha beach. Maybe those can be used again. /jk

For the last 20 years, the job of the military has been to bomb people back to the stone age and then invade to steal the rubble. So they must be very good at operating in disaster areas.

John M Ware
Reply to  RLu
January 19, 2019 3:51 pm

Back at Indiana U in 1960 and 1961, I took classes in ROTC (Army) that included strategy, tactics, and map-reading. There was one basic statement that I heard from more than one instructor:

The mission of the Army is to kill people and break things.

Of course, we know of some recent administrations where that mission was augmented and modified to include social experimentation and to impose “fairness.” Those who know the mission as enunciated above know just how far to admit the social stuff . . .

Reply to  John M Ware
January 19, 2019 6:20 pm

John M Ware

“The mission of the Army is to kill people and break things.”

Our mission statement was to sweep through and leave nothing but burning homes and crying widows.

Reply to  Greg Woods
January 19, 2019 3:19 pm

Where did the dollar amount come from?
I do not doubt the amount, but how do we know it?
more comments later, and I am close enough to describe the base that was “destroyed” by Micheal OT!!!

Reply to  Greg Woods
January 19, 2019 5:12 pm

Finally, somebody says something sensible. link

Reply to  commieBob
January 22, 2019 10:58 am

If you’re talking about the report, I likely have to agree.

Instead of blaming CAGW, the report – at least from the section quoted above – seems to lay out climatic conditions, which may be natural, which also demonstrate difficulties which need to be overcome (or move the facility). I saw no mention that the Arizona drought conditions (hey, droughts tend to occur in desert locales) were caused by Global Warming. I expect the Dems were up in arms because there was no mention of mitigating CAGW.

Cost? Yes, if you have many locations to survey, then it will take a lot of man-hours (or, PC = woman-hours) to gather that information. To me, 1/3 of a million dollars does not seem like a lot of money for the task they were given.

Reply to  Greg Woods
January 19, 2019 5:50 pm

Airplanes show be coated with solar cells

paul courtney
Reply to  Neo
January 20, 2019 8:26 am

Neo: On the bottom, too? Power up at night!

Reply to  Greg Woods
January 19, 2019 6:15 pm

air force bases – should be placed underground for maximum protection…

That would make Final Approach exciting. 😉

January 19, 2019 2:18 pm

Yeah, let’s spend $329 million next time.
We can afford bigger lies than this wishy-washy stuff, right?

R Shearer
January 19, 2019 2:28 pm

Make sure that those involved are furloughed and don’t bring them back to “work.”

Reply to  R Shearer
January 19, 2019 10:15 pm

They were contractors, that’s how they know the exact cost. Already gone & working on their next boondoggle.

Clyde Spencer
January 19, 2019 2:37 pm

Almost $15,000 per page! Is it embossed on gold leaf?

Admiral (ret.) Titley is in the alarmist camp. Anything less than a call to arms would disappoint him. He is obviously an expert on the Navy; however, I’m less than convinced about his credentials on climatology, other than the people he rubs shoulders with.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
January 19, 2019 5:20 pm

If it had been embossed on gold leaf then some of the value could have been recovered, otherwise…

January 19, 2019 2:39 pm

If there is any doubt the “deep state” exists this should remove it. Can you imagine top brass sitting around a conference room table formulating readiness and battle plans for CC? After all, Obama said it’s the biggest threat to national security so it must be settled. Politicians and military are like oil and water until a threat becomes real or thee’s defense money on the table available for their constituents.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  markl
January 20, 2019 4:33 pm

I wouldn’t want any of the military people who took this study seriously, involved in future war planing for the U.S. Success in war requires that one be firmly rooted in reality, and people who see CAGW as being real are rooted in fantasy because they don’t require evidence in order to believe in something.. Believing in fantasies in relation to war will get you killed. You and a lot of other people.

January 19, 2019 2:39 pm

“$329,000 is an outrageous sum to charge taxpayers for a document which lacks even the most basic details which a policy maker would require to formulate a policy response.”

Who got the money and what were their connections? Politically and financially to those paying the money? Did they make any political contributions? To whom? Or are they simply a relative of someone “important” in the bureaucracy? My Dad always said you can steal more with a briefcase than with a gun. Connections, connections, connections.

Reply to  JimG1
January 19, 2019 4:21 pm

The money probably came from “Procurement” where taxpayer dollars are kidnapped for ransom. The Procurement Department of the Pentagon is also where the $1 trillion disappeared.

Reply to  marlene
January 19, 2019 4:37 pm

Until the questions I have asked above are answered and people fired/ prosecuted for theft and waste of taxpayer dollars, nothing will change.

January 19, 2019 2:44 pm

I remember when our military used to be TOUGH … and could succeed in any extreme environment or harsh conditions. WTH? I hope our ACTUAL military isn’t as snowflaky as these Pentagon PC “Soldiers”. Sheesh. Ashamed of our military …

Reply to  kenji
January 20, 2019 5:50 am

Actually, ashamed of our thankfully EX-leader that ultimately caused the commissioning of this absolute piece of crap. Our military has fought in the jungles of the Pacific, the harsh winters in Europe, the deserts of the Mid-East without the slightest fear of “climate change”.

Perhaps reading this for what it actually describes, meaningless drivel, is the important point. Perhaps the military is cleverly trying to tell the truth, that there really is nothing to bother about. Like Warren Buffet’s famous concern about climate change, i.e., NONE.

