Former Defence Chiefs Demand President Trump Desist From Reviewing Climate Change Advice

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

According to the defence chiefs it is dangerous for the President to ask a scientist to review the work of other scientists, when that work is used as the basis of official advice to the President.

Former Defense Leaders Warn White House It’s ‘Dangerous’ To Downplay Climate Change

March 5, 20198:37 PM ET

In a letter to President Trump, 58 former military and national security officials expressed deep concern about reported plans to create “a committee to dispute and undermine military and intelligence judgments on the threat posed by climate change.”

“It is dangerous to have national security analysis conform to politics. Our officials’ job is to ensure that we are prepared for current threats and future contingencies. We cannot do that if the scientific studies that inform our threat assessments are undermined,” the letter stated.

Signatories include former Secretary of State John Kerry, former Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, former Supreme Allied Commander Europe Adm. James Stavridis, and former NASA Administrator Vice Adm. Richard Truly.

Read more:

The letter is available here.

I can understand the distress of the former Pentagon chiefs; How can anyone be expected to provide high quality advice when that advice is unexpectedly subject to a review process?

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
March 6, 2019 2:07 pm

The military names on this document speak volumes for the politicization of the pentagon under Obama.

Reply to  Keith
March 6, 2019 2:13 pm


When does the former FBI politicos group come out with a letter and former IRS politicos?

Sam Pyeatte
Reply to  ResourceGuy
March 6, 2019 3:00 pm

Advice on climate issues is worthless if it is based on political agenda. Real science is taking a back seat to the political hacks like Kerry and Hagel who can only make assertions.

Curious George
Reply to  Sam Pyeatte
March 6, 2019 4:48 pm

How exactly do you undermine a scientific study?
By reviewing it, maybe? Oh no, science is settled.

Reply to  Curious George
March 7, 2019 1:20 am

If the Pentagon are concerned about the science on which they rely being reviewed, they have made a political choice to play along with the climate scam.

What they should demand is never ending review of “the science” on which they rely to make important decisions. If that input changes over time they should ready and willing ( even grateful ) to change erroneous policy and improve their strategic choices.

The fact that they are complaining in an official and public manner means they are playing at something other than the job they are paid to do.

John Peter
Reply to  Curious George
March 7, 2019 5:53 am

What about using the first prototype of the F35 and banning all future reviews and improvements?

Keen Observer
Reply to  Curious George
March 7, 2019 7:21 am

What Greg said. To do otherwise is a “dereliction of duty”.

Reply to  Keith
March 6, 2019 2:18 pm

Kerry and Hagel are both sock puppets. I’ve met them both.

Bill Powers
Reply to  GPHanner
March 6, 2019 2:37 pm

Sock puppets speaks too highly. More like used condoms.

Reply to  Bill Powers
March 6, 2019 3:06 pm

A baby is better than a used condom.

Adam Gallon
Reply to  pochas94
March 7, 2019 12:43 am

A used condom, can be chucked into a bin & won’t cost you a fortune to bring it up.

Reply to  GPHanner
March 6, 2019 7:32 pm

Poor GPHanner!

Better luck with the next one! Though we can understand avoiding more such encounters.

Reply to  Keith
March 6, 2019 3:05 pm

what??…..Brennan didn’t sign it?

nw sage
Reply to  Latitude
March 6, 2019 5:45 pm

He is so important that no one asked him!

Reply to  Keith
March 6, 2019 3:19 pm

Especially after Obama purged the ranks of officers while in office so that the could get more malleable people in place for the positions vacated.

Reply to  goldminor
March 6, 2019 6:19 pm

He had plenty of fellow travelers already in place to work with. Bush never purged the Clinton officers so they were still there in senior positions. Bush never really made the Pentagon his own like his predecessor and successor did.

Reply to  Keith
March 6, 2019 4:16 pm

Probably more where their double-dipping retirement funds are invested.

Reply to  Keith
March 6, 2019 4:45 pm

Salute Keith!!
You have it nailed.

I am a contemporary of the first name – Kerry, who served in VietNam, dontchya know? Our tours overlapped. I say tours ’cause I went three times and he went one shortened tour due to all his “wounds”.

There are real planning favtors for the military to consider WRT basing, weapon choice and even tactics. But none of the climate change predictions are of real consequence except maybe sea level rise, and that seems to be a minor irritant. 4 months ago we had a Cat 4 hurricane 50 miles from here that severely damaged Tyndall AFB but was not the end of the world, and the base is recovering nicely. You build bases where they are needed for combat and defense purposes, not because they are on a scenic coastline. So Key West will bear planning and construction if we see more than a meter or so of sea level within the next 50 years, but we have planty of time, as even tho best estimate is about a foot or slightly less.

What if the predicted climate change was for Norfolk, VA to have ice clogging up the harbor in 40 or 50 years? Would we start building icebreakers? Maybe. Would we start issuing warm clothing and parkas and gloves and new lubricants for our rifles? Sure. Remember that we deployed squadrons of jet fighters in the middle of the winter for the Kuwait deal – ‘raqi I. No big deal.

I will guarantee that the military is way ahead of most states and municipalities as far as planning and preparation goes. Our weapon systems, ships, computers, comm gear, ships, sub planes from winters, planes are all way more prepared today to handle bad weather hot or cold, wet or dry than any city in the U.S.

Gums sends…

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  Gums
March 6, 2019 5:43 pm

Actually, we need ice breakers, and a number of them. We confront the Russians across the Arctic, and we simply do not have enough ice breakers to do the job.

Reply to  Walter Sobchak
March 6, 2019 8:36 pm

Isn’t that Canada’s job? Are they on a permanent holiday in Fiji?

Reply to  WXcycles
March 6, 2019 8:56 pm

Trudeau just doubled our navy from 3 to 6 canoes!

Keen Observer
Reply to  WXcycles
March 7, 2019 7:25 am

Canada’s Liberals (since the late 1960s, at least) are ideologically opposed to doing anything that improves our military, and they’ve been “governing” Canada for far too long.

Reply to  Keith
March 6, 2019 6:16 pm

It goes way beyond Obama, Clinton had fully politicized the officer corps and Bush had 9-11 so soon he went to war with what he had. Though I am not certain he would have done anything to purge the political officers anyway; it rather went with his squishy conservatism.

