The Washington Times follows some of the money to be had in AGW:
Retired officers poised to profit after Pentagon’s alarmist climate change report
Urgent Obama call can funnel funds to projects
Retired military officers deeply involved in the climate change movement — and some in companies positioned to profit from it — spearheaded an alarmist global warming report this month that calls on the Defense Department to ramp up spending on what it calls a man-made problem.
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 May 13 report came from the military advisory board within CNA Corp., a nonprofit based in Alexandria, Virginia, that includes the Center for Naval Analyses, a Navy-financed group that also gets contracts from other Pentagon units. CNA also operates the Institute for Public Research.
CNA’s webpage states that it is not an advocacy group. It says it maintains “absolute objectivity. In our investigations, analyses and findings we test hypotheses, carefully guard against personal biases and preconceptions, challenge our own findings and are uninfluenced by what a client would like to hear.”
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.
Other board members work in the climate change world of consulting and technology.
The CNA advisory panel is headed by retired four-star Army Gen. Paul Kern, who sits on the board of directors of a company that sells climate-detection products to the Pentagon and other government agencies. At least two other board members are employed in businesses that sell climate change expertise and products.
The greatest influence on CNA reports seems to come from the Center for Climate and Security, whose position is that the debate on climate change, or man-made global warming, is over.
“This is a world which recognizes that climate change risks are unprecedented in human history and does not wait for absolute certainty before acting to mitigate and adapt to those risks,” the center says.
The CNA report, titled “National Security and the Accelerating Risks of Climate Change,” says: “Some in the political realm continue to debate the cause of a warming planet and demand more data.” It then quotes a board member as saying, “Speaking as a soldier, we never have 100 percent certainty. If you wait until you have 100 percent certainty, something bad is going to happen on the battlefield.”
The Center for Climate and Security has taken donations from the Tides Foundation, which gets money from Democratic Party financier and liberal billionaire George Soros.
[Emphasis added]
2 comments:
Quoting from the article:
"The greatest influence on CNA reports seems to come from the Center for Climate and Security, whose position is that the debate on climate change, or man-made global warming, is over.
“This is a world which recognizes that climate change risks are unprecedented in human history and does not wait for absolute certainty before acting to mitigate and adapt to those risks,” the center says."
Let's examine this "logic."
(1) The debate is over.
That seems to imply that we have established 100% certainty regarding the issue.
(2) We are not waiting for 100% certainty.
If 100% certainty is the desired level of confidence in order to end the debate, and that level has not been reached, then by what perverted stretch of the imagination has the debate been ended?!?
How can it be impartial if the starting assumption is that global warming is happening and that it is man-made?
How can it be high-quality when anything that appears counter to the initial assumption will be discarded as 'in error'?
I know these retired military leader types. I knew them when they were active duty. They were arrogant, many of them, and they all followed the same formula: determine the conclusion that will best serve my political needs, then set about looking for information that will support it, and ignore/cover up everything else.
This is how the Navy's NIS operated in the 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s. I see no reason why they would have changed. Nor any reason why their retirement would change their attitudes.
They have no oversight. Who is going to keep them honest? The folks who flatly state that 'the debate for man-made global warming is over'? That is a dishonest opinion, the position a bully or a braggart would take. Funny how the folks who show the most 'concern' for bullying are the first to take it up when pushing their agenda.
Whatever they choose to do, you can tell their egos have already been corrupting their reason - or they would see how obvious all of this is. But I will say one thing - they are not hypocrites. They simply don't believe in anything but themselves.
Post a Comment