January 19, 2019 2:44 pm

Does the air force of the USA realise the difference between man made “Climate Change” and the Climate change which we have learned to live with for thousands of years.

MJE ii

January 19, 2019 2:46 pm

I don’t get it.

How does stating the obvious, and then not qualifying it with respect to trends offer anything.

I can do a report on the dangers of arsenic in my daily diet. I can explain, in great detail, the specific effects on my physiology. I can point out instances where arsenic in other people’s food has killed them, and how arsenic in food is likely to kill anybody who eats such tainted food. Isn’t this obvious?

What the report does not even begin to address is whether the trends in those things it discusses are likely to be any more severe than they have already been.

Okay, droughts impair installations. Have droughts been increasing at an alarming rate? — NO, so why state the obvious, when we already know what droughts CAN do. ARE droughts likely to do this more? — the report says nothing about this one way or the other — again, useless statement of the obvious, without any relevant discussion of trends that might cause this to be of any concern beyond the norm.

Think I’ll write a grant for a study to determine how termites cause house foundations to be vulnerable. Tell people what is obvious, and that’s it. … a study to determine how light causes the sky to be blue, …. a study that tells how cabbage worms are bad for growing cabbage, … etc.

January 19, 2019 2:48 pm

What measures are required to fix the problems at Naval Air Station Key West?

elevation + 6 ft…….about 100 years to figure it out

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  Latitude
January 19, 2019 3:15 pm

So, at that trend, about 12,000 years to figure it out.

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  Latitude
January 19, 2019 3:16 pm

Ok, I miss that edit button.

It’s 50 years. Miss-read the 0.15mm/yr.

Reply to  Greg Cavanagh
January 19, 2019 3:58 pm

“which is equivalent to a change of 0.79 feet in 100 years.”

about 9 1/2 inches in 100 years

R Shearer
Reply to  Latitude
January 19, 2019 3:01 pm

For $100,000 they could get a report instructing the Navy to add another deck to ships.

Reply to  R Shearer
January 19, 2019 5:43 pm

Careful. 63.7% of the US population might think adding another deck to USN ships to better handle rising sea levels is a good idea! 🙂
And I’m guessing about 43.2% of Congress would think so too.
And possibly 1000’s of UN scientists! 🙂

Reply to  joe
January 19, 2019 6:07 pm

Don’t ships float?

Reply to  Ron
January 19, 2019 8:01 pm


Reply to  Ron
January 19, 2019 8:34 pm

Depends how big a hole the iceberg puts in the side of it.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  R Shearer
January 20, 2019 4:37 pm

The Navy could order longer anchor chains.

Joel O'Bryan
January 19, 2019 2:54 pm

Show me a person who make claims of major hurricanes occurring during hurricane season and the damage they bring to Gulf of Mexico or SE US coastal communities and military bases there as “evidence of climate change” and I’ll show you a Climate Hustler.

Hurricane Andrew in 1992 wiped Homestead AFB, Florida off the map. I suppose that was Climate Change too?
What about the City of Galveston, Texas in 1900? Climate Change? Or any of a dozen or more major hurricane hits to the Gulf Coast in the 20th Century. Climate Change?

How about a Hurricane Irma hitting NAS Key West in 2017? Lotsa damage. Does anyone think a major hurricane tracking through the Florida Keys in the middle of hurricane season is “evidence of Climate Change.”
No. Of course not.

After hurricane Andrew in 1992, the USAF wound down its active duty flying missions at Homestead AFB. That area is too exposed to hurricanes and besides the Cold War had just ended. Base realignment was sorely needed then to reduce costs as there was more infrastructure (bases) than was justifiable with current force levels.

Base realignment is sorely needed again. Tyndall’s overwater range and aerial target drone missions can and should be absorbed by the nearby Eglin AFB at Fort Walton Beach.

Beside the USAF, the US Navy has major flying missions and facilities at NAS Corpus Christie, TX and NAS Pensacola, FL. Both are extensively large facilities with huge exposures to the Gulf hurricane environment. To suggest a major hurricane hitting one of those today and then claiming is was made worse by mythical Climate Change, well again that would just be more Climate Hustling. An ignorant population, constantly being fed climate porn might buy it. But rational, informed thinkers would recognize it as the scam it is.

This military report on climate change is just a hold-over from the climate dishonest years of Democratic presidents Clinton and Obama. The Trump Administration needs to shut it down. The question is do the Service Secretaries and the SecDef they have the balls to face-down climate dishonest Democrats in Congress? Doubtful.

Joel O’Bryan
USAF retired.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
January 19, 2019 6:49 pm

I was about to say that this report was undoubtedly commissioned before DJT took office, but its cover page said it was produced as a result of some act passed in 2018. So never mind. Unless… was it commissioned before DJT took office, but then like all opposition research, was held close to the vest until such time as it was felt would make the most impact against the candidate? When the legislation came out with a requirement for such a report, baddah-bing, baddah-boom, we gotcher report raght heah! Having read a variety of reports of the last couple of years, I have realized one doesn’t need to be paranoid, they really are out to get us!

steve case
January 19, 2019 2:59 pm

Drought can negatively impact U.S. military installations in various ways, particularly in the Southwest. For example, dry conditions from drought impact water supply…

“When more and more people are thrown out of work, unemployment ensues.” Calvin Coolidge

Big T
Reply to  steve case
January 19, 2019 5:30 pm

“Drought” occurs somewhere on earth 365 days a year. Not news

January 19, 2019 3:03 pm

tsk tsk, you climate deniers.