Of course since most of the officer corps comes from ROTC programs, which are at all the finest indoctrination centers in the world, the officer corps has tended leftward as academia has gone leftward. They are still not full blown communists (with a few exceptions), but they have been fully indoctrinated in CACA. Also most of the officers I served with had Arts and Humanities degrees, so were easily duped by talk of consensus.

Reply to  Keith
March 7, 2019 3:33 am

The letter makes one correct statement:
“It is dangerous to have national security analysis conform to politics.”

Yes it is! And the global warming / aka climate change scare is pure political theatre, and the greatest dollar scam in the history of humanity.

There is NO credible evidence that dangerous runaway global warming is being caused by increasing atmospheric CO2. There is NO credible evidence that climate is becoming wilder or more dangerous.

The impact of increased atmospheric CO2 will be beneficial, possibly causing mild, beneficial warming and certainly causing huge increases in plant and crop yields.

The real risk from this global warming / green energy scam is the large increase in energy costs and the de-stabilization of vital energy systems, because green energy is not green and produces little useful (dispatchable) energy due to intermittency. The net effects of green energy are increased costs, increased winter deaths, and de-stabilized energy systems.

I am appalled that these senior military personnel have signed their names to this alarmist nonsense – they have destroyed their reputations by participating in this disgraceful charade.

March 7, 2019 4:28 am

it got themextra funding and theyve probably got their own funds invested in green scams
and theyd hate to admit their science wasnt…either factual or good advice.

Reply to  Keith
March 7, 2019 6:07 am

Their are about 5,000 retired and active flag rang general officers alive today. That would be little more than a 1% response. Doesn’t say much for their overall enthusiasm to attack the administration’s opinion on climate change.

Mike H
March 6, 2019 2:14 pm

“It is dangerous to have national security analysis conform to politics………

And yet that is exactly what Kerry, Hagel, et al are demanding. Irony is dead.

Tom Halla
Reply to  Mike H
March 6, 2019 2:18 pm

Agreed. Kerry and Hagel were notorious for letting politics dominate their policies.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Tom Halla
March 6, 2019 2:39 pm

Yeah – Kerry was kind of a ‘keep your hands down and your eyes shut’ method of self-defense. Just to show your attacker how non-threatening you are.

Reply to  Tom Halla
March 6, 2019 3:00 pm

Hagel was a Nebraska Democrat, i.e. elected “Republican”. Big Barack Hussein supporter.

Reply to  Mike H
March 6, 2019 4:56 pm

Hypocrisy is the new irony.

nw sage
Reply to  Mike H
March 6, 2019 5:51 pm

That phrase struck me as odd also. I conclude that either they are too dense to even consider that their view of climate change is, in fact largely political or that they are so conceited that they really don’t believe they can ever be wrong about an issue they make a statement about. Neither option is comforting when considering their prior work.

James Clarke
Reply to  Mike H
March 7, 2019 6:37 am

‘Climate Change’ is an issue born and raised in politics. Trump is threatening to make it a scientific issue for the first time. The left will do anything to try and prevent that from happening. This particular argument, that our national security concerns should NOT be based on the best available information, is patently and dangerously absurd.

John V. Wright
March 6, 2019 2:15 pm

When we read stuff like this in the UK, it really makes some of us worry about the level of intellectual capacity in the United States military. Individually, we see some really smart, engaged and committed senior members of the US services – and then this. Has the US military become politicized or is this Groupthink at work? Or are the top brass simply just not up to the job intellectually? Would like to hear the views of WUWT’s American contributors.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  John V. Wright
March 6, 2019 2:28 pm

This is just pure partisan politics and Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Reply to  Paul Penrose
March 7, 2019 8:11 am

It’s worse than partisan politics as it’s military leaders trying to convince low information NPR readers into supporting a military dictatorship. Those brighter than NPR readers know why we have enshrined a civilian control of the military into our very constitution.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  John V. Wright
March 6, 2019 2:32 pm

Perhaps some have forgotten who the Commander in Chief is. In any event, it speaks volumes about how highly they think of themselves. But, it seems to be part of the relentless harassing of the president by Democrats who are unwilling to accept the election.

Reply to  John V. Wright
March 6, 2019 2:33 pm

John V. Wright. It makes us in America worry too. At least those of us with functioning brains. The Military is looking to grab $$$ as the budgets will get cut for Aircraft Carriers, Stealth Planes etc. There is just is not a force on earth who can stand up to even 10 year old US military technology. They need budget increases and ‘climate change’ related preparation and disaster is their new card at the funding trough.

Reply to  davetherealist
March 6, 2019 3:53 pm

” There is just is not a force on earth who can stand up to even 10 year old US military technology”

What are some examples of 10-year-old and newer technologies?

Thomas Englert
Reply to  icisil
March 6, 2019 4:59 pm
Reply to  Thomas Englert
March 6, 2019 5:48 pm

Those are easily taken out by ATMs. Have seen a few videos of that in Yemen (Saudi tanks).

Reply to  Thomas Englert
March 6, 2019 6:32 pm

When used correctly in a supported combined arms attack, ATMs don’t get anywhere near the tanks. Infantry takes out the missile teams while the tanks take out everything else.

Now if some idiot sends tanks in without their supporting Cav and Inf, that is a different story. Or if a tank company gets separated during the fog of war, then ATMs can get a few targets of opportunity. The key to successful military ops is interlocking fields of fire and mutual support.

Reply to  Thomas Englert
March 6, 2019 6:38 pm

True, but that’s tactical, not technological. I don’t really keep up with the technology, so I was curious what’s transpired in the past 10 years that others can’t match.

Here’s an example of what you’re talking about in the 2nd paragraph.

David Chappell
Reply to  Thomas Englert
March 6, 2019 7:01 pm

“True, but that’s tactical, not technological.”
The best technology in the world is useless if you don’t use the proper tactics.

George Daddis
Reply to  John V. Wright
March 6, 2019 2:39 pm

It was my observation that Obama conducted a purge of senior military staff (Generals and Admirals), in favor of those who were considered more “enlightened” (think Progressive) on issues he was driving (Global Warming, gay and female representation in the military etc.)

BTW, it is also my recollection that Mueller did the same with the “old guard” in the FBI.

Someone with a better recollection may be able to correct me.

Reply to  John V. Wright
March 6, 2019 2:42 pm

We have a pretty bad ass military…but at about 7 to 8 times the price it should/could be.

