Pentagon wrestles with bogus climate warnings as funds shifted to green agenda

Catastrophe capitalism
Picture source: News room Panama

You gotta laugh. In a bitter humourless way of course because interest we have to pay on the money our governments have been borrowing to fund this kind of politically correct crap is bleeding us dry.

from The Washington Times
(reproduced under Creative Commons licence)

While The Emperor Obama was busy destroying democracy this weekend by announcing that he will not need the approval of democratically elected representatives to close down coal fired power stations because he has granted himself the kind of executive powers enjoyed by Caligula and Nero, others have been hard at work exposing the climate change scare for the scam it was.

Ten years ago, the Pentagon (?) paid for a climate study that put forth many scary scenarios.

Consultants told the military (?) that, by now, California would be flooded by inland seas, The Hague and Amsterdam would be unlivable, the architectural treasure of Venice wouls be lost, 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.

None of that has happened.

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.

“I think it did have an impact, for sure, in getting people talking and seeing the connection, which at that time was harder for some people than it is today,” said Mr. Randall, who heads the consulting firm Monitor 360.

Some critics say such alarmist reports are causing the Pentagon to shift money that could be used for weapons and readiness. It is making big investments in biofuels, for example, and is working climate change into high-level strategic planning.

There is no exact budget line for climate change. The Government Accountability Office in 2011 documented a big increase in federal spending, from $4.6 billion in 2003 to nearly $9 billion in 2010.

Sen. James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, the top Republican on the Senate Committee on Armed Services, has been the chief congressional critic of the Pentagon’s financial commitment to climate change. He said biofuel projects should be left to the Energy Department.

“The president’s misguided priorities with our national security can be seen in the $1 trillion defense cuts he has put into motion since taking office and then using the limited defense budget to support his green agenda,” Mr. Inhofe said in a statement to The Washington Times. “His green spending in the defense budget is based on the belief that climate change is the ‘new weapon of mass destruction.’ In the meantime the president has loosened sanctions on Iran, [which] has maintained their resources to develop and launch a nuclear weapon — the real weapon of mass destruction.”

Predictions vs. reality

The 2003 report was produced by a consulting firm, then called the Global Business Network, for the Pentagon’s office of net assessment. It is a driving force to allocate money to counter global threats — in this case, climate change.

Continue reading

So the question we should be asking is WTF has that cash swallowing area of government, the military do do with climate change. are the Russians, Chinese and Iranians throwing water filled condoms at us or something?

RELATED POSTS:

What if man-made climate change is all in the mind?
Climate change is a theory for which there is “no scientific proof at all” says the co-founder of Greenpeace

The Fiscal Cliff

Cliff with The young Ones
Picture source:Sorry, I couldn’t find a still of the final scene from The Young Ones TV series where the bus crashed through a picture of Cliff and went over a cliff.

All the huffing and puffing about public spending, deficits and economic collapse is starting to resemble one of those low budget horror movies where you never see the monster, just a shadow on a wall or heavy breathing or a trail of blood drops.

Many people believe there is another financial crisis, bigger than the one that caused havoc in 2008, coming straight towards us, that’s why consumer spending is down and national economies are stagnant. But the authorities all tell us not to panic, they create an illusion of growth by printing money, they keep unemployment statistics within an acceptable range by expanding the public payroll and by statistical prestidigitation but instead of the mayor of Gotham City announcing the streets are safe, Presidents Obama and Hollande, Prime Minister Cameron and Chancellor Merkel are telling us economies are recovering strongly and growth will wipe out the deficits.

As I type, political parties of left and right are butting their heads together over which of their two entirely discredited fiscal policies, Keyneseanism or Monetarism, we should use to rely on to avert a plunge over the fiscal cliff.

Considering the amount of deficit being funded by borrowing they are arguing over what size of Band-Aid should be stretched over the gaping wound when it ought to be obvious that cauterisation and stitches are required. If you mention this, you’re called a right wing extremist, swivel eyed loon, neo – con nut job or even an evil fascist bastard who wants to throw old people to the dogs and deny the underprivileged their inalienable human rights.

“You cupid stunt,” angry, swivel eyed lefties will say, “Don’t you know running a nation is not like running a household. Budgets don’t have to balance, that’s just a right wing misunderstanding. To reduce the deficit you have to borrow more, spend more and allow in more immigrants.”

Politicians have for so long treated tax revenue and government borrowings like Monopoly money they cannot understand why people who cast votes are suddenly talking about the need for real rather than cosmetic spending cuts. In the end however it is a numbers game. And for too long the numbers have not added up. It is sheer folly for the politicians to ignore arithmetic, the numbers game does not have a vote and is favours the well off while politicians who want to be elected know the quickest way to get votes is by talking of equality and fairness and increasing entitlements to unsustainable levels, resulting in vast deficits that can only be covered by borrowing.

In the past century (probably a little less in reality) these politicians, heavily influenced by pressure groups and populist media have grown a long list of goods and services everybody should be entitled to besides food, clean water, clothing, and shelter. The new entitlements, without which people cannot live a full and happy life, include laptop and tablet computers, internet access, mp3 players, smartphones, designer clothes and footwear and access to entertainment. Reality, cruel, heartless, uncompromising reality which only considers the numbers and never peoples’ feelings insists that it is not feasible for everybody to have all those things.

The left says we should abolish numbers and use statistics instead, after all statistics will always give politicians the answer they want. Half of the Conservatives say the same, they have been educated in the same schools and universities as the lefties and have taken on board the same lies.