Admiral Titsley has it bang on.
Rising sea levels means that surface naval vessels will ride higher making them easy targets for enemy action.
In addition, the higher the sea gets, the lower the submarines will be. Submarines operating at extreme depths can implode and they already suffer from high CO2 concentrations, so either way its a lose/lose.

Every casualty the navy suffers will be laid at your door, denialists. Support Titsley and Paris, lets end this nonsense

bill johnston
Reply to  EternalOptimist
January 19, 2019 5:27 pm

Wasn’t there supposed to be a “sarc tag” at the end?? I hope.

Rod Evans
Reply to  bill johnston
January 20, 2019 1:14 am


Greg Cavanagh
January 19, 2019 3:05 pm

“it fails to even minimally discuss a mitigation plan to address the vulnerabilities.”

The military of all things is designed to act in a dynamic ever evolving environment. What vulnerabilities in 100 years time can you plan for now? Ridiculous on steroids.

January 19, 2019 3:05 pm

This is a result of not defining your terms when attempting to write a report. The climate is the average of the weather over the last 30 years not a list of a few drought years or other extreme events. A climate report would compare the last 30 years to the earlier 30 year epochs and discuss the trends in temperatures, rainfall, wind speeds, well as experienced extremes. It would then address the necessary actions to be prepared for the weather that was likely to impact the area. The US military has no reason nor means to regulate the climate but should be prepared for extreme weather and able to respond to it and the human turmoil it often causes. Climates are regional and preparations for those extreme weather challenges must also be regional. Any base that survived the last 30 year climate normal and was effective in its mission is well set for the next one if they have learned to cope with the weather so far.

David Archibald
January 19, 2019 3:05 pm

Matttis was a global warmer and globalist. He left on January 1. So the warmers had to produce a report to get their last bill in before they were swept away. The acting secretary Patrick Shanahan has said re global warming: “There are only so many priorities you can have, and there are many, many priorities to the department, but we had to distill them into the critical few,” he said. “So, it doesn’t mean that it’s not a priority, or it is a priority. What it says is that in the National Defense Strategy, we don’t address it.”

January 19, 2019 3:19 pm

I looked over the list of affected facilities in the Appendix of the linked report, and there are more than few curious entries, as well as omissions. As a retired National Guard soldier, have had the privilege of running around Camp Roberts, CA, and the Yakima Training Center (YTC is a satellite facility of Joint Base Lewis-McChord, WA). It can be very hot, very dusty and very smoky at both. Camp Roberts does not show a current or future threat of wildfire, but I can attest it does and will continue to regardless of what happens with climate, fuel sources or taxes. The inclusion of Camp Roberts, a training site, and the omission of JBLM, a much more strategic facility, in this report is puzzling. Same thing applies to YTC as applies to Camp “Bob,” fires happen every year, and always will.

But for gosh sake, DOD, please ensure that the DFAS location in Indianapolis with no listed current problem is protected from the ravages of some future drought. (That’s where my retired pay is processed.) 😉

January 19, 2019 3:26 pm

As far as flying is concerned would not the base commander order all planes to take off and go to bases not in the path of bad weather about to hit the base.

Birds know what to do, is it too hard for todays military to do.


Reply to  Michael
January 19, 2019 4:28 pm

Actually, Yes. It is too hard for todays military to fly away from hurricanes. Because as much as a third of their jets are hanger queens they are parting out to keep the rest in the air. Two dozen F22’s were destroyed at Tyndall by Hurricane Michael for just that reason.

That’s what happens when you slash Defense Spending so much you can’t even afford spare parts, much less new equipment.


Reply to  Schitzree
January 19, 2019 8:25 pm

I can’t get a hard-and-fast number on that. I have heard the number left behind was as low as four. And even then, there’s destroyed and then there’s destroyed!!! Whatever the number may be, they may not be destroyed permanently, they all may fly again someday!

January 19, 2019 3:55 pm

Anyone else want carbon money?
There is enough to go around for everyone, just be creative.
In sweden we fund therapy for climate anxiety. Yes that is a governmental programme, and I emphasize the mental part. Sweden is gone, we are doomed, now the government plan to ban sales of fossile fuel driven cars. In other words, only electric cars to be sold after 2030. Well, well see what the EU has to say about that. Its not often I get to be glad we are members (prisoners) of the EU.
My pension fund, the tiny part I get to invest, is in India and asia.
I need therapy, being sane in an insane environment makes you go crazy.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Björn
January 19, 2019 4:50 pm

I weep for Sweden too but for its demographic demise with the idiotic immigration policies that have gouged at the roots of your proud old culture. Don’t worry about the government silliness on climate, it is basically going away all by itself despite the present hysteria of the climateers. They know it’s the end, too. We have a great NHL hockey player (retired) from Sweden in our neighborhood. He used to return home to Sweden at the end of each season. He’s decided to stay here (Canada) now, though and it isnt because CC.

Reply to  Björn
January 19, 2019 5:14 pm


People won’t buy what they don’t want. The infrastructure to support the ICE motor vehicle grew naturally, without government subsidy, alongside peoples demand for transport.