The government does nothing well (please show me one example to the contrary). The inefficiencies are god-awfully awful.

Paradoxically, the greatest threat to our freedom and prosperity is our government. The authors of our Constitution knew that it would always be so. And it will always be so.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  DocSiders
March 6, 2019 3:44 pm

It seems that frank consultation is a threat to the security of the State(s). That is amazing. Really?

There are several things that undermine the science, which in turn undermines policies, which undermines positive outcomes. One is the EPA declaration of Linear No Safe Threshold concentrations for a range of pollutants, created on the basis of (they really did this): “We assume they are toxic at any concentration down to zero because can’t prove they are not.”

This has been used to attack broad swathes of industry, agriculture, municipalities and private citizens based on the “science” of “We can’t prove that what we are making you do is incorrect.” It is a sort of “precautionary principle” where you do something in case no one can prove you are wrong.

As for GHG-caused disasters, which are mooted by computer simulations that cannot be proved right or wrong, the same principle applies: assume no one can prove that doing all these destructive, expensive, inconvenient things are incorrect actions. Until then, keep doing them.

I am not sure that even qualifies as politics.

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
March 7, 2019 4:06 am

Hi Crispin,

I appreciate your posts, which reflect your significant technical expertise and world-traveller perspective.

To be clear, however, I suggest that:

1. “Climate change” is a non-falsifiable hypothesis, because it is ill-defined, and routinely used by activists to characterize everything and anything – from warming to cooling to wetter to drier to more storms and less storms.

2. “Catastrophic human-made global warming” is falsifiable, and has been falsified in many ways, by many full-Earth-scale observations.

3. The climate computer models are programmed to create alarm, by employing climate sensitivities to increasing atmospheric CO2 that are typically 3-or-more times greater than maximum probable values based on actual observations. These climate models have been deliberately programmed to create false alarm.

Again, I very much appreciate your observations – thank you, Allan in Calgary.

Crispin in Waterloo
March 8, 2019 3:17 pm

I just saw that there is a CMIP6 coming out that includes solar particles (but not other non-considered solar things affecting climate). Apparently, once particles are included, the difference between all-natural climate change and CO2-affected climate change is virtually zero.

This means there is no real place for CO2 as an important influence on climate.

So shocking was this for the users of the product that they have asked for a “particles-free” version so they can continue to show that CO2 has an important role. So we will see CMIP6 outputs “with and without” solar particles.

See for details. It is a little snarky but not unbearable.

March 8, 2019 5:53 pm

Yes – I saw that – same as this link , sent to me by one of my business colleagues – who is pretty smart, for an artsie.

I have been saying since 2008 that CO2 lags temperature by ~9 months in the modern data record, and at a minimum that means that climate sensitivity to CO2 is very small – that is, much less than 1C/doubling. 🙂

March 8, 2019 5:57 pm

But wait – pretty soon it will be all over the internet –that the solar particles are “in the pay of Big Oil”!

Shawn Marshall
Reply to  DocSiders
March 7, 2019 5:19 am

My VN experience in the Army convinced me that the military ‘tactic’ is to overcome ineptness with massive expenditures.

Reply to  John V. Wright
March 6, 2019 3:24 pm

It is a source of bafflement that junior officers are bright and generals do grindingly stupid things. What happens in between to take those highly intelligent young soldiers and turn them into duds? link

My favorite example is General Petraeus who had his career as head of the CIA ended when he made a security mistake that should make a high school student blush.

Reply to  commieBob
March 6, 2019 4:10 pm

Some would call it “The Peter Principle.”

Reply to  DonK31
March 6, 2019 5:54 pm

Petraeus was clearly thinking with his “Peter”

Reply to  commieBob
March 6, 2019 4:20 pm

There is a saying (among infantry units, anyway) that, when you are promoted to Major, a frontal lobotomy is required.

There is an assumption that they somehow put it back for some officers once they are past that rank – but apparently the authorization is lost somewhere in the red tape for all too many.

Reply to  Writing Observer
March 6, 2019 4:32 pm

Writing Observer

In UK police forces it’s a regular and well accepted policy to promote the idiots to get them out the way.

Absolutely true.

David Chappell
Reply to  HotScot
March 6, 2019 6:54 pm

Not only the police, other forces too!

Richard Patton
Reply to  HotScot
March 6, 2019 7:23 pm

That sometimes happens in the Enlisted ranks also. I was a forecaster in the Navy and the Senior Chief in charge of the division literally couldn’t forecast his way out of a paper bag. He did come within an inch of being court-martialed. He was so bad that he said to the division officer “everyone in this division is F****d up but me.”

Reply to  HotScot
March 7, 2019 7:42 am

I’ve heard it referred to as being “kicked upstairs”.

But if you kick too many idiots upstairs, their idiocy starts to trickle back down.

Nicholas J Harding
Reply to  commieBob
March 6, 2019 6:10 pm

When I was a Captain in the Army there was a rumor that when promoted to Major one got a lobotomy; fortunately, I left the Army before I could find out if there was any truth to the rumor.

Richard Patton
Reply to  commieBob
March 6, 2019 7:19 pm

And Hilliary did LOTS worse, and gets a pass. The corruption is so deep it stinks.

Robert Barrow
Reply to  commieBob
March 7, 2019 8:42 am

I suggest that the younger warrior officers of competence get retired between the ranks of Major and Col, perhaps Brig. Gen. Those with sufficiently agile lips and well polished images well fitted to elite society rise to the military altitudes where their heads appear above the clouds of the political heights. Financial support and birth right don’t hamper their elevation either.

In these shameless times an astute awareness backed up with traitorous actions and words , that there is political hay to be harvested with from Constitution hating powerful politicians. Kerry and McCain come to mind.

I’ve seen another in that class up close. Arrogance and egotistical bullying rising at critical moments above a patina of social graces, and common place competence is one way to characterize his performance. These people can be blinder than any daylight shocked bat in using their considerable intelligence to overcome any reluctance to accept common sense. It is an exhibition of that flawed condition of all humanity in its ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory against all odds.

It is one thing to be made uneasy about one’s security based on historical, reported and hearsay evidence or theoretical considerations, but quite another seeing the evidence first hand. I remember the comb out during WWII when the comb out of military command took place on the battlefield where it failed in the peace time military preceding. In fact such comb outs during heavy duty war are the norm rather than the exception and are greatly applauded by the warriors contributing much to victory – – – if it does not come too late.

