Home / Environmentalism / 2003 Global Warming Pentagon Report Proves to Be Hot Air
Print Friendly and PDF

2003 Global Warming Pentagon Report Proves to Be Hot Air

Written by Gary North on June 2, 2014

Over a decade ago, the Defense Department paid a private firm to produce a report on global warming. The outfit had some unknown guy crank it out. It was paid well for this report, which was dutifully published by the Defense Department.

Its predictions did not come true, of course. Yet the document is still cited by the global warming industry, as if it had not been just another propaganda piece.

It is nice that the Washington Times went back and looked at it. We forget how much money the government has spent over the last decade to promote this theory.

In 2003, the average temperature of the earth had not gone up for five or six years. Today, it has been 17 years. But the global warming crowd still pretends that we are facing a crisis. Al Gore is still taken seriously in these circles.

They call it climate change, since the climate clearly is not getting warmer. Change in every area of life is normal, but climate change is a bad thing, we are assured. The earth’s thermostat must be re-set lower by national governments, as if this were possible.

The climate change Party Line is still the same as it was back when global warming was all the rage: the federal government must pass laws that force private industry and local public utilities to cut carbon emissions, thereby strangling the American economy. This would be an indirect subsidy to China, which ignore the theory and uses coal to grow its economy.

The theory that what men have done has raised the earth’s temperature has been rejected by over 31,000 American scientists. See for yourself. But the media refuse to report on this fact. This information would undermine faith in the Party Line.

The federal government spends billions of dollars a year to pay for reports like the 2003 report. The free market responds. It supplies the reports.

Nobody should have paid any attention to this in 2003. Here are some highlights.

Consultants told the military that, by now, California would be flooded by inland seas, The Hague would be unlivable, polar ice would be mostly gone in summer, and global temperatures would rise at an accelerated rate as high as 0.5 degrees a year. . . .

Yet the 2003 report, “An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security,” is credited with kick-starting the movement that, to this day and perhaps with more vigor than ever, links climate change to national security.

The report also became gospel to climate change doomsayers, who predicted pervasive and more intense hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and droughts.

“The release of this report is what likely sparked the ‘modern era’ of security interest in climate affairs,” said Jeff Kueter, president of the George C. Marshall Institute, a nonprofit that examines scientific issues that affect public policy.

“It was widely publicized and very much a tool of the political battles over climate raging at the time,” said Mr. Kueter, who sees as “tenuous” a link between U.S. security and climate change.

Doug Randall, who co-authored the Pentagon report, said, “Even I’m surprised at how often it’s referred to. . . .

Under the section “Warming up to 2010,” here are some of the report’s key scenarios, compared with what has transpired:

• By 2005, “more severe storms and typhoons bring about higher storm surges and floods.”

Today: The most recent U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report said it has “low confidence” of an increase in hurricanes or tornadoes. The U.S. is likely experiencing fewer tornadoes compared with 50 years ago, according to data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. This year’s tornado season was historically low. . . .

The U.S. has not experienced a major hurricane in nearly 10 years.

• Global temperatures will increase by 0.5 degrees Fahrenheit per decade and, in some areas, 0.5 degrees per year.

Today: Scientists skeptical of man-made climate change say satellite data show there has been no increase in 17 years. The Environmental Protection Agency, a strong climate change advocate, puts the decade increase at 0.3 degrees. . . .

• “Floating ice in the northern polar seas is mostly gone during the summer by 2010.”

Today: Arctic sea ice remains. Warming in the polar region has reduced the ice extent, from 2.8 million square miles at its yearly summer minimum in 1979, when satellite measuring began, to 2.1 million square miles in 2013, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

• Sacramento River levees will fail, creating “an inland sea” in California that “disrupts the aqueduct system transporting water.”

Today: There are no inland seas in California.

Yet there are still millions of people who still take seriously this nonsense. The propaganda keeps coming.

Continue Reading on www.washingtontimes.com

Print Friendly and PDF

Posting Policy:
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.

20 thoughts on “2003 Global Warming Pentagon Report Proves to Be Hot Air

  1. The gov't and the corrupt media don't want truth, they only want money.

    • ….and power…..

    • If they really wanted to fix things, they would plant trees. In 1982, working with the US Chamber of Commerce, I proposed planting trees in the interstate system right-of-ways. Reagan approved a $2 million pilot program. Tip O'Neal and Algore stopped it, over a budget dispute, after 350 trees were planted. In 1994 newt Gingrich tried to reinstate it. Dems blocked it again.

      • Bob Preiss says:

        Joe!
        How can that be? The Dem's are for "Green Energy" & Clean Air are they not? Err–scratch that, Trees are fossil fuels in the end, kind of like "Coal" that Obama has declared war on.We need "Solar! " Ahh, well, that didn't work very well either did it. (We spent millions on solar panels that ended up in the dumpster) & all the incentive money went into the pockets of the Obama backers & Obama friends.I know the IRS umm the NSA can ah ah the EP I've got it the VA can schedule– oh screw it, with as many hands as are in my pants, I need to sew on more pockets.