The infrastructure for EV’s will be taken from the public purse which will run dry, and other services will be robbed because people demand transport. EV vehicle purchase and infrastructure will be reliant on government handouts of taxpayer money and much like public transport will be unreliable. EV manufacturers themselves will (do) recognise an opportunity when they spot one and will predate on governments stupid enough to force people to buy their products.

All in all, EV’s will suck the countries that deem it necessary to pay for them dry.

France is currently ahead of the game. They are already demonising ICE vehicles and punishing people for owning them. I believe fuel prices have been rising for some years now and the result is the yellow vest demonstrations. This is a reaction to top down socialist economics.

The UK isn’t quite there yet but our demonstrations will begin on the 29th/30th March depending on which direction our government decides Brexit will take.

If our Conservative government decides to accept the WTO default (commonly referred to as ‘no deal’) trouble will be confined to a limited number of ‘remain’ activists (those who are determined to overturn democracy and stay in the EU) but it will be minimal because 17.4 million people who voted to Leave the EU will be satisfied. Those who didn’t vote will also be satisfied, and many remainers will also accept the decision and get on with their lives. Those who value democracy will also be satisfied and will cause no trouble.

On the other hand, if Brexit is stopped (unlikely) delayed by extending Article 50 (the withdrawal agreement) or diluted by entering into an agreement with the EU then 17.4 million people, and those who value democracy will be very angry and there will be enormous trouble on the streets. The 3,500 troops made ready for civil unrest will not be enough to supplement our already depleted Police forces.

The UK is not alone is this reaction to top down socialist politics. The EU itself is failing and people are paying for it’s failure with cold, hard cash.

Before our European governments can even consider imposing EV’s on the public, it has some far larger issues to deal with but our politicians are so obsessed with socialist levels of intervention into every individuals personal life, they simply can’t see what’s coming.

Should the public voice continue to be ignored by the political elite, I’m afraid there will be a leader in Europe who eventually rallies people around him and that will bring war. Perhaps not now, or in ten, or twenty years time but almost certainly within our children and grand children’s lifetime.

However, in the meantime, people who don’t want, or cant run EV’s will continue to run ICE vehicles. Governments will cut off fuel supplies by shutting down petrol stations and refineries, and people will begin to brew ‘hooch’ for their cars.

It is illegal, but governments will have robbed all services, including the police of funds to pay for EV’s and their infrastructure so enforcement will be overrun, much like prohibition in the US.

Governments may direct funding to law enforcement in an attempt to wipe out illegal ICE’s but that will further rob other services, driving people to destitution.

Governments love to enforce their policies by force when they believe there is no other option to implement their desires so armies will be mobilised. Then one day a soldier will be faced with his parents or his siblings and refuse to enforce the will of the government.

That will spread throughout the armed forces and eventually they will turn on our governments.

All a bit far fetched, I know. But that’s kind of how these things work.

The first clues you might have is how violence on the streets of the UK develops after Brexit and the reactions in other European countries.

I have said before that Brexit isn’t just a UK problem but a European one and possibly a world event. But I’m a crackpot when I vocalise it so I usually just keep it to myself. But, arguably, the UK is the seat of modern, civilised, parliamentary democracy. If that is overturned by our current government, what’s the future for other civilised countries based on similar guidelines?

Reply to  HotScot
January 20, 2019 12:46 am

Seems to me you are just longing for violence on the streets of your own country, to advance your narrow view of politics. that’s absolutely shameful: if you valued British democracy you’d fight for it using democratic methods…

Also your analysis of the EU is completely flawed as is your knowledge of and appreciation of EV roll out across Europe.

Look just outside the EU at Norway for example…

Rod Evans
Reply to  griff
January 20, 2019 1:36 am

griff, I am sure you already know this but I will make the point anyway. Norway is a huge country with a tiny population. It has made good use of its natural resources and is not in the EU.
It has an oil industry which is now the largest in the European sector and it can afford to devote its well garnered wealth secured from its Oil and Gas resources to indulge the whims of the Green ambitionists.
Norway is probably a unique country, but I agree with one point you make. It is an example of how to do the right thing. It refused to join the EU.

Reply to  griff
January 20, 2019 2:19 am

Griff, HotScot is expressing the feelings of 17 million people in the UK . We made a decision in 2016 , a democratic vote with a definite result. Since then people with a financial or political interest in overturning the result have never ceased their propaganda, and with probably the weakest PM since Neville Chamberlain we have a deal that is shameful in its capitulation and acceptable to no one.
What most Brits feel is shame , and from shame comes anger.
As the writer Alan Furst says in one of his novels about German -occupied France:
“If you want your country to survive you have to be prepared to fight for it”.

Reply to  mikewaite
January 20, 2019 4:47 am


It’s also worth noting that had the outcome of the referendum been remain in the EU, we would have remained 100%.

I therefore fail to understand why people imagine Leave voters were confused when the inferred result of a successful vote to Leave meant we would be out the EU 100%.

Reply to  griff
January 20, 2019 4:41 am


As usual you demonstrate your profound ignorance of anything and everything.

You have never seen civil unrest face to face. I have, I was a policeman in 80’s UK and had to police the Miners crisis.

I never want to see that sort of thing again as I saw men who were friends in the pub pitted against one another in stand off’s or even pitched battles.