So while we have the socialists, liberals and “compassionate conservatives” saying, “we must make sure nobody suffers from spending cuts, and while we’re at it we must also find money to feed and clothe the third world poor, buy them computers and smartphones and designer trainers so they do not feel marginalised,” realists are saying, “FFS who pays for all this, we borrow money from the Chinese on which we pay interest, to fund people who can contribute nothing because politicians and corporate leaders exported all the work to China.

We have Quantitative Easing which means government lends money to the banks at half a percent and the banks lend it straight back at three per cent to fund the governments next monthly deficit. The longer this goes on of course, the larger bite interest payments take out of government revenue each month.

And when you look at the numbers involved it’s no wonder politicians don’t want to talk arithmetic. The west is broke, we can’t afford a loaf of bread yet our leaders are only interested in spending cuts of a similar nature to giving up the plan to buy a Rolls Royce and getting a Lexus instead. And they trust the “scientists” who tell them if you torture data enough, 2 + 2 can be made to equal 5.

RELATED POSTS:
Financial Crisis? The Dow Has Already Fallen More Than 1000 Points From The Peak Of The Market
Grand Theft Euro

Shock Labour Defector – To The Tories?

After asking a few days ago, in the wake of criticisms from John Major, David Blunkett and Jack Straw of the parties whose governments they served in, we asked who would be the next political elder to defect to UKIP.

The defection, when it came, was a shock. Ken Livingstone turned against Labour and the loonytoons economics advocated by shadow chancellor Mr. Bollocks and embraced Thatcherite monetaraism.

from The Daily Telegraph:
Ken Livingstone, the former Mayor of London, has accused the Labour party of “cowardice” for building up billions in debts rather than taking difficult decisions on tax cuts and spending.

In a speech to a campaigning group on Saturday Mr Livingstone accused Gordon Brown of borrowing too much in the boom years.

Mr Livingstone said: “Gordon Brown was borrowing £20 billion a year at the height of the boom in the first decade of this century in order to avoid having to increase taxes, because he wanted to increase public spending.”

The former Mayor described the racking up of debts as “an act of cowardice” on the part of the Labour party.

Mr Livingstone appealed to Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, not to borrow more. Referring to Mr Miliband and Ed Balls, the Shadow chancellor’s, plans for the economy, he said: “I don’t believe that borrowing is your way to the future.”

As Livingstone is going against Labour’s traditional policy of saddling future generations with unserviceable levels of debt inh order to buy working class votes by handing out cash benefits, we must assume Red Ken’s political career is over.

On the other hand it might just be that he’s the same old hypocrite he always was and will embrace anything he thinks might help him cling to a sliver of power a little longer. I mean, he’s already endorsed Sharia Law and you can’t get any more conservative than that

Growth: Government versus private sector

As Labour supporters lost in Limbo scream for more stimulus spending on government projects to get the economy back into “growth” I had to nick this cartoon:

big_government_

Read the accompanying article about how the growth of the pubclic sector stifles private, for profit enerprise, the sort that generates tax revenue rather than recruiting more tax eaters. Burning Our Money – How Big Is The Government

Gordon Says The C Word.

An office at 10 Downing Street.

A young reporter enters and walks over to shake hands with the big man behind the desk.

BBC: Good Morning Mr. Brown. I’m from the BBC, Boggartblog Cub Reporter that is. Thank you very much for taking the time to see me and hopefully answer some of my questions.”

GB: Good morning Mr BBC Reporter. Do make yourself comfortable.

BBC: Now then Mr. Brown There has been much speculation over how the Government is going to repay the vast sums of money it borrowed to bail out the failing banks.

GB: We in the Government look on that as a prudent investment of the taxpayers money. In due course the banks will be returned to private ownership at which point we, the government, are hoping to realize a good percentage return on our investment.

BBC: Well, that’s as may be, but in the meantime there is the question of how the government proposes to sevice the loans it has taken out.
GB: This government is dedicated to investment in the country’s future and I am sure that if we all pull together we wil reap the benefits of good financial returns on those investments.

BBC: Perhaps, but the other parties are claiming that huge savings will have top be made in order to balance the budget eventually. In order to achieve these savings there will have to be cuts to public services. Do you say that you can balance the budget without making cuts?

GB,Eyes glazed a little: Cuts! Ah, er this government believes the way forward is by making investments. This is the way to re-float the economy and inspire confidence in borrowers, lenders and the general public.

BBC: But in order to invest money, you need to have money in the first place. Surely you are going to have to cut spending to fund your investment?
GB staring off into the middle distance: Cut. Cut.
Oh alright yes there will have to be cuts. Labour will cut inefficiency, cut unnecessary programmes and cut lower priority budgets.

Labour will cut everything. I never wanted to be prime minister. I always wanted to cut things. Cut paper, cut hair but most of all… cut down trees. I don’t want to sit in this office and talk about investment, (his eyes glaze over again and the gentle chords of a violin begin to play)I want to be out in the forests, with my axe over my shoulder, my check shirt sticking to my back with sweat and a newly fallen tree at my feet.
I always wanted to be a lumberjack.

An octet of mounties march in through the office door.

The music swells and they begin…

“He’s a lumberjack and he’s O.K.
He sleeps all night and he works all day.
He chops down trees, he eats his lunch, he goes to the lavatory,
On Mondays he goes shopping and has butered scones for tea!”

With apologies to Monty Python.

RELATED POSTS:
Systemic Dishonesty
QE Panelgame