Climate Change Pentagon Expert: My Goal Was to Induce Fear, Not be Accurate

[Vigilante]

So much for Global Climate change.....

Political Outcasts ^

From the Washington Times: “Pentagon wrestles with bogus climate warnings as funds shifted to green agenda.” …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...

 

[Political Junky]

Meanwhile "Cosmos" was about Climate Change tonight. Too bad those who disagree weren't watching.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

You did a C&P again with absolutely none of your own thoughts except for "so much for Global Climate change." ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

If you truly want folks to participate, you might want to give them something to talk about, rather than ask them to read a link and report back.

Also, the thread title infers some kind of admission that global warming is fake - fine, but let the body of the OP reflect that by including it where folks can see it.

This style of posting a link, with a few lines from the link and a snarky comment is not conducive to actual discussion ~

-------------------------------------------------------------

Seems that when we actually get around to reading the article, we discover that the guy never actually said anything of the sort -

Doug Randall, who co-authored the Pentagon report, said, “Even I’m surprised at how often it’s referred to.”
Also, when asked about his scenarios for the 2003-2010 period, Mr. Randall said in an interview:

"The report was really looking at worst-case. And when you are looking at worst-case 10 years out, you are not trying to predict precisely what’s going to happen but instead trying to get people to understand what could happen to motivate strategic decision-making and wake people up. But whether the actual specifics came true, of course not. That never was the main intent."

Some bozo, however, offers up his own completely twisted synopses of what he meant -

Allow me to translate Doug Randall's comment:

"I was paid by environmental zealots within the government—who have no interest in reality, but only in portraying false scenarios that will lead to a desired outcome—and I gave them what they wanted. It was an exercise in political propaganda, and a quick check of my bank account, and the incredible amount of burned taxpayer money, says I was very successful. I did not intend to paint an accurate scenario about "Global Warming" (which is what it was called at the time), and a re-reading of my report shows very clearly I "succeeded" there, too."

Read more at Climate Change Pentagon Expert: My Goal Was to Induce Fear, Not be Accurate


Dishonest thread title - "Climate Change Pentagon Expert" never said this ... he never said it at all.

The OP lied (once again) in blatant fashion, in order to make the world safe for his right-wing agenda.

 

[Vigilante]

You did a C&P again with absolutely none of your own thoughts except for "so much for Global Climate change." ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

If you truly want folks to participate, you might want to give them something to talk about, rather than ask them to read a link and report back.

Also, the thread title infers some kind of admission that global warming is fake - fine, but let the body of the OP reflect that by including it where folks can see it.

This style of posting a link, with a few lines from the link and a snarky comment is not conducive to actual discussion ~

-------------------------------------------------------------

Seems that when we actually get around to reading the article, we discover that the guy never actually said anything of the sort -

Doug Randall, who co-authored the Pentagon report, said, “Even I’m surprised at how often it’s referred to.”
Also, when asked about his scenarios for the 2003-2010 period, Mr. Randall said in an interview:

"The report was really looking at worst-case. And when you are looking at worst-case 10 years out, you are not trying to predict precisely what’s going to happen but instead trying to get people to understand what could happen to motivate strategic decision-making and wake people up. But whether the actual specifics came true, of course not. That never was the main intent."

Some bozo, however, offers up his own completely twisted synopses of what he meant -

Allow me to translate Doug Randall's comment:

"I was paid by environmental zealots within the government—who have no interest in reality, but only in portraying false scenarios that will lead to a desired outcome—and I gave them what they wanted. It was an exercise in political propaganda, and a quick check of my bank account, and the incredible amount of burned taxpayer money, says I was very successful. I did not intend to paint an accurate scenario about "Global Warming" (which is what it was called at the time), and a re-reading of my report shows very clearly I "succeeded" there, too."

Read more at Climate Change Pentagon Expert: My Goal Was to Induce Fear, Not be Accurate


Dishonest thread title - "Climate Change Pentagon Expert" never said this ... he never said it at all.

The OP lied (once again) in blatant fashion, in order to make the world safe for his right-wing agenda.

So Crabbie, making a report on the WORST CASE SCENARIO isn't FEAR MONGERING?...

You can't make this shit up folks!!

 

[shart_attack]

 

[mamooth]

I read the report. It didn't say the Hague would be unlivable. The report was specifically asked to think up various worst case scenarios, so it did, and one was of a hurricane flooding the city. It was not saying all of those scenarios would happen.

So as usual, Vig's source is just lying. And he's lapping it up and begging for more.

As to why the Bush administration asked for such a report, you'll have to ask them. Probably just standard Republican desire for fear-mongering, and Global Warming was still in vogue for Republicans at the time.