Nor is my view of politics shallow. I’m a Libertarian by nature, in other words I conform to the values man has operated by for thousands of years, free market Capitalism. Socialism is an entirely contrived, contemporary, political movement which has failed everywhere it has become the dominant political force.

You on the other hand are a romantic idealist. You cite Norway as a case for EV roll out, a country with enormous invested oil wealth. I believe it’s the largest single investor in the stock market (but I’ll happily stand corrected on that). It has the financial wherewithal to generously fund EV schemes, thanks to free market Capitalism and Big Oil.

So, ironically, as liberal as the country may be, it’s objectives couldn’t be achieved without the continued support of free market Capitalism and Big Oil.

And the really funny part is, you can’t make sense of your own argument:

Also your analysis of the EU is completely flawed……“.

Followed closely by:

Look just outside the EU at Norway for example…

(My emphasis).

So where is my analysis of EV roll out across Europe wrong when you have to cite a country ouwith the EU to support your argument?

I often wonder if you could get any more stupid griff, but you continue to amaze me by demonstrating you can.

January 19, 2019 4:01 pm


First of all, the military must prepare to face the “enemy”, not always tanks and aircraft and submarines, but maybe a weather event. Maybe a tornado ( ask the folks in Oklahoma, Kansas and Iowa). A flood due to extreme snowmelt out west or rain along the Big Muddydrainage. A storm as we had here in October, and we have had a half dozen since I moved here in 1985 ( three or so cat 3 storms, then this Michael in October about 50 miles from me)
So looking ahead at “climate change” is required if we are to be viable in 20 or 30 or 50 years.
note there was zero reference to decreasing our emissions of carbon dioxide

Secondly, the report was likely financed over a year ago, and likely by $$$ allocated by the previous administration.
The report was much less alarming than the ones we saw from 2010 and onward. .

Third, over my career I have seen us ( U.S. military units/bases I was part of) go thru debilitating blizzards in North Dakota, tornados in the main torando alley plus south of there, a month of temperature inversion fog in Utah that kept us on the ground for a month unless we had to launch for WW3, several hurricanes down here in Florida, and what’s new?. Big deal. We launched the planes if we had warning, like we had for all the hurricanes, and the Navy folks went way out to sea or found sheltered mooring in bays.
The long term stuff like sea level rise and such is no biggie, and just see what Key West and other bases have done over the years.

Fourth. Tyndall is about 40 -50 miles east of me and it was not even close to being wiped off the map. Ditto for Homestead AFB back in the early 90’s. Homestead was already on the list to downsize after the “wall” fell, and was rebuilt quickly to become a great training base. Tyndall is coming along and the photos from ground level show that it was not completely destroyed. In fact, the elementary school for base housing came on line before CHristmas.

Lastly, for those unfamiliar with the FLorida Panhandle…… It is a mecca for the military.
– Starting in Pensacola we have the cradle of Naval Aviation. The complex is about 4 or 5 bases within 15 miles of Pensacola and most within 5 or 6 miles of the water. They have survived nuerous cat 3 storms and are still plugging along.
– Move east to Hurlurt Field, the home of USAF Special Operations. An outlying field is Duke Field that handles a large contingent of Reserve and active forces. Then we have Eglin AFB that does a lotta weapon testing plus has a wing of F-35 jets. All went thru Cat 3 Opal ( I did) in 1995, and that sucker blew over the water tower at Hurlburt!
– Move over to Panama City Beach for the Naval Amphibious facility.
– Go another ten miles to Tyndall AFB that trains all of our F-22 folks and handles the drones that USAF and Navy uses to test new missiles and such. There’s also a defense radar control outfit there in case we ever have a threat from the Gulf.

Moving all those facilities would not be as hard as finding airand water space for the training and weapon testing, huh? The land range for Eglin weapon testing is approximetely the size of Connecticutt!!! No kidding. The water ranges are about like the size of Utah or Colorado or Wyoming, and all the fishermen and commercial shipping folks know the rules.

So for all the folks thatwant to move those bases and ports ought to ask the folks in New York City to move, because we all know that Manhattan will be under water in 20 years, don’t we?

Gums sends…

Reply to  Gums
January 19, 2019 8:33 pm

I think both Hurlburt and Duke are satellites of Eglin, aren’t they?

Reply to  Red94ViperRT10
January 20, 2019 8:13 am


Hurlburt used to be Eglin Aux 9, but it became its own base name before I got here in the 80’s.

Duke Field has a good USAF Reserve contingent and also handles Eglin-based F-35 training and now F-22’s from Tyndall while they rebuild. It really stands on its own.

Gums sends..

Flight Level
January 19, 2019 4:15 pm

Global warming has never been such a threat ? Snow a thing of the past ?

My department.

Right now, south of München, up to 4m of snow. Hard freeze all over.

The mayhem has reached a critical point and military personnel shovel snow from roofs to avoid collapsing.

The snow storm heads NE and will intensify creating even more mayhem.

And all we learn from the rapport is that AirForce worries about cracked by draught runaways?

Like if they subcontract all the fun of winter operations to the private sector lowest bidder? *palmface*

Bill Parsons
January 19, 2019 5:21 pm

Forget the halls of Montezuma and shores of Tripoli. Just…

Send lawyers, guns and money.