Reply to  Robert Barrow
March 7, 2019 10:40 am

People notice their kids getting killed. The British officers at the beginning of WW1 were notoriously incompetent. Canadian soldiers were subject to their leadership and that resulted in the following remark by the Canadian PM to the British PM:

Mr. Prime Minister, I want to tell you that, if there is a repetition of the battle of Passchendaele [where the Canadian Corps suffered about 16,000 casualties], not a Canadian soldier will leave the shores of Canada so long as the Canadian people entrust the government of their country to my hands. link

Tom Abbott
Reply to  John V. Wright
March 6, 2019 4:12 pm

“Has the US military become politicized or is this Groupthink at work?”

Obama did politicize the military. They would never have declared CO2 a threat on their own.

Unfortunately, some of Obama’s appointees are still in place. But fewer now than then.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 6, 2019 6:26 pm

The first threat of CO2 orders came down during Clinton. The rot goes way back. We had a number of studies during that time of how “biofuels” could be used to power fighter aircraft and naval vessels. That is also when we went big time into putting solar panels on top of military facilities. I read my first “threat briefing” on the dangers of climate change to our naval facilities and coastal airbases during the Clinton administration.

I retired prior to the Obama administration because I could see the writing on the wall. The next commander in chief was not going to be someone I could respect (it was going to be Hillary or Obama and neither one of them knew a thing about national defense, nor cared.)

Robert Michael Hope
Reply to  John V. Wright
March 6, 2019 4:33 pm

Obumo purged the military in order to stuff it with goof balls willing to assist with his “fundamental transformation” of the United States.
That’s what hillary was tasked with completing.

Reply to  John V. Wright
March 6, 2019 6:31 pm

Large US corporations love to have Ex Military Brass and “Senior Pentagon officials” on their boards and in their executive ranks. They think it motivates employees. sure.

Most large US corporations have bought into “CO2 is your enemy” crony capitalism because banning the old shit means people will be forced to buy new shit. They think they’ll be able to layoff their overpaid marketing dept.

Signing onto a letter like this is a “resume enhancer” for guys with with nothing else going on other than they have a history of making bad decisions decisively (like dropping a grenade in a rice bin and then trying to run away from it) and like to hear themselves talk. With the Me-too movement, corporation are always needing a new board members or three.

There are a few names absent from the list that I would have expected, but maybe even they can read the tea leaves.

Richard Patton
Reply to  John V. Wright
March 6, 2019 7:09 pm

Actually, unless there is a shooting war, in all countries in all centuries, the upper echelon of the officer corps are political animals. In some countries, outbreak of war didn’t stop the politics (both Japan and Germany had issues with that.)

Gary Young
Reply to  John V. Wright
March 6, 2019 9:14 pm

What is called “Flag Rank” (Generals and Admirals) have been political since before the US Civil War. Fortunately there were periods of time when it was not so political because the “national attention” was elsewhere. One example when things got political was General “Black Jack” Pershing getting command of our WWI forces in France. The nick name was because he had a number of command assignments over “Buffalo Solders,” the name native Americans gave black solders. Pershing had great respect for their fighting ability. Then politics arose because Woodrow Wilson was racist as all hell and so Pershing ended up assigning most black units to the French army who treated them quite well and the black units fought very well.

Fast forward to when I was up for Rear Admiral when Clinton was president. First, I just could not see myself reporting to a CIC who I would have courts martialed for moral turpitude had I been his superior. Second, it would only be a mater of time before my views would have resulted in my dismissal. The vernacular at the time was “alligator mouth overdriving humming bird ass.” It became significantly worse under Obama when dozens of flag rank were dismissed.

Martin A
Reply to  John V. Wright
March 7, 2019 12:10 am

When we read stuff like this in the UK, it really makes some of us worry about the level of intellectual capacity in the United States military.

THe US does not have a monopoly:

For almost a decade, Royal Navy Rear Admiral Neil Morisetti has been an intelligent and measured public voice for action on addressing the national security implications of a changing climate. In addition to his former roles as the UK’s Special Representative for Climate Change, and before that, the UK’s Climate and Energy Security Envoy, he helped found the Global Military Advisory Council on Climate Change, a group of serving and retired military officers “committed to stressing their concerns about the security implications of climate change and to promoting a positive role of the military worldwide to help address the challenge of climate change.”

Reply to  John V. Wright
March 7, 2019 8:11 am


From ex USN enlisted, got out in ’93:

Career officers have to become politicians or they wont advance very far in rank which in turn tanks their career. Were talking not making it past O3 or O4. Even top rank enlisted have to become more political if they want to stay in, E7/E8/E9’s that is. In becoming politicians and wanting to advance they have to tow the political line being fed to them from the top so to answer your question: Yes to all of the above.

Early in your career show up with a smile on your face, a clean uniform, agree with popular political line to those above you and don’t piss off your superiors you’ll likely advance no matter your qualifications. This is early politician in training, stick around and you get better and better at it as your career advances. More or less a military standard I know but it there also used to be a competence in your field requirement in there to advance, not so much now. I joined the USN with the intention of retiring from there after 20, couldn’t stand the political games I was being made to play so got out. Matter of fact I completely tossed out my intended career path because I realized I would have to continue playing the same games with the same people in the civilian world.

I see someone mentioned it started with Clinton, wrong. I saw the shift happening under Bush Sr..

March 6, 2019 2:16 pm

It seems to be a list of high rollers in the Depp State.

Pillage Idiot
Reply to  Karabar
March 6, 2019 3:36 pm

Your typo is more apropos than the original.

The Depp State – where pretentious actors (that couldn’t pass a 7th grade science test) lecture us about the size of our carbon footprint, while they take multiple trips per year on private jets.

see also the Derp State – where we are taught science by idiots who managed a “D” in Rocks for Jocks at Columbia.

March 6, 2019 2:16 pm

Why would he take advice from Democrats who pushed the rigged election hoax?

March 6, 2019 2:16 pm

How dare President Trump even dare to set up a review committee critical of the holy catechism of Global Warming beliefs. This is a matter of freedom of religion.

Jim of Colorado
March 6, 2019 2:24 pm

Unbelievable! I would urge a review of every policy the military established during this period. Who knows what kind of crazy BS these guys have buried in the system. Reviews are always good.

