• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Government’s Out-of-Step Agitprop on Global Warming

    Listening to Washington, you would never know that today’s hot topics include Climategate, Glaciergate, and an increasingly bitter debate about what we really know about our capacity to accurately forecast global climate change.

    In his State of the Union Address, President Barack Obama asserted that there is “overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change.” The Director of National Intelligence and the Pentagon are following the President’s lead in Lemming-like fashion.

    In his testimony to Congress, Dennis Blair, the Director of National Intelligence, stated, “We continue to assess that global climate change will have wide-ranging implications for US national security interests over the next 20 years because it will aggravate existing world problems—such as poverty, social tensions, environmental degradation, ineffectual leadership, and weak political institutions—that threaten state stability.”

    Meanwhile, the Pentagon has warmed up to climate change as well. “For the first time, Pentagon planners in 2010 will include climate change among the security threats identified in the Quadrennial Defense Review , the Congress-mandated report that updates Pentagon priorities every four years. In the review, Pentagon officials conclude that climate change will act as an “accelerant of instability and conflict,” ultimately placing a burden on civilian institutions and militaries around the world.” A five-minute NPR audio report can be found here.

    The problem with all these dire warnings is that:

    1. They don’t come with an accompanying asterisk. The reality is there is no way to forecast the impact of climate change on national security.
    2. They don’t tell you that the administration’s plan for dealing with global climate change may be the biggest national security threat of all because of its potential to wreck the US and the global economy and worst of all that is actually unlikely to affect global warming.
    3. They don’t acknowledge that the White House is largely using the national security argument to push a political agenda. The QDR, for example, even suggests that global warming makes the case for passing the Law of the Sea Treaty. A treaty that not only has nothing do with climate change but, experts including Reagan’s Attorney General Ed Meese, would argue, undermines US sovereignty and security.
    Posted in Security [slideshow_deploy]

    8 Responses to Government’s Out-of-Step Agitprop on Global Warming

    1. John B. San Diego says:

      Mr. Carafano, by your leave Sir, may I say these people expressing global climate change will dramatically affect social and economic situations around the globe have precious little to give up in the way of funding or credibility.

      The current administration is seeking those whom might buy in for what finacial rewards that are available to back the falsehoods of the administration's agenda.

      Small rewards and recognitions for those whom might disagree are not available.

      Appropriations are free and available for those whom back the Administration.

      When the results come out and scientific proofs are exposed these people intend to be long gone.

      This pouring out of sympathy for the administration view point is a simple-minded approach to garner tremendous funds to promote this agenda on climate change. The Defense Department might be anticipating maneuvers by countries to take advantage of situations around the globe.

      All of this hoopla is being laughed at by China, China has no intention of playing this game and will sit back and watch the administration put its foot in their mouth and pay through the nose for something that is false.

    2. Tucci78, NJ says:

      First it must be understood that there is no verified evidence that significant anthropogenic (man-made) global warming has ever taken place.

      The "climatologists" responsible for the AGW alarm have been working since the 1980s from computer models which are replete with failings, and the CRU correspondents (caught in the Climategate leak) were long suspected of having combined to suppress the reports of data which would have provided (and have recently been providing) empirical checks upon their computer models' errors

      Second, it must be understood that what "global warming" has taken place since the close of the Little Ice Age (circa 1850) has shown no statistically significant acceleration even in recent years despite the undeniable fact that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have risen and that this CO2 is demonstrated to have arisen to some considerable extent from the combustion of fossil fuels (radioisotope studies prove this).

      The rate at which global mean temperatures have risen since the middle of the 19th Century has been effectively constant.

      Third, it must be understood that within both the historical record and in periods adequately and reliably studied using proxy temperature assessments, there have been warm periods (prior to the co-option of meteorology by the "warmist" AGW cabal, these were called "climate optima" because they were periods during which humans prospered and populations grew) where global temperatures averaged far higher than today, and far higher than what the AGW alarmists have predicted will melt the ice caps, drown the coastlines, and spread plague all over the planet.

      In other words, global warming – if it were really happening (and it's not) – would be a very, very good thing indeed.

      Not a catastrophe.

      So the whole notion of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) is pretty much utterly bogus. It started as an error back in the 1980s with Dr. Hansen and his fellow incompetent colleagues, became an industry in the '90s when you had scum-sucking political prostitutes like Al Gore perceiving it as a way to stir up the botched and the gullible, and settled firmly into a concocted fraud by the time the year 2000 rolled around.

      And now it's coming to pieces like a Pakistani hand grenade.

      Sound science has trumped "political science," and courtesy of Climategate and the other revelations brought to the broad attention of the public in spite of governmental tap-dancing and mainstream media efforts to "ignore it to death," sound science is having its way.

      AGW is dead. The idiocies of cap-and-trade are dead. Al Gore is walking around, but he's dead, too.

      Someone really needs to put him in the water just outside his four-million-dollar bayfront condominium in San Francisco and hold him under until the bubbles stop coming up.


    3. Bobbie Jay says:

      It is unnerving to know we are being led by people who can't determine fiction from realization. Adding cost, wasting money spent on fiction at the cost of America's security. America doesn't deserve this misleading, ignorant representation.

    4. SB Owner Springfield says:

      In his testimony to Congress, Dennis Blair, the Director of National Intelligence, stated, “We continue to assess that global climate change will have wide-ranging implications for US national security interests over the next 20 years because it will aggravate existing world problems—such as poverty, social tensions, environmental degradation, ineffectual leadership, and weak political institutions—that threaten state stability

      Ineffectual leadership, foisting a fraud upon the citizens with Cap and Trade will certainly aggravate existing world problems like poverty. America will go broke & won't be able to feed the world, when the enviro activists make farmers walk behind a horse instead of driving a Deere!

    5. CommieBlaster, Chica says:


      This Brand New Video Blows a Huge Gaping Hole in Obama's Cap and Tax Scheme: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVm5-6H_sH4

    6. Paul, Washington, DC says:

      Thanks for maintaining the partisan line here guys.

      Just once, can you stop to think that this isn't just one giant global conspiracy? I sincerely appreciate the debate over how our fine nation should respond to global warming and the extent to which global warming is occurring and man's responsibility to that warming. But really, the military is lying about this? They are politicizing things now too? Why would they do that to just this issue? Maybe I don't know enough about military history is assessing risks, have they done something like this before?

    7. Pingback: Climate Change Should Not Be the Focus of Homeland Security | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

    8. Pingback: Night of the Living Dead Idea | Conservative Principles Now

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.