January 19, 2019 5:33 pm

Goofy climate impact research but goofier

January 19, 2019 5:45 pm

“Several DoD sites in the DC area (including Joint Base Anacostia Bolling, Joint Base Andrews, U.S. Naval Observatory/Naval Support Facility, and Washington Navy Yard) periodically experienced drought conditions –extreme in 2002 and severe from 2002 through 2018.”

Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling (JBAB) Air Force base is right alongside the Potomac River opposite to Reagan National Airport immediately south of Washington DC.

Drought conditions?
Extreme drought conditions in 2002?

Mid July 2002, the United States Drought Monitor claimed a drought watch for “extreme drought”
comment image

A condition that continued through August 2002.
By mid-December 2002, the entire drought situation surrounding Washington DC returned to normal.
comment image

Droughts are not short dry periods preceded and ended by abundant rain.

Shame on DoD using weak anecdotes and specious claims.

January 19, 2019 5:48 pm

I wonder when the Dems will insist that the army develop all electric tanks and other armoured vehicles.

Reply to  joe
January 19, 2019 8:36 pm

Don’t forget enviromentally friendly ammunition it is important when killing an enemy

January 19, 2019 6:38 pm

As the US military is the no.1 user of fossil fuels on Earth they can set the good example and convert to Green Power 97%.
For this they will need about U$ 1 trillion only, another bargain for US tax payers from the green men.
/sarc off

January 19, 2019 7:52 pm

An expert on “climate security”?
What the heck is that?
Who dreams these things up?
Just what are the qualifications for being an expert in something that is a meaningless made up nonsense phrase?

Farmer Ch E retired
January 19, 2019 8:36 pm

Having worked w/ teams of experts reviewing environmental remediation programs at AF and other military bases in AZ, CA, MA, OK, SC, TN, and VA, there are plenty of more pressing environmental issues than the in-exact predictions of climate science. Climate science predictions are moving targets – always morphing (sort of like the weather).

January 19, 2019 8:45 pm

I think I had a beer with one of the guys involved with writing this report! I was in a group of 4 people, so I was kind of zoning when I heard him say, “…I told the Secretary, we’re extremely vulnerable. One foot of sea level rise would wipe out most of our naval bases! And they just don’t care. They haven’t done anything!” I had to check that fact… Quick off the top of my head, 3 mm/year, conversion via the app on my smart phone, then divide… 102 years, I got. I waited awhile for him to stop and take a breath and a drink. Then I showed him the number. “What’s that?” he asked blearily?

“That’s how many years it will take to get a foot of sea level rise at the current global average rate. We have time. Just resurface a runway and add three inches, that will give you another 25 years.”

“Well, where did you get that number?”

“I don’t know if I know the ultimate source. That’s the number I remember seeing every time I start reading about sea level rise.”

“Well you might want to check your number, cause that’s not right. And it’s not linear!” I couldn’t find, on my smartphone, the graph that shows pretty conclusively that it’s as near as golly linear, so I let that one go.

I think he rambled on for awhile before he said, “…more and stronger storms…”

I didn’t wait as long this time, I piped up immediately and said, “But the data doesn’t support that.”


“The evaluation of storms and storm strength does not indicate either an increased frequency nor an increase in average strength of hurricanes. The calculated trend for both shows a slight decline.”

“Well it’s not what’s happened in the past, it’s what’s gonna happen. It’s the future storms we need to worry about!”

I thought I’d offer him a bone, so I said, “Even if we assume no trend, though, we don’t even prepare for the storms of the past.”

“Right!” he said enthusiastically.

I let the conversation die there. (It didn’t occur to me ‘til the next morning to even consider, did he have the ability to get me fired? See, I work for a company that provides services under contract to a branch of the military, and I shan’t get any more specific. He works for a different company that provides a different service to branches of the government. But it has been two months now and I’m still employed, so maybe he doesn’t.) But my own comment caused some musings, to wit… Tyndall Air Force Base is the second Florida Air Force Base to be completely “leveled” by a hurricane just in my lifetime, and this one undoubtedly was not even as strong as the one that leveled Homestead Air Force Base 26+ years ago. Post-storm then, just as now, the powers that be looked at the situation, and considered how much it would cost to rebuild. Top number was how much to rebuild completely. Then, consider how much do we really need to rebuild? Then look around and see if/where the mission(s) could be absorbed elsewhere, then do the figures again… This is the same thing happening now at Tyndall AFB.

Whatever number they conjure will then be funded, and rebuilding – to whatever extent deemed necessary – will happen. We have numbers from Homestead, we can inflate those numbers to today’s values and get a rough estimate. We have probably passed the first iteration of the cost calculation to rebuild everything at Tyndall just exactly the way it was, we will play with the numbers some more. The reason I am pointing all of this out is, we will rebuild it with a future government appropriation, using tax payers’ money, the U. S. government does not carry insurance. And that’s probably the best thing, many a thinker has calculated the amount of money they spent on insurance over a lifetime, and how much they collected from insurance over a lifetime, and they nearly always lose. It’s a fact of life, if you want to call it a competition then the insurance company will win, overall the insurance company will make money, and if they didn’t they wouldn’t be in business. So I’m not for a second suggesting the U. S. government change their policy about self-insuring.