George Daddis
March 6, 2019 2:31 pm

I will continue to emphasise my opinion that Dr Happer NOT perceive a mission to “downplay” climate change but rather to address specific policy issues as they arise with hard data and fundamental science. If the information and the science behind it supports previous recommendations, so be it. The key is that our nation’s decisions are NOT based on arm-waving and hyperbole like Hayhoe’s recent National Climate Assessment report. In other words, he should not be supporting a “cause”. (Why does that sound so familiar?)

This may force legitimate scientists in the field to respond to data if they object to the resulting policy. (We can expect the MSM, politicians and activists to continue to push back with emotion e.g. “we will all die in 12 years”.)

I’m optimistic, because I believe, that will be exactly how Dr. Happer sees his role.

Joel Snider
Reply to  George Daddis
March 6, 2019 2:36 pm

In the face of such rampant dishonesty, truth is a viable weapon.

March 6, 2019 2:36 pm

So, the Generals and Politicians are demanding that there no longer be scientific peer review.
Why? Because the peers may disagree or demand proof rather than only assertion.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  DonK31
March 6, 2019 4:20 pm

“So, the Generals and Politicians are demanding that there no longer be scientific peer review.”

Let’s be clear, we are talking about mostly leftwing generals and politicians here. Their comments should be dismissed as partisan, political rhetoric meant to promote the leftwing CAGW nightmare.

Reply to  DonK31
March 7, 2019 10:03 am

Like this quote..

“We cannot do that if the scientific studies that inform our threat assessments are undermined,”

They seem to make the assumption, or KNOW that, a proper review WOULD likely undermine the “science” they built their decisions on..

Tim Gorman
March 6, 2019 2:49 pm

To become a general in the military you must be more of a politician than a scientist and/or engineer. My guess none of the people could even tell you what a photon is.

Richard Patton
Reply to  Tim Gorman
March 6, 2019 7:26 pm


Richard of NZ
Reply to  Tim Gorman
March 7, 2019 3:17 am

Aren’t photons things that torpedoes are made of?

Michael in Dublin
March 6, 2019 2:52 pm

How often have these military and security officials not made a real dog’s breakfast of military and intelligence matters? In the light of this, why would any sensible person trust their opinions on the climate situation of our world?

D. Anderson
March 6, 2019 2:52 pm

If this is the quality of our military leadership, maybe it isn’t so wise for Trump to rebuild the military.

March 6, 2019 2:53 pm

“It is dangerous to have national security analysis conform to politics. Our officials’ job is to ensure that we are prepared for current threats and future contingencies. We cannot do that if the scientific studies that inform our threat assessments are undermined,”
“Scientific Studies” or just fashionable opinion?
It is pure politics not to review but who said “undermine”?

Greg F
March 6, 2019 2:56 pm

I wonder if Kerry will have a secret meeting with climate activist in Paris.

Reply to  Greg F
March 6, 2019 3:02 pm

Good point. Will Kerry violate the Logan Act again?

Robert of Texas
March 6, 2019 3:07 pm

Since when did the military start making contingency plans for fighting Tornadoes? It isn’t their mission.

Since when did scientific theories/hypotheses become religious codex that only a priesthood can change? And when did the scientific method abandon peer review (meaning including the critics). When was a desire to find the truth replaced with a desire to make up the truth?

Since when was adaptation replaced with “we must adapt the planet so that we don’t have to adapt”?

Talk about a bunch of blow fish…

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  Robert of Texas
March 7, 2019 2:46 am

While you make a number of valid points, you give far too much credit to peer review. A thorough and critical study of the peer review process in the top scientific journals will reveal major flaws and shortcomings. Peer reviews often fail to pick up the unreliability of articles and neither the journals nor reviewers are discredited.

kent beuchert
March 6, 2019 3:08 pm

Name one former defense chief who was a scientist.

Reply to  kent beuchert
March 9, 2019 9:24 am

Harold Brown. He was a physicist who served as SecDef from 1977-1981.

William Astley
March 6, 2019 3:16 pm

The Democrats have some kind of group idiot syndrome. They are Zombies repeating the Mantra.

The military has a high-level think tank to discuss threats to the US every year. That think tank every year finds that the number one threat to the US is a loss of US economic strength and China’s economic strength. China has a state plan (2025) to dominate all industries.

The Democrats have a plan to destroy the US economy using the power of the political and legal systems.

China is starting to use their economic power to press small countries like Canada to pick their side on issues.

New data shows that the trade gap between the US and China widened last year by $43.6bn to $419.2bn as exports of American products and services fell, but imports from China rose.
Though Made in China 2025 is a foreign actor’s plan for the domination of critical commercial sectors at the expense of American industries, the U.S. should not miss the opportunity its prominence provides. Claiming, as the plan does, that ‘without strong manufacturing, there is no national prosperity,’ should be a wake-up call for American political economy as much as a cause for scrutiny.”

“The American people know something has gone wrong,” Rubio, a Republican from Florida, wrote in the introduction to the report. “Will our country look more like the land of shared opportunity my parents found when they arrived, or will we become a stagnant nation fighting over how to divide up what is left?”

…. and the solution to CAGW does not work.
Vast sums of public money — in excess of $1.5 trillion per year — are being squandered on the chimaera of “climate change.” Yet despite all this spending, using the alarmists’ own calculations, it will offset “global warming” by the end of the century by 0.048°C (0.086°F).

Reply to  William Astley
March 6, 2019 4:28 pm

William Astley

I’ll make a couple of observations here.

1) I wouldn’t trust the BBC for anything far less reliable reporting on Trump. Having said that, buried in the text of that report is the first thing that sprang to mind when I started reading it. “Part of the problem is Mr Trump’s own tax policies. They boosted US consumption and a lot of that spending went abroad.
This happened as growth was slowing in other parts of the world, contributing to a rising dollar. That made US exports more expensive and less competitive.

But of course, whilst the BBC can figure that out, no one in America could possibly predict it. Pull the other one BBC….It’s got bells on it! This is a well anticipated phenomenon.

2) Margaret Thatcher dragged the UK out of the industrial revolution into the financial and technological revolution. Half the country rebelled, and the echoes of those objections of losing our shipbuilding and car manufacturing industries can still be heard.

But what the hell were we supposed to do. Pay people Chinese and Korean wages to build the ships and cars? Devalue the entire country so we could go on tin bashing? No, we needed to focus on the intellectual commodities that built the UK in the first place; finance, technology, inventions, Intellectual Property, creativity, engineering, and then farm out the physical work to countries with a surfeit of labour.

