Generals feathering their own nests

| May 27, 2014

The Washington Times reports that retired generals are using the “climate change” issue to set themselves up for riches with “studies” that point to the junk science as a national security issue;

The report, which the Obama administration immediately hailed as a call to action, was issued not by a private advocacy group but by a Pentagon-financed think tank that trumpets “absolute objectivity.” The research was funded by a climate change group that is also one of the think tank’s main customers.

[…]

The Center for Naval Analyses’ motto is “high quality, impartial information.”

One of the CNA panel’s vice chairmen, retired Navy Vice Adm. Lee Gunn, is president of a private think tank, the American Security Project, whose prime issue is warning about climate change.

The other vice chairman, retired Army Brig. Gen. Gerald E. Galloway Jr., is a prominent adviser to the Center for Climate and Security, a climate change group.

In all, four CNA board members sit on the panel of advisers to the Center for Climate and Security, whose statements on climate change are similar to those found in the CNA report.

In an age when Defense dollars are few and far between, these flag officers are scheming to pocket millions for their own pockets. The Heritage Foundation warns that the climate change misinformation campaign threatens readiness;

Studies have shown that biofuels are more corrosive than regular diesel and can therefore increase maintenance costs within the Navy’s fleet. This would only worsen the current fleet’s dire situation, since inspection failures are already occurring at an alarming rate within the fleet. Increasing average age of U.S. fleet; delayed, deferred, and underfunded modernization; and use of fuels with potentially harmful consequences is a recipe for a fleet readiness crisis.

[…]

Biofuels are disproportionately more expensive than conventional fuels. A gallon of biofuel costs $26, whereas the Department of Defense purchases diesel at about $3.60 per gallon. Many argue that this rate will decrease over time as biofuel production increases, but in the interim, the Navy’s readiness would be further damaged by wasting precious resources on biofuels that are seven times more expensive than the Navy’s conventional fuels—not including the increased maintenance costs.

Of course, this just another example of how the Left sees the military as a tool to advance their liberal agendas and force them down the throats of the taxpaying public. Even the “science community” can’t convincingly influence the public of climate change without padding their numbers. It was a coming ice age in the 70s and then global warming just in the last decade. Now they call it “climate change” because they can’t even convince themselves these days. And these generals don’t really care about the truth as long as they can stuff taxpayer dollars in their pockets like they’ve done their whole lives.

Category: Military issues

15 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
OWB

They lost me at claiming “absolute objectivity.”

John "Faker 6" Giduck

Hmmm…climate change. I should have thought of that instead of blowing a bunch of Russian intel and Spetsnaz dudes in exchange for a few book quotes.

I would have made General had those 58 days of Basic Training not been so hard.

Sincerely

John “Faker 6” Giduck

Still serving(currently in Afghanistan)

I remember the Ice Age garbage from elementary/middle school in 70s. No one really bought into that. Unfortunately, people have bought into the “human” caused global warming. This is destroying us as a nation. I’m not surprised these retired”flag” officers are doing this. The current generation of these officers only think of themselves.

Ex-PH2

I do hope that these climate-savvy generals in those think tanks can explain why there is still ice on Lake Superior on Memorial Day weekend.

http://www.weather.com/news/lake-superior-ice-memorial-day-weekend-2014-20140526

Their viewpoint is that climate change means changes in resources, and those of us who know something about history also know that loss of resources will cause your neighbors to go to war with you.

That doesn’t explain, however, why the Romans kept absorbing their neighbors, does it? No, the Romans did that because they were afraid of their neighbors.

So my questions are probably going to go unanswered by the ‘experts’ over there in the rarified atmoshpere of the think tank world, but I’ll pose them, anyway.

If the USofA starts to lack resources such as food and water and fuel because of ‘climate change’, are we going to make war on our neighbors?

And if our neighbors begin to lack resources because of ‘climate change’, are we prepared to defend our own resources from them?

