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

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 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.”

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.

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.”

“I mean, catch this doozy:

Consultants told the military that, by now, California would be flooded by inland seas, The Hague would be unlivable, 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.

“[Laughing] Isn’t that a hoot?!? I mean, none of that came even close to happening, but those predictions sure led to a lot of bad outcomes for spending and national security.”

Editor’s Note: I may have gotten a minor point incorrect here and there, but I’ve been fairly accurate at translating “bureaucratese,” and I’m confident it’s close.