Profit is the objective, not employment. Generate the profit and employment is easy to achieve through education and more intellectual capacity.

The problem now is we’re so sophisticated and liberated we’re squabbling over whether our kids should be taught about climate change and/or LGBT issues. Meanwhile the Chinese and Indians don’t give a monkeys and are teaching their kids the three ‘R’s’, science and languages.

Both countries figured out eventually that Capitalism is actually a pretty successful model, the majority vote wins and if you don’t happen to be in that majority, then tough luck, you’ll just have to suck it up. OK the Chinese are different with their hybrid communist/free trade political model, but it’s working.

meanwhile, half of the US is obsessed with kicking Trump out and the UK has spent nearly three years f**king about with Brexit. We won WW1 in four years and WW2 in six for Pete’s sake, what are we doing??!!

It’s not foreigners who are the problem. It’s us!

And for the benefit of the Mods ** represents ‘or’. If you misconstrued it, that’s your interpretation, not mine. 🙂

Reply to  HotScot
March 6, 2019 5:51 pm

6 years? We won WW2 in 3 years, 8 months, plus a few days to write up the surrender papers.


Reply to  UNGN
March 6, 2019 6:37 pm

Would have been a mite harder had the Brits not held that stationary aircraft carrier known as the British Isles from 39 to 42 without us.

Juan Slayton
Reply to  UNGN
March 6, 2019 6:40 pm

If I recall correctly, we were looky-loos during the Battle of Britain. Better add a couple of years to your elapsed time, if only out of respect for those who lived through the whole thing….

Joe Crawford
March 6, 2019 3:37 pm

From the second paragraph of the letter:
“Climate change is real, it is happening now, it is driven by humans, and it is accelerating. The overwhelming majority of scientists agree: less than 0.2% of peer-reviewed climate science papers dispute these facts.”

The fact that the signatories chose to sign a letter with the above statement as justification is proof of their total lack of knowledge of the subject (i.e., climate change), science in general (i.e., the scientific method) and the current state of academia (i.e., totally politicized by government funding). It also makes one seriously question both their education and their intelligence, which then leads to a serious concern for the future of our republic.

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  Joe Crawford
March 6, 2019 4:26 pm

They are so convinced that they are right, there is no doubt whatsoever. No chance that any alternate view has any validity at all. Too blind to see and no interest in checking.

They are fully committed to jumping off the cliff and destroying the very civilisation that put them into their high paid positions and comfortable lifestyle.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Joe Crawford
March 6, 2019 4:57 pm

A: What Joe Crawford has in bold (above), is outright plagiarism.
I’m sure that has been lifted from one of the novels of Rajendra
Pachauri or another IPCC document.

B: Some politician spoke recently about making “a list.”
So here is a list of 58 folks to not be trusted until a future vetting by
a special prosecutor – for each one.

March 6, 2019 3:41 pm

Very revealing.

What this letter demands is that American armed forces petrify technological development so that in 50 years time they are equipped to fight with what they would have now, had this letter been delivered and acted upon 200 years ago, pikes and muskets.

I’m sure the US forces would have welcomed fighting WW2 with Oak built sailing Frigates, the army with Trebuchets and the Air force with, well…..Papyrus fighters.

Politicians are arses, we all understand that. What I don’t think we can understand is how they can infect normally pragmatic soldiers with their insanity.

Seriously, these maggots will try anything to retain access to unlimited funds so that they can skim a large portion off the top.

One name springs to mind. Al Gore.

Would anyone be surprised at his appearance on a white charger for the Presidency, to save the world, following his politically inspired climate change machinations?

His stench is evident in all politically motivated campaigns that touch on climate change. Even the school-kids ‘strikes’ and the BirthStrike campaign.

John the Econ
Reply to  HotScot
March 6, 2019 4:18 pm

I have no doubt the Chinese would not mind our doing that.

Reply to  John the Econ
March 6, 2019 4:36 pm

John the Econ

I’m certain they’re laughing like drains right now. Seriously, what a state our western civilisations are in thanks to the infection of socialism.

George Daddis
Reply to  HotScot
March 6, 2019 4:58 pm

“….so that in 50 years time they are equipped to fight with what they would have now…”

Joel, I’m afraid you are 50 years behind the times.

The aphorism is that generals are fighting the last war, meaning they are already 50 years behind the times. If they want to wage the next war they will be another 50 years behind. 🙂

March 6, 2019 3:48 pm

Per Wiki and, Helmuth von Moltke the Elder:

..The tactical result of an engagement forms the base for new strategic decisions because victory or defeat in a battle changes the situation to such a degree that no human acumen is able to see beyond the first battle. In this sense one should understand Napoleon’s saying: “I have never had a plan of operations.”

“Therefore no plan of operations extends with any certainty beyond the first contact with the main hostile force.”
That was in relation to mere armies, not Mother Nature.

Reply to  u.k.(us)
March 7, 2019 8:04 am

In short, “No plan survives contact with the enemy.” Some plans don’t even make it to the battlefield.

March 6, 2019 3:56 pm

When you consider the money used, spent, adsorbed and spread around by the Military Industrial complex it becomes very important what their real motive is.

Reply to  Usurbrain
March 6, 2019 4:42 pm


Which Military Industrial complex? The US, the UK, Russian, Chinese, European?

The Japanese didn’t have a Military Industrial complex, they had, by and large, a Military Agricultural complex, but it didn’t stop them bombing Pearl Harbour.

March 6, 2019 4:01 pm

Doesn’t the military conduct war games, the purpose of which is to test readiness? So why not similar testing of assessments to find out if they are “ready?”

March 6, 2019 4:06 pm


George Daddis
March 6, 2019 4:43 pm

Even if you subscribed to “The Consensus” why do millimeters per year of SLR become an “extra” military expenditure? Facilities have an “useful life”; they can be moved a few feet inland in a renovation and covered under the normal defense budget.

BTW, my dad was fortunate enough to be stationed during WWII at Fort Hancock, NJ (Sandy Hook) directly across from Brooklyn (when my mom live in nearby Newark NJ; ergo me – born during the wartime years). Ft Hancock housed artillery batteries established prior to WWI to protect the NY harbor from a naval assault.

