The Washington Post has an article out which implies, if not read carefully, that our military considers global warming to be a serious security threat.  But if we take the time to read the article thoroughly, we see that the military isn’t really doing anything to indicate that at all.

Here’s the headline and first paragraph from the article:

Military Sharpens Focus on Climate Change
A Decline in Resources Is Projected to Cause Increasing Instability Overseas

The U.S. military is increasingly focused on a potential national security threat: climate change.

Just last month the U.S. Army War College funded a two-day conference at the Triangle Institute for Security Studies titled “The National Security Implications of Global Climate Change.” And tomorrow, a group of 11 retired senior generals will release a report saying that global warming “presents significant national security challenges to the United States,” which it must address or face serious consequences.

Sounds like the Pentagon is taking this seriously, no?  But look at the way that paragraph is worded very carefully.  The Army War College did fund a conference about the security implications of climate change, but there’s no indication that the Army itself has taken any stance on the matter.  It was just a conference where the matter was discussed.

The article then tells us that 11 retired generals are releasing a report which concludes that global warming is a significant national security risk.  From the way it’s worded, and the way the headline reads, this sounds like these generals are issuing a report (which, the article tells us, will be presented to the UN Security Council) that was commissioned by the military.  Except that it wasn’t.  At least not directly It turns out that the report was commissioned by a political think tank.  But we don’t learn that important detail until much later in the article:

Commissioned by the Center for Naval Analyses, a government-funded think tank, the report boasts a list of contributors that includes eight retired four-star generals and three three-stars. Many have significant technological expertise, and some, such as Admiral T. Joseph Lopez, are close to Vice President Cheney. Others, including Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, have criticized President Bush in recent years.

Granted the Center for Naval Analyses is a federally-funded research and development center, but those organizations aren’t exactly known for being impartial.  Wikipedia highlights a common complaint:

Critics have complained that FFRDCs provide fertile grounds for activities that inappropriately mix public funds and private interests. Critics see favoritism when FFRDCs receive large contracts without competitive bidding. Critics have also pointed to the interflow of personnel between government agencies, FFRDCs, and companies that work for FFRDCs. Critics say there is a revolving door between these entities and they decry “interlocking directorships” that arise (such as when a former Secretary of Defense took board positions at RAND and General Dynamics Corp.) This latter charge is especially troubling because FFRDCs are supposed to be expertise-based organizations that are to impartially oversee the use of federal funds that are to advance a governmental purpose.

But whatever your opinion on these FFRDC’s, the simple truth of the matter is that the Washington Post is being highly misleading in this article.  This report isn’t from the military, it’s from a federally-sponsored think tank.  And it’s also worth nothing that while this report apparently details some of the security implications of climate change, it doesn’t address what causes climate change.  So while global warming alarmists may be quick to add this to their ever-expanding apocalyptic list of things that will go wrong if we don’t all breating, farting and driving our cars around, this isn’t proof that global warming is actually caused by human activity.  Or that it can be stopped by changing human activity.  Or that it’s anything more than a warming trend that has been taking place on this planet for billions of years before man even existed.

It’s shameless, and pathetic, how the media pushes this global warming alarmism.  I actually don’t really have anything against this report per se.  Our military is always planning for every possible contingency, and if global climate change (because the earth’s climate does change, whether it’s caused by humans or not) presents a security threat then I guess we should be prepared for it.  I just hate how this stuff is used to terrorize us into submitting to the cult-of-Al-Gore’s view that the only way to save the earth is to expand the control of government over our lives.