Now, let’s take this a step farther. I said we don’t even build for the past, and that’s true. After Hurricane Andrew everyone everywhere involved with buildings took a look at the damage, and scratched their heads and hemmed and hawed, and in the end issued an increase in the design wind speeds; i.e., the wind speeds used as an expected maximum when calculating stresses in order to size building components. I don’t remember the exact numbers, but it occurred to me, that wasn’t a real significant change, and most assuredly did not reflect the actual maximum experienced by destroyed buildings in the path of Andrew. Why not? Because those codes are always a trade-off. We may be able to design and build a hurricane-proof building, but I wouldn’t 100% guarantee it, but if we could, how much would it cost? I think it would not be just a matter of a-factor-of X, I think it would move the decimal point, maybe significantly. And what would that gain us? Consider, the area around Homestead AFB, had it been struck by a hurricane of similar magnitude in known history? Hurricane Camille struck the Gulf Coast of the U. S. almost 50 years ago, has a storm that strong come ashore in the same area since? How many buildings have been built in that area, and then torn down in obsolescence, since Hurricane Camille came ashore? I’ll bet some buildings constructed since Hurricane Andrew have already reached end-of-life and are gone, or will be gone soon.

You can’t build a perpetual building (even if there are some 1,000-year old buildings still in use, that’s the exception rather than the rule, and none are in identical condition to the day they were first complete). The all-volunteer Army necessitated new facilities all over the Army, most especially barracks, and in the interests of solving a problem once, they specified a 50-year design life. Those barracks were funded during the ‘80s and completed in the ‘80s and ‘90s, but by 2006 they were obsolete and the Army had to begin a program to overhaul and update them. They were already obsolete and failing several years before that, so to be charitable, let’s give them an actual 30 years. So even if we spent enough money to build a hurricane-proof building, new technologies and techniques would overcome it sooner rather than later and we would end up tearing it down to start over.

Now here’s why I’m boring you will all of this… my friend wanted to solve the problem, and I mean immediately! He wanted the Secretary to immediately request funds to rebuild every Naval base, heck, every U. S. military base anywhere, as far as I could tell, to get ahead of this mythical (to me, but undoubtedly seriously real to him!) climate change monster! But why should we? Use my analogy, plan for the past, but even then, what response is most appropriate? We can subject this to a cost-benefit analysis. We can continue replacing buildings on U. S. military installations as they wear out and/or become obsolete, we can build new facilities when the mission changes and no existing building fits the need, and we already have in place codes and standards on how to build those, and we know (roughly) how much it costs to do that. We know how much we spent to address the Air Forces’ needs after the destruction of Homestead AFB. In short order we will have a number and a plan, how much it will cost to address the Air Forces’ needs after the destruction of Tyndall AFB. And there has been testing and calculating on building hurricane-proof buildings, we can come up with a cost for that level of construction. And we can compare: The cost of business-as-usual and replace it after a disaster vs. the cost to immediately rebuild every vulnerable military installation at a higher disaster-proof level of construction. And what would be the best use of our taxpayer $$$? All those number$ I just mentioned, I don’t have at my hands, and I don’t think I can get my hands on them, or I would do the analysis myself, but I have a feeling that continuing with business as usual, let’s keep doing that, at the attendant cost, and when there is a disaster, of whatever kind, that destroys parts or all of any installation, we rebuild it.

Let’s take a realistic view of these things, as recommended by Bjorn Lomborg; Climate Change may be a problem, but even by the warmists’ own calculations, the costs of the solutions far outweigh the costs of the problems, and we have many more pressing, and more beneficial, places to spend our money. That’s the kind of analysis I would expect to see from a $329,000 report!

Johann Wundersamer
January 19, 2019 9:10 pm
January 20, 2019 12:42 am

Well a lot of the evidence on the impact of climate change on the Us military has already been collected…

this is a summary linking to detailed research on which US Naval bases are affected by rising sea levels, for example

A C Osborn
Reply to  griff
January 20, 2019 6:49 am

giff quotes the Union of Concerned Scientists ROFL.

Reply to  griff
January 20, 2019 10:18 am

Even at the outrageously unrealistic SLR rates used in your linked study (which is better than most you link to, griff, except for 2 things: Union of Concerned Scientists and Climate Central. Either of those would put the report’s credibility to 0, with both you might be in the negative, but still…), we still have plenty of time. We can wait and see. And as I already said, at the current rates of SLR, just resurface a runway, that’ll get you another 25 years.

Dudley Horscroft
January 20, 2019 1:06 am

Perhaps it is worth considering how one gets to $329 000. Just think, a Lt Commander from Navy and the equivalent ranks from Army and Air Force. Employ for two months (1/6 annual salary). Add 2 Lt (jg) and corresponding four others from Army and Air force. Add in cost of shorthand typist and filing clerk, and rental of office space – I am pretty sure you can easily get to $329 000 without trying really hard.

Undoubtedly they were given the job “Write a report on how climate change will affect the Defence Department and military priorities”, and told to do it in 6 weeks. No indications given as to the answer required (remember, …”two basic rules of government: ‘Never look into anything you don’t have to. And never set up an enquiry unless you know in advance what its findings will be.’ (The Complete Yes Minister, p. 453)” Quotation found in

Hence you get a report that is a backstop against the question “What will happen to the DoD regarding climate change?” – Answer – “We have produced a report on it.” And it is a load of fluff. So woolly that no one can argue that it is wrong – or right!