During WW II the Fort managed the remote explosives that would blow up harbor facilities in the event of an enemy landing.

Of course the possibilities of such events, during a very real real crisis are beyond the comprehension of someone in the generation of AOC. For example, I was warned on visits to the NJ shore at the time to not to pick up the tar balls, which were from the US tankers that had been sunk by U-boats just a few miles off the coast. Mature British participants of my age on this blog, can relate stories much more fearful than mine.

The guns are now gone, but the concrete emplacements are a tourist attraction. I have visited Fort Hancock many times over the last 50 years, lately to show progeny where great grand-dad spent his military years.

The placements, on the “sandy” position from whence they were established, show no signs of immanent flooding.

March 6, 2019 5:04 pm

Call me crazy, but if I were a military commander, wouldn’t I want to know if my battle plan was based on good intelligence? Would I dismiss out of hand anything that contradicted the original assessment? Just asking.

Joel O’Bryan
March 6, 2019 5:15 pm

Changing the disastrous, elitist past policies of Climate Change is one key reason Trump was elected by middle America.
Thise Democrats are still in denial that the Obama Agenda was on trial in 2016… and it lost.

Gordon Dressler
March 6, 2019 5:22 pm

But it’s not “dangerous” to call for—nay, demand—peer review of one scientist’s claims by other scientists??

March 6, 2019 5:39 pm

Fear and trembling ‘mongst Los Alarmistos.

March 6, 2019 5:39 pm

The Military and Lobbyists (ex military, ex government) need big, dumb, blind, mindless government to survive. Chuck Hagel used to be a normal guy that like to shoot guns and do guy things. Washington brought out the inner elitist douchebag in him. When he’s done, nobody will like him, on either side of the aisle. Sad.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  UNGN
March 6, 2019 6:07 pm

Chuck Hagel is the first Republican I ever referred to as an “appeaser”.

Yeah, I know he’s a Vietnam veteran but that doesn’t stop him from having an appeaser mentality. Just like John Kerry.

At least Hagel isn’t a traitor to his country. John Kerry consorted with the enemy while America was still at war, during the Vietnam war. Kerry testified before Congress and called his fellow Vietnam veterans war criminals. He consorted with the North Vietnamese in Paris during the war, in an effort to undermine the American war effort. He pretended to throw his Vietnam war medals away over the fence at the White House. It turns out he threw someone else’s medals. His are still at home. Read what the “Swift Boat” veterans have to say about Kerry.

Kerry is a worthless b******. Dangerous if he ever gets political power. Although that would apply to nearly all radical, delusional leftists like Kerry.

March 6, 2019 5:57 pm

“According to the defence chiefs it is dangerous for the President to ask a scientist to review the work of other scientists, when that work is used as the basis of official advice to the President”

Information is a dangerous thing. It can confuse the current view of the world on which we base our policies. Let’s not go there.

An age thing? Time to retire maybe.

March 6, 2019 6:05 pm

Churchill had an independent science adviser. His name was Frederick Lindemann also known as Lord Cherwell. He was an Oxford physics professor. He was born and raised in Germany to a British citizen father and an American mother. During World War One he became a pilot and part of the Royal Air force. He was also a aeronautical engineer. The military and government agency bureaucrats hated him, because he would call BS on incorrect science and engineering matters they tried to use to influence the policy of the Prime Minister. He carried a slide rule in his pocket, and would often check figures on the spot. He was indispensable to Churchill on scientific matters especially during the war. He wasn’t always right but he was almost all the time. Einstein admired him and he was an early supporter of Einstein against the “consensus.” He also was an instrument in getting important scientists out of Germany as the National Socialists took over.

March 6, 2019 6:09 pm

I read the stupid letter. One question. Weren’t the “water shortages” in ISIS because the good guys seized the Mosul Dam and cut off their water supply? Stories in 2016 said there would be a “45 foot wall of water” flooding Mosul and Baghdad if the dam was breached by ISIS and that it contained the equivalent of “4.4 million Olympic sized swimming pools of water”. Climate change indeed.

Dennis Sandberg
March 6, 2019 7:44 pm

Quote:“Climate change is real, it is happening now, it is driven by humans, and it is accelerating. The overwhelming majority of scientists agree: less than 0.2% of peer-reviewed climate science papers dispute these facts.”
The above drivel (political gospel)for decades has been brain-washed into our children at all our western schools (liberal indoctrination centers)..including at least Australia and Europe. “Now don’t tell me we’re not on the eve of destruction.”

J Mac
March 6, 2019 10:25 pm

As Commander In Chief, President Trump can evaluate data and analyses by methods he deems appropriate. If these methods include telling the Obama and Clinton administration lick spittle military midgets to ‘piss off’, more power to him!

Climate Change/AGW is agenda-driven political science, requiring skeptical review by disciplined scientists immune to the scaremongering emotional appeal of the ‘Climate Change’ agenda.

michael hart
March 6, 2019 10:33 pm

So if they think global warming may yet bring us low, are these former defence chiefs, all rightfully concerned with the defence of The Union against any enemy, now suggesting that Trump might actually have been right when he speculated that the climate palaver was really just a hoax perpetrated by China?

Time to Mann the barricades perhaps. But with all due respect, at least these running-dog “Defence Chiefs” are described as being “former”.

March 6, 2019 11:29 pm

It all kicks off next year!! OMG/sarc


A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a ‘Siberian’ climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.

Reply to  husq
March 7, 2019 4:16 am

Makes sense. Kerry is still stuck in 2004. He’s like the Jock in High School (or Uncle Rico), just knowing he’d be a “Winner” today if only he’d won that big game.

He surrounds himself with similar losers.

March 6, 2019 11:44 pm

It is interesting to speculate what would happen if the DOD actually took climate change seriously. The armed forces, particularly the navy, have centuries of weather data they collected and could obtain more from their allies. They also have world wide assets to collect more weather data. If the intelligence community combined with the meteorologists to analyse all this data they would quickly determine that man made CO2 is not a problem. The security agencies could then start investigating the alarmists to find out who is rewarding them for lying.

Unfortunately the politicians in uniform controlling the DOD will never allow this.

Richard Patton
Reply to  BillP
March 7, 2019 9:07 am


The armed forces, particularly the navy, have centuries of weather data they collected and could obtain more from their allies.

