Retired officers poised to profit after Pentagon’s alarmist climate change report

Urgent Obama call can funnel funds to projects

continued from page 2

Question of the Day

Is it still considered bad form to talk politics during a social gathering?

View results

CNA Corp. itself is in the climate change business, a check of its client lists shows.

One of its major foundation customers is the Energy Foundation, the same group that financed the CNA military advisory board climate study. It is a global warming activist and is pushing a tax on carbon emissions.

CNA also lists as clients the liberal Rockefeller Foundation and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. The fund states: “Human activity is causing global warming, rapid loss of biodiversity and accelerating degradation of Earth’s life-support systems. With the recognition that the impact of unchecked climate change threatens all other conservation efforts, the program focuses its grant-making on advancing solutions to climate change.”

CNA spokeswoman Constance Custer defended the way the study was conducted in response to questions from The Washington Times about board members’ climate change activism and business ties.

“Just as news organizations are confident in the abilities of their journalists to maintain objectivity and guard against personal bias, the MAB is confident in the objectivity and lack of bias of its members, whose careers have been based on honest, objective assessments of situations affecting military planning to ensure national security,” Ms. Custer said.

The CNA report is 100 percent climate change advocacy, stating as fact that global warming has caused flooding and wildfires. It uses phrases such as “more intense storms” and “more frequent and severe storms.”

“Globally, we have seen recent prolonged drought act as a displacement of populations, each contributing to instability and eventual conflict,” the CNA said.

Yet a number of scientists — and the United Nations — have looked at the history of storms and concluded that they cannot be blamed on climate change.

Roger Pielke, an environmental scientist at the University of Colorado who has studied decades of U.S. storm data, told a Senate committee last year: “It is misleading and just plain incorrect to claim that disasters associated with hurricanes, tornadoes, floods or droughts have increased on climate time scales either in the United States or globally. It is further incorrect to associate the increasing costs of disasters with the emission of greenhouse gases.”

Jeff Kueter, president of the George C. Marshall Institute, a nonprofit that assesses scientific issues that affect public policy, said the report does not adhere to CNA’s creed of “absolute objectivity.”

“The report is a self-fulfilling prophecy,” said Mr. Kueter, who believes climate change impact on national security is tenuous. “The authors begin with the belief that the impacts of climate change are negative, and from that only bad consequences can flow. The report is not an objective treatment of the validity of the scientific claims or the veracity of the connections between environmental issues and security concerns.”

Even the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a global warming advocate, said in its latest report that there is “low confidence” in any long-term increase in cyclone and hurricane activity. It also said there is “low confidence” in increased tornadoes and hailstorms.

David Kreutzer, an energy economics and climate change researcher at the Heritage Foundation, said the CNA report is based on some projections that have proved way off base.

“The report paints a picture of a future pocked with climate disasters, which is likely to be true because we have always had climate disasters,” Mr. Kreutzer said. “Even with no increase in floods, droughts, hurricanes or tornadoes — no increase is what the IPCC says we have observed so far — the future will have plenty. The military should be ready for them but should not blame them on climate change.”

He said the CNA relied on Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change models that “have proven embarrassingly inaccurate. In fact, instead of providing narrower and more certain projections, the projections have been getting further and further from the actual observed temperatures.”

Story Continues →

View Entire Story

© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Comments
blog comments powered by Disqus
TWT Video Picks