And last, but certainly not least, do these Oh-So-Wise prognosticators in those think tanks expect us to just move into FEMA camps if things get tough? (I’m not leaving my house, period.) Are they going to show up with guns and MRAPS and drive us out of our homes if we refuse to budge?

Actually, we should expect more harsh winters for a while, and Antarctica’s ice fields are sliding into the sea, which puts billions of gallons of fresh water into the ocean, which can and will affect that important climat stabilizer – the thermohaline current, also known as the overturn current. There is so much stuff in the ocean depths, like previously unknown cold currents and deep volcanic activity, that these so-called experts know nothing about, it’s almost pathetic.

But they’ll use any excuse they can find to make a buck off of you and me, won’t they?

Sparks

Ex-PH2 Nothing to add. Well said.

LC

You do realize, of course, that ‘global climate change’ doesn’t mean there will be uniformly higher temperatures across the globe, correct? It’s certainly the case that models show higher temperatures in some areas and lower temperatures in others — quite possibly Lake Superior being one of those places experiencing cooler temperatures. Or, another alternative is simply that this is an aberration. Climate experts study climate, not weather, which is what you’re referring to when you sample the immediate temperature in a specific place.

I’m not a climate scientist so I don’t have those models in front of me, but saying “Ha! It’s cold here! Climate change is wrong!” is like some Zoomie out at Soto Cano saying, “Well, *I* don’t see any terrorists anywhere, so clearly there’s no problem with terrorism in the world.”

Ex-PH2

Yes, LC, I know that.

Weather is short-term, and Lake Superior’s water temperature is low enough to support big chunks of ice floating on the surface while the air temperature is 80F and people are sunbathing on the beach.

Climate, however, is long-term and while it is easy enough for the weather to be harsh and volatile for several years in a row, the current warming trend, which started 18,000 years ago is slightly more than halfway through the shortest warming period (the Aftonian, lasting 30,000 years) prior to this one (Holocene).

The actual trend in climate change is that prolonged cold periods become shorter and shorter and prolonged warming periods become longer and longer until they reverse positions. I did a chart on this using only time frames, going back 600,000 years to the Donau I. It speaks for itself.

Anonymous

Shinseki’s next gig…

MAJkei

Maybe he’ll bring us new hats!!

john

of course you guys know more about “science” than the US Navy do s http://greenfleet.dodlive.mil/files/2014/02/USN-Arctic-Roadmap-2014.pdf
Climate change is all just a big hoax and conspiracy that only you the “elite and enlightened” can see through
But just incase it is true anyone have any ideas where to hide our boomers when the Arctic ice is gone and surface ships can steam there?

Poetrooper

John, maybe this old “elite and enlightened” vet doesn’t possess your comprehension skills but reading that executive summary leaves me wondering just what it is you are alarmed about.

According to both Admiral Greenert’s cover letter and the executive summary, it appears the Navy sees the retreating Arctic ice as a series of developing economic opportunities, not the end of the world.

But then again, maybe we “elite and enlightened” here at TAH tend to be more glass-half-full types while you Climate Chicken Littles see every glass as bone-dry empty.

Poetrooper

Oh, and I forgot this. Do you honestly believe that all our “Boomers” are hiding under the Arctic ice and that is their only option at avoiding detection?

I’d wager there are more Russian boomers under that ice than our own considering where their sub bases are. And what about Chinese boomers?

Hey, maybe we could hide our boomers under Guam? Nah, that won’t work cause the Democrats say Guam’s going to tip over if we keep adding Marines.

Ex-PH2

Seconding Poetrooper, and you do realize, John, that while you’re having a panic attack over this, the planet we live on is large enough to be able to have stabilizing mechanisms in place to keep the weather stable, right?

Or are you one of those people who would describe the events of the Dust Bowl as the End of the World, when it was, in fact, simply a shift in the winds that bring seasonal monsoonal rains to the Great Plains?

Just curious about your view on that kind of thing.

A Proud Infidel®™

Why do something to make honest money when you can make millions throwing spin and propaganda in the wind?

Fatcircles0311

This a duffleblog article right…..right?