A new Pentagon report says that climate change is an “urgent and growing threat to our national security” and blames it for “increased natural disasters” that will require more American troops designated to combat bad weather. Some studies have questioned whether such a trend exists. Says the Pentagon report released Wednesday, “Global climate change will have wide-ranging implications for U.S. national security interests over the foreseeable future because it will aggravate existing problems — such as poverty, social tensions, environmental degradation, ineffectual leadership, and weak political institutions — that threaten domestic stability in a number of countries.” The report’s reference to “increased natural disasters” is not backed by several studies. The United Nations‘ latest report on global warming said there was insufficient evidence to say there have been increased storm, flood or drought activity. A climate center in Colorado said its study of decades of weather patterns failed to show any increase in tornadoes, hurricanes or other natural disasters. Still, the Pentagon report, called “National Security Implications of Climate-Related Risks and a Changing Climate,” has tasked U.S. combat commanders around the globe to plan for “persistently recurring conditions such as flooding [and] drought.” It states that “higher temperatures increase the strain on fragile states and vulnerable population by dampening economic activity.” The report also tells commanders there are “more frequent and/or severe extreme weather events that may require substantial involvement of DoD units, personnel and assets in humanitarian assistance and disaster relief.” It cites as example Super Storm Sandy in New York and New Jersey in 2012 and flooding in Pakistan in 2010, which it said was the worst in recorded history. The report also cites decreases in Arctic ice cover and sea level increases. Roger Pielke Jr, a professor of environmental studies at the Center for Science and Technology Police Research at the University of Colorado, studies global weather trends and makes conclusions at odds with the Pentagon report. Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century,” he wrote in 2013. “No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin.” “In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale.” The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a big advocate of changing human behavior to combat global warming, acknowledged there is little evidence of increased natural disasters. It said last year 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. Global warming skeptics says that temperature models put out over a decade ago have proven to be wildly inaccurate today.
Gee! Imagine that! And that’s because it’s all BS! The only reason that the Pentagon is pushing the issue is because the Joint Chiefs are all politically appointed by the President. So…Bottom line.. Obama is ordering the Pentagon to use its limited resources to further his crazy, extreme, liberal agenda…that has NOTHING to do with national security. We have VERY limited military resources. They need to be used to combat ISIS/ISIL, etc.; NOT to promote so-called global warming and other such silly nonsense. Unreal..
Capitol Hill Republicans are pushing to arm service members at recruitment centers in the wake of the deadly Chattanooga, Tennessee, attack, but a “patchwork” of laws may get in the way. While federal law gives the secretaries of the various armed forces the power to arm military employees if there’s a threat to a particular military base, most recruitment centers are located in malls or in public places — not federal land — and it’s unclear if the law applies to recruiters or reservists. In these commercially leased spaces, state and local laws need to be followed, and they may not allow for guns, said Joe Kasper, a spokesman for Rep. Duncan Hunter, California Republican. Mr. Hunter and Sen. Steve Daines, Montana Republican, intend to clarify the law to ensure secretaries can grant permission to arm reservists and recruiters with a case-by-case special authorization. “As much as we would like to say you have to arm all these guys, it’s too problematic through the huge patchwork of state and local laws, and that creates a huge patchwork of complications,” Mr. Kasper said. “You’d run into problems, and it would be in their interest to have their authorization from Congress.” Robert Taylor, the founder of Security Services International Associates, said arming the recruiters could make “a soft target into a harder one,” he said. “If I knew I was going to be up against some well-armed and trained guys, [I’d] think of a different tactic,” Mr. Taylor said. “Having a well-trained person counterattack immediately will reduce deaths considerably.” But the bill’s language raised some concern for Mike McLively, an attorney for the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. He says the wording requires at least one officer at recruitment centers to be armed instead of giving the secretaries the power to grant arms. The Pentagon has made no comment on specific laws proposed since Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez, 24, of Hixson, Tennessee, unleashed a barrage of fire at a recruiting center in Chattanooga, killing four Marines and injuring three others. Pentagon Press Secretary Peter Cook released a statement Friday saying that changes to the Pentagon’s policies are under advisement. Sen. Jerry Moran, Kansas Republican, has proposed arming all recruiters. “Rather than asking for permission to allow service members to bear arms, Sen. Moran’s bill makes the right of servicemen and -women to carry the default, not the exception,” said Garrette Turner, a spokesperson for Mr. Moran. The Pentagon’s ban on arming servicemen on U.S. bases is largely due to legal issues, such as the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which prohibits the federal government from using the military for domestic law enforcement. U.S. forces don’t routinely carry guns when they are not in combat or on military bases. And Pentagon officials are sensitive to any appearance of armed troops within the United States.
They’re “sensitive” because they don’t want to get sued. But, it’s all ridiculous. Allowing military service members to carry while on active duty, or on a military installation, does NOT equate to carrying out a law enforcement function. The only military component that can do that domestically is the National Guard. THAT is why, from day one here at The Daily Buzz, we’ve called for the Army National Guard to be deployed to our southern border with Mexico to help patrol it. The Guard has the legal authority to do what the active component cannot in such circumstances.