Rod Evans
January 20, 2019 1:58 am

A pointless meaningless report, that carries a pointless made up cost of production. How else could anyone explain a figure of $329,000? It would be a remarkable thing to find any US defence dept activity having that degree of cost accuracy!
The insignificance of the cost is exceeded only by the insignificance of the report.
That is some achievement.

January 20, 2019 2:12 am

There is some evidence that the US military was not always so timid in the face of inclement weather:

comment image

January 20, 2019 2:43 am

Just after I read this from the GWPF

“A secret report suppressed by US defence chiefs”

Yep back in 2004

“The findings will prove humiliating to the Bush administration, which has repeatedly denied that climate change even exists.”


January 20, 2019 2:46 am

A classic from the Guardian/Observer archives, from February 2004:

George Daddis
January 20, 2019 6:10 am

While this climate report acknowledges that nearly all the military installations it studied are vulnerable to major climate change weather impacts,…..” “…… it fails to even minimally discuss a we know there is no F’n mitigation plan that could even slightly impact future weather. Therefore we should think about ways to adapt to weather events that have always occurred in order to protect our vulnerabilities.”

There, I fixed it for them and I won’t even charge the government a single dime!

George Daddis
January 20, 2019 6:18 am


What measures are required to fix the problems at Naval Air Station Key West? How much additional water do they need to address their current problems and projected future problems? How much would it cost to provide water security to Naval Air Station Key West?

Those are ADAPTATION measures; not the MITIGATION that the (censored) Admiral was advocating.

(Just sayin”).

January 20, 2019 9:12 am


Great points, George, and you can see the Key West layout really well. They have been thru many storms and unless the water comes up ten feet in ten years ( just an example), they will be using fairly short seawalls like Galveston and such. Of course, there will eventually be a limit unless the looming glacial epoch gets here early.

@ Red94 et al. The Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas building codes are now immensely more practical and effective than what existed as late as the early 80’s. Even in the 80’s we had local codes along the coast that were more demanding than those of the 60’s, and we also had some contractors that built for storms using their past experience
Homestead was a good example of shoddy construction and outdated building codes. The base there actually came out a lot better than the surrounding civilian structures and especially the homes. If the terrain was lower and the coastal seafloor countour was the same as in Waveland, MS all damage would have been an order of magniture worse, as well as loss of life. The surge is a function of the seafloor countour, the shoreline shape and the length of time the storm wind field had to push water ahead. Go look at the Wunderground Katrina surge “diary” some one did going from burg to burg along the coast. It is hard to believe unless you or friends/family have been thru something similar or driven it as I did after the storm to help my folks there and get my old school up and running ( first public high school to reopen in New Orleans).

Tyndall AFB came thru much better than Homestead, and Michael was a minimal Cat 5 in some opoinions, but otherwise at the upper limit of Cat 4. Most of the base housing was built in the 50’s or early 60’s, but they were sturdy. Overhead pictures do not show severe wind damage, but many prolly got inside water damge from the surge. The eye went right over the top and one video as the eye went over appeared that was taken by an individual that had to ride it out ( military has its duties, huh?} Due to the seafloor countour here, we did not see a huge storm surge except in a small area east of the base. Over at Mexico Beach, many of the homes built since the early 90’s are standing, with minimal damage, whilst everythinmg around for 100 yards built in the 50’s and 60’s is a collection of concrete slabs with pipes sticking up. The pictures are impressive, and make tornado pictures look weak. You should check out some of them as well as the overhead pictures from :
and maybe

That latter one has a 3 minute segment of a home built to current standards plus a little more. That dude was not the only one to build strong. And the old motel that was there in 1966 when I rented a closeby cottage is still standing, albeit damaged. The cottage is now out in the Gulf or a half mile inland.

In short, the hurricane stories of gloom and doom are a lot like the ones we see over and over by the climate alarmists. If you are prepared, you will come thru an order of magnitude safer and better than if you are not.

Gums sends…

January 20, 2019 10:27 am

I would rather have a DoD toilet seat or wrench set over that study…for the same amount of expenditure.

Gordon Dressler
January 20, 2019 5:59 pm

As Yogi Berra once observed: It’s deja vu all over again!

Back on July 23, 2015, the United States DoD released a similar report assessing the “national security implications of climate change.” That full report is available at

The first paragraph in that report’s conclusion states:
“The Department of Defense sees climate change as a present security threat, not strictly a long-term risk. We are already observing the impacts of climate change in shocks and stressors to vulnerable nations and communities, including in the United States, and in the Arctic, Middle East, Africa, Asia, and South America. Case studies have demonstrated measurable impacts on areas vulnerable to the impacts of climate change and in specific cases significant interaction between conflict dynamics and sensitivity to climate changes. Although climate-related stress will disproportionately affect fragile and conflict-affected states, even resilient, well-developed countries are subject to the effects of climate change in significant and consequential ways.”

In other words, it was an inconsequential fluff piece.

That report was only 14 pages long and cost $22,000 (2015 USD). It was a real bargain for US taxpayers when compared to the recent DoD report discussed in the above article, which runs 22 pages including appendices and cost $329,000 for a similar amount of fluff. Just one more reason that US Defense budgets need to get bigger, I guess.

Matthew A. Siekierski
January 21, 2019 6:13 am

This reads like a high school science report.

Verified by MonsterInsights