      • Phillip the Bruce says:

        Actually, Indiana did start planting black walnut trees in the median of I-70. Accidents involving deer increased. Duh!

      • Bama Bill says:

        I agree, come to my farm and you can feel the difference. 30 acres of planted pines, with many oaks and sweet guns transplanted where pines were thinned. On a day when the heat index is approaching 100 degrees, walk through the shade in the trees, then walk out into the sunshine and stand. The difference in air temp is very noticeable, and the sun feels so hot.

        Look at infared pictures of Atlanta, GA from 1970's versus now. In 1975 there as only a small red area, now it is huge! It doesn't take a scientist to show the increase in temperature. Stand in the shade, then out in a blacktop parking lot. If that does not convince you, oh well.

        • pollywog says:

          I believe the excess heat in the metropolis' areas is caused by the concrete/blacktop jungle. Dirt will absorb much of the heat while asphalt and blacktop reflect it back up. But sobeit that Gov'mt scientist would ever think of that.

    • Larry Hebdon, Sr. says:

      Actually, this reply should apply to many previous writers. First of all, the 'scientists' that claim global warming are always referencing the big cities (New York, Denver, LA, etc.) complaining that the ambient temperature is increasing – of this I have no doubt, but it has more to do with the increased construction rather than global climate. For instance, New York 150 years ago still had a significant amount of trees in the city. This provided shade, or natures air conditioning, to stabilize the temperature. When man kept cutting down trees, grass, shrubs, etc. & planting concrete instead, it had a negative affect on temperature stabilization. The concrete cannot absorb any heat nor can it provide the cooling shade that a tree can. Further, these flora received the expelled CO2 and converted it into the oxygen that we breath. This in turn provided cooling as the 'scientists' have stated that the increase in CO2 has caused the green house effect resulting in higher temperature. Consequently, I have been encouraging cities, states, national leaders & anyone who will listen that if we plant more trees than we do concrete we will have a means to eliminate the excessive CO2 and instead increase the atmosphere with a much more needed oxygen. Instead, the feds believe that a 'carbon tax' will result in the necessary change. They also have gloriosky plans to build some mechanical device to do the job that plants have been doing for centuries. Until modern man gets his proverbial head out and returns to methods that God gave us from the beginning, we will never be able to rectify the system. On the other hand, the temperature is only increasing approximately .1 to .3 degrees per year so I think we have some time to figure it out.

  2. Just another U.S. Government SCAM to get more money from the Legal U.S. Tax-Payers!!!!!!!!

  3. They went from "global warming" to "climate change". Mere name to confuse the confusable. And they are many. There always has been and always will be climate change. They call Greenland by that name because when the Norsemen arrived it was green. They settled there and farmed the land. For sixty-five of my seventy-five years I have lived close to Narragansett Bay. In that time we have gone from "global cooling" to "global warming" to eighteen years of stable temperatures. There has, in that time, been no noticeable change in the level of the ocean. The great Mississippi River has stayed within it's banks. I think we need not panic. See my blog at http://cranky-conservative.blogspot.com

  4. Al Gore said in a speech the temperature at earth's core is "millions of degrees Fahrenheit!" (It's actually about 5000 degrees centigrade.) While the carbonazis have been shrieking that the north and south poles are melting, the polar bears are drowning and we will all be flooded while sunbathing in the sand, Gore bought a beachfront mansion in Malibu, California.

    In March 2000 the UK Independent newspaper had a feature story headlined "Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past". That was almost 15 years ago.

    The head of the United Nations IPCC said 10 years ago we would have to describe what snow looked like to our grandchildren, because there will be no more due to "human caused global warming".

    It's all a scam. They just want you money (carbon tax) and your obedient submission to their nonsense.

  5. Tell Al Gore that what is really causing the heat problem if the multitude of human bodies–there are about 7
    billion and growing .. each contributes a terrific amount of heat-especially when they exercise or have wars with flame throwers. I am certain that a warning of ths nature is worth a NOBLE PRIZE –we need to rid the planet of people and the tempeature will go away

  6. WhiteFalcon says:

    Global warming is a fraud through and through, and all those that support it are frauds as well.

  7. mutantone says:

    I use to have respect for the Nobel Prize winners then they gave one to Obama and Gore and I lost all respect for their ability to chose worthy candidates.

  8. I don't see who could possibly be stupid enough to believe that humans, who occupy less than 1% of earth's land mass, could create enough pollution to alter our environment… It reminds me of a friend who told me that China was using so much concrete to build buildings that it was tilting the earths axis.

  9. they are nuts in the gov

  10. BlankReg says:

    " Warming in the polar region has reduced the ice extent, from 2.8 million square miles at its yearly summer minimum in 1979, when satellite measuring began, to 2.1 million square miles in 2013"

    Although I definitely fall into the AGW skeptic camp, simple math still tells us that summer ice has in fact dropped by 25% from 1979. Clearly SOMETHING is going on, and it needs to be rationally explained without resorting to trickery and theatrics.

  11. Nice post, you are phenomenal in this post and share some useful points about global warming. I bookmarked your page and waiting for your next post.

  12. an interesting title. Reviewed worth doing ..

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title="" rel=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>