You got that right. When I was in the Navy (>30 years ago) we had access to weather data that, because we used them, made our weather briefings to the pilots classified Secret, so that certain countries wouldn’t realize how deeply we had penetrated their communications systems. Yes, the military has enough data to know that “climate change” is BS. However, as I have mentioned before, the upper echelon of the officer corps tends to be political creatures. That is why at the beginning of WWII they had to be quietly pushed aside in favor of those who could kick ass, such as Bull Halsey and George Patton. Neither of which in peacetime would have made it to one star.

Reply to  Richard Patton
March 7, 2019 4:33 pm

The US Civil War lasted years longer than it needed to, in large part due to Lincoln having to put in and then drop a long procession of politicians in uniform for the Union army command, all more interested in playing politics than fighting battles. Only when field-promoted junior officers like Grant and Sherman came to the forefront did real progress start to be made.

Richard Patton
Reply to  drednicolson
March 7, 2019 5:19 pm

Grant had a drinking problem before he was recalled from California. When this was pointed out to Lincoln he said “I like him-he fights.” Which is the reason I like Trump, not because he has great moral character but because he fights, in contrast to those limp spined RINOs.

Rod Evans
March 7, 2019 12:13 am

The only positive about this latest lunacy is the realisation all public sector employees involved in government activities are as bad as each other irrespective of country. I used to think the UK was a unique case of civil servant stupidity. Thankfully as my knowledge increased it became clear all countries no matter where are cursed with public sector lunacies.
I always hoped the USA would be an exception but as this story shows and as it is not April 1st we are all cursed with incompetent public sectors.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  Rod Evans
March 7, 2019 7:40 am

Ron, I like it: Public Sector Lunacy, i.e., “PSL”. It sort of has a ring to it :<)

March 7, 2019 12:26 am

“Our officials’ job is to ensure that we are prepared for current threats and future contingencies. We cannot do that if the scientific studies that inform our threat assessments are undermined”

“Undermined” …

“Debunked” or “Exposed” are more appropriate.

March 7, 2019 12:37 am

Russia and China have however based their military and geo-political strategy around the science of climate change and the expectation of a thawing arctic…

a recommendation from a respected, not leftist, think tank:

China links:

John Endicott
Reply to  griff
March 7, 2019 6:19 am

Good, Let them waste resources waiting for the artic to thaw. We were supposed to be ice free in the arctic nearly a decade ago. Hasn’t happened yet, isn’t going to happen any time soon.

Reply to  griff
March 8, 2019 2:29 am


And I suppose the Russians and Chinese just gave up all that information on their military strategies did they?

More gullibility from you.

Geir Aaslid
March 7, 2019 2:19 am

The only proper answer to that letter is “nuts”

March 7, 2019 4:49 am

The letter is clearly a crock, in my judgment, too.

Climate change is real, it is happening now, it is driven by humans, and it is accelerating.

Real? — Of course it’s real — climate change has always been a part of Earth’s dynamics.

Happening now? — Of course it’s happening now, as it ALWAYS has.

Driven by humans? — Attributed to humans, maybe, but stating that it IS driven by humans is scientifically unfounded.

Accelerating? — NO — that’s false, and data show this.

This whole sentence is a standard party line that I have read numerous times — mere parroting of a politicized manifesto.

…less than 0.2% of peer-reviewed climate science papers dispute these facts.

Obviously, this is the same falsely based claim that has been clearly shown to be based on a bogus assessment of scientific opinion.

… we are deeply concerned by reports that National Security Council officials are considering forming a committee to dispute and undermine military and intelligence judgments on the threat posed by climate change.

Undermine? … Dispute? — NO, what the intent is, and I quote:

However, these scientific and national security judgments have not undergone a rigorous independent and adversarial scientific peer review to examine the certainties and uncertainties of climate science, as well as implications for national security.

So, the claims of undermining and disputing appear to be defensive responses to being threatened

Kyle in Upstate NY
March 7, 2019 5:55 am

The military in 2004 I think it was released a report saying that within 20 years, England would be experiencing Siberian winters and millions starving if climate change not stopped.

John Endicott
March 7, 2019 6:16 am

“It is dangerous to have national security analysis conform to politics.”

They got that correct, shame the rest of the letter is doing exactly what they say it’s dangerous to have.

“Our officials’ job is to ensure that we are prepared for current threats and future contingencies. We cannot do that if the scientific studies that inform our threat assessments are undermined,” the letter stated.

Is Phil “Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.” Jones one of the writers of this letter? If the scientific studies conform to politics rather than science, and the actual scientific facts “undermine” them, that’s a good thing because it’s “dangerous to have national security analysis conform to politics”

Bruce Cobb
March 7, 2019 9:11 am

As usual, the Climate Liars get it completely backwards. It is they who jeopardize national security. These former defence chiefs, or whatever they call themselves are flat-out traitors.

Andy Pattullo
March 7, 2019 9:13 am

If they believe that “It is dangerous to have national security analysis conform to politics”, they should welcome the upcoming process of science review since everything up till now that was built on the UN IPCC process was exactly what they describe as dangerous. Whenever someone claims it is dangerous to look at the facts, it means the facts are not complementary to the person providing the warning.

March 7, 2019 9:28 am

If the science that supports their policies can be undermined, is it really science at all?

March 7, 2019 12:37 pm

A second opinion is always advisable

March 7, 2019 2:47 pm

It frustrates the heck out of me when listening to Bill Nye or Bill McKibben is considered “science” and the likes of Happer, Lindzen, Spencer, Curry are considered something “anti-science”. I wish more of our politicians would challange people to explain why they believe the one side, and what qualifies that as proper”science”. I too believe that “science matters”.

March 7, 2019 4:17 pm

I’m pretty sure that when the left dost protest too much, the President doth double down…

I still can’t believe the arguments that are being presented here — the contempt, perhaps rightfully so, for our educational system here in the USA.

Gary Pearse
March 7, 2019 6:37 pm

What do defence and security chiefs know about climate? Just what they are told by the totes and their useful idjits.

March 7, 2019 7:09 pm

Oh the horror! Truth might be discovered!

Robert in Busan
March 8, 2019 2:18 am

In related Senate testimony, Truly came across to me as a dullard and sychophant. A career YES MAN.

Chris Norman
March 8, 2019 3:56 pm

If the science is correct, what is there to worry about???

March 8, 2019 4:43 pm

Have the defence [sic!] chiefs been watching football crowds